Nation building: Challenges and reality (II)

It is therefore against the foregoing background that ordinary Nigerians had massacred themselves under the guise of tribal or ethnic clashes in Mile 12, in Ife-Modakeke, in Aguleri-Umuleri and other places. It is similarly within this context that the violence in Jos gains its ultimate meaning. Since the emergence of the Fourth Republic in 1999 there has thus been the loss of thousands of Nigerians lives to ethno-religious violence (Alubo, 2004; 135-161; Ojo, 2006: 368-378; Agbaje, 2007: 17-34).

Similarly, the divisions and destruction that followed the war led to the initiation of the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation policy of Gen Yakubu Gowon who had declared that there were no winners or vanquished. It was in this regard that the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) was introduced. With the NYSC scheme, Nigerian graduates are to serve for about a year in a locality other than their state of birth. This was meant to promote the sense of nationalism among Nigerians. Other policies to promote nation building include state creation, national political conferences, constitutional and political arrangements such as quota system, zoning and federal character. There have also been instances where the state made use of force. This is the case in the current Boko Haram crisis, during violent ethnic conflicts and at the initial period of the Niger Delta militancy.

Even in the Fourth Republic and with 52 years in existence, nation building still remains a major challenge. Different levels of divisions have continued. Ethnicity has not only flourished within the context of these periodic native-settler question, but issues of religion, contest for resources and election malpractices, among other factors, have sometimes contributed to complicate ethnic tensions. As such clamours for “Biafra Republic,” “Oduduwa Republic,” and “Niger Delta Republic” is still being heard in the polity. Meanwhile, governmental failures to initiate socio-economic and even political reforms (or strategies) that will ensure good governance and development have further provided justification for centrifugal forces. It is the aforementioned centrifugal forces that have led some individuals and groups such as the United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) to view the country as a dying state or forecast that the country would disintegrate between 2015 and 2020 (Okonta, 2005; Yaqub, 2006: 20).

Nation building through revolution?

On October 11, 2011 the Sheikh Ahmed Lemu Committee set up by the Federal Government to probe the post-election violence which broke out in northern Nigeria in April 2011 submitted its report with a strong warning to the authorities. It was to the effect that “the true state of affairs could escalate to social revolution if preventive measures are not taken in time.” While receiving the report President Goodluck Jonathan assured the 23-member committee that the Federal Government would act swiftly on the report! But like reports of several panels set up in the past the report of the Lemu Committee was immediately jettisoned while the serious caution of the members was ignored by the Federal Government.

However, at a political rally of the Peoples Democratic Party held in Lokoja, Kogi State on November 28, 2011 President Jonathan passionately appealed to all political authorities to bring smiles to the faces of Nigerians or risk “possible youth revolution.” To avert the imminent social revolution in the country the President called on the ruling class to “make our economy multiply by creating jobs for the teeming youths.” A week later, the former chairman of the Board of Trustees of the PDP, ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, equally warned of “the possibility of having the Arab Spring in Nigeria if similar conditions, hardships and unemployment which gave birth to it are not addressed.”

Instead of addressing the increasing rate of unemployment, insecurity of life and property and grand official corruption the Federal Government decided to aggravate poverty in the land and punish innocent Nigerians when it announced a sharp increase in the price of petrol with effect from January 1, 2012. The two central labour organisations – the Nigerian Labour Congress and the Trades Union Congress—in alliance with the Joint Action Front directed workers to commence strikes and urged the Nigerian people to embark on peaceful rallies and marches. In a patriotic response to the state of the nation the PDP-dominated House of Representatives ably led by Alhaji Aminu Waziri Tambuwal unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Federal Government to reverse the price increase to avert the general strike and protests.

As the Federal Government turned deaf ears to the popular demand for the reversal of the fuel hike Nigerians responded to the call of the labour movement and its allies. They rejected the insensitive economic policy which was said to have been based on the massive fraud which had characterized the management of the Fuel Subsidy Fund. Thus, millions of citizens trooped to the streets in Lagos, Abuja, Kano, Kaduna, Ibadan, Akure, Ado Ekiti, Ilorin, Minna and Benin and other cities in the country to protest the theft of about N2 trillion when the National Assembly had budgeted N245 billion for the so called fuel subsidy in 2011. Although the strikes and protests were generally peaceful the Police trigger happy police corps opened fire and mowed down some demonstrators in Kano, Ilorin and Lagos.

Although some of the beneficiaries of the fuel subsidy scam have been charged to court, President Jonathan insulted Nigerians when he opined that the protests in Lagos were sponsored by some disgruntled people. It was the opinion of the President that musicians could not have entertained the over two million who marched in Lagos if they had not been paid handsomely.

As one of the organisers of the national resistance I make bold to say, without any fear of contradiction, that no political party or individual sponsored the popular uprising of January 2012. It was the Jonathan Administration which instigated the popular protests. The musicians and other artists who normally collect millions of naira from the ruling party to entertain its rented crowds did not collect a single kobo from us. Their participation in the rallies was a voluntary contribution to the struggle of the Nigerian people against the reckless diversion of public funds by the Federal Government and its collaborators in the fuel subsidy scam. Respected civil society leaders including heads of religious institutions and women activists who addressed the rallies could not have been paid by the conveners of the protests.

In view of the indictment of the Federal Ministries of Finance and Petroleum as well as the Central Bank by the Federal Government in the illegal payment of N2.3 trillion for fuel subsidy in 2011 (See TELL magazine of February 28, 2012) and the ongoing prosecution of several companies and individuals for the fraudulent manipulation of the Fuel Subsidy Fund, the integrity of the protests in Lagos and other parts of the country cannot be questioned. If the Federal Government does not proceed speedily to address the crisis of insecurity, poverty, unemployment and official corruption in the country, the January 2012 protests may turn out to be a mere rehearsal for the social revolution which President Jonathan has rightly predicted.

Redirecting the wheel of statecraft

The level of poverty in Nigeria provides a fertile ground for recruitment of the economically ‘un-captured’ to perpetuate wanton ethno-religious violence. A recent state sanctioned source states that about 70 percent of all Nigerians (112,518,507 Nigerians) are poor (National Bureau for Statistics, 2012). The solution to this is to massively invest the material resources of the country on development and employment creation. This would mean that the economy is restructured and diversified, corruption is seriously engaged, and the commitment to development is true and central. Second, there will always be individuals that would benefit from divisions and national discord or secession of the country. In this regard the security system of the State must be ready to arrest and punish this group of individuals.

Third is the need to empower institutions. The problem with Nigeria is not the lack of institutions but the challenge has always been that the existence institutions have under-performed or have been hijacked, domesticated and used for certain group interests. By institutions, it refers to the electoral body, police, media, judiciary, and religious and ethnic based. The more these institutions are divorced from ethno-religious interests the more they champion the quest for nation building. Fourth, there is the need for rule of law. Ethnic tensions and resentments would reduce when it is collectively accepted that politics and governance would be guided by the rule of law. Some individuals should not be above the law while others are subjected to the law. The Fourth Republic is replete with cases where certain individuals had deliberately disobeyed the law and obtained court injunctions for personal interests. It’s in this regard that Tony Momoh (2006) had described the Fourth Republic as de-democratisation rather than democracy.

Five is the need for education and mobilization against centrifugal forces. The proponents of dividing Nigeria have always found it easy to list the challenges facing Nigeria such as corruption, poverty, exploitation, marginalization and infrastructure among others. Yet they have often failed to state how these realities would be engaged in the new states that they advocate. For instance, is there any critical reason to assume that there would not be exploitation and minorities in a Niger Delta state or in a Biafra? If it is true that some of the unscrupulous politicians that had benefited from the divide-and-rule politics in Nigeria, what is the certainty that they would not do the same in the new states? The ordinary Nigerian must be educated in this regard.

Nigerians should also be mobilized against centripetal forces in a systematic way. The public must be sensitized to the dangers and consequences of balkanizing the Nigerian State. What happens to federal institutions in each state? Where do the non-citizens of the new states go? How will they be catered for in their new states upon return? If they are not catered for, will it not generate another round of neo-secessionist plots in the new states? The answers to these questions should help government in its national mobilization strategy which should state from primary to tertiary level and must permeate the informal sector.

A dangerous suggestion on nation building was made by the late strong man of Libya, Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, had advised that for there to be lasting peace in Nigeria, the country must be balkanised along ethnic and religious lines. His thinking, largely based on the Huntingtonian clash of civilisation thesis (Huntington, 1996, 1993a; 1993b) that forecloses any possibility of building  a collective national sentiment in a context where there is an on-going warfare and/or violence along the country’s fault lines that divides Nigeria’s Muslims and their Christian counterparts. Simply put: Ghaddafi believed that stability could only be achieved in Nigeria if the country is divided along religious line.

Although Gaddafi got it totally wrong, the task of nation building remains a challenge in Nigeria just as it was in the immediate years of independence. Only last week, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, called for the immediate proscription of all religious and ethnic groups in the country. It was his view that such bodies are not cultural or religious organisations but “political associations in disguise of religion and region”. Instead of adopting to the fascist method of banning such organizations in utter violation of the constitutional rights of their members, they should be challenged for promoting dubious and sinister agenda. Indeed, the government and its agencies are equally guilty of sabotaging nation building through the implementation of dangerous and ill digested neo-liberal policies and programmes.

Whereas, the constitution has prohibited the assistance of any gift, award or honour by public officers in the course of discharging their duties, it is common knowledge that a top official of the CBN recently took a chieftaincy title on a working day from a prominent traditional ruler. One wonders why Malam Sanusi has not called for the abrogation of all traditional institutions for debasing the culture of the people by selling chieftaincy titles to the highest bidders. It is high time the attention of the Federal Government was drawn to the relevant provisions of the Constitution on minimum conditionalities for achieving the objectives of national integration.

In other words, the state has sought to promote nation building section 15(3) of the Constitution imposes a duty on the state to encourage national integration by (a) providing adequate facilities for and encourage free mobility of people, goods and services throughout the country (b) security of full residence rights for every citizen in all parts of the federation, (c) encouraging inter-marriage among person from different places of origin, religion, ethnic or linguistic groups and (d) promoting or encouraging the formation of associations that cut across ethnic, linguistic, religious or other sectional interest.

Apart from the fact that the State cannot be used for violating the aforesaid political objectives the state has designed policies that are subversive of national integration. Whereas the state shall not adopt any state religion the governments have adopted two religious – Islam and Christianity. Taking a cue from one of his predecessors President Jonathan has cultivated the habit of campaigning in churches. On a yearly basis the Federal and State governments set aside billions of Naira to sponsor pilgrims to holy lands and the celebration of religious festivals.

Section 10 of the constitution has been criticized as it encourages the manipulation of religion by public officers who are at liberty to associate or identify with religion in so far as no religion has been adopted. But Section 39 of the Minority Draft Constitution co-authored by the late Dr. Bala Usman and Dr. Segun Osoba has proposed in the alternative that “the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a secular state and the state shall not be associated with any religion but shall actively protect the Fundamental rights of all citizens to hold and practice the religious beliefs of their choice” (Bala Usman, 1980). Happily, Bishop Hassan Kukah has recently questioned the conversion of the Christian Association of Nigeria to the extension of the Presidency.

Although the political class deliberately made them not justiciable many legislations have been enacted for the actualization of the provisions of the chapter. Such laws have provided for a national minimum wage, compulsory pension for all employees, a bank to grant loans to underpriviled citizens without collateral, a bank to grant loans to needy undergraduates, a national health insurance scheme, immunization for every child, a commission to ensure free and compulsory basic education up to junior secondary school for every child, a commission to wipe out adult illiteracy, establishment of mortgage institutions and a fund for housing, a committee to ensure the implementation of the national budget etc.

Unlike chapter 2 of the Constitution the right to development and socio-economic rights guaranteed in the African charter on human and people’s right which have been domesticated by Nigeria are enforceable. To ensure accountability and transparency in government a number of anti-graft laws have been put in place together with the Freedom of Information Act. Indigent victims of human rights violations and administrative injustice can seek redress in the courts at the expense of the State or in public complaints commission, national human rights commission or the legal aid council. Each of the state governments has established the office of the public defender and mediation centre to assist the vulnerable segments of the populace.

It is indisputable that some of the relevant laws have made adequate provisions for funding the welfare policies of the State. For instance, on annual basis, not less than 2% of the Consolidated Revenue of the Federation shall be contributed to the Universal Basic Education Fund while state governments are required to contribute counterpart funding for the compulsory universal basic education. To ensure the success of the scheme, parents and guardians who refuse to allow their children and wards to acquire basic education are liable to be prosecuted under the law. The Peoples’ Bank and the Nigerian Education Ban are required to be funded by the Federal Government. Employers and employees shall make joint contributions to the pension Fund managed by pension administrators. Notwithstanding the rights guaranteed by these laws the political class lacks the will to enforce them.

The creation of a fully funded welfare system by the State was however aborted with the imposition of the structural adjustment programme by the Ibrahim Babangida junta at the behest of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Under an economy managed by market forces majority of citizens were denied access to security, welfare and happiness as the State systematically withdraw from the funding of social services. In addition to the criminal diversion of public funds by public officers the government took dangerous loan from western financial institutions to fund the escalating costs of running an unproductive bureaucracy. But with the phenomenal rise in infant and maternal mortality and mass poverty traceable to retrenchment of workers, trade liberalization, currency devaluation, removal of subsidies, commercialization of social services etc the State had to adopt poverty reduction policies.

Regrettably, Nigerians are not aware of the provisions of the various welfare laws. While lawyers have concentrated attention on the defence of political and civil rights the courts have not helped matters as cases filed by some civil rights lawyers for the enforcement of these laws are struck out, from time to time, for want of locus standi. Disappointed but undaunted the human rights community has continued to file more public interest cases in the courts. Happily, the anachronistic doctrine of locus standi has been abolished in the area of human rights. Having regard to the general ignorance and fear among the people the courts ought to encourage public interest litigation in order to enforce socio-economic rights of citizens and promote welfare laws in the land. It should however be pointed out that judicial pronouncements in favour of social justice can be conveniently ignored by a government that is administered by an army of neo-liberal ideologues who are committed to the defence of market fundamentalism. It is a battle for the democratic control of the economy to ensure that “the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good” as stipulated by section 16(2) of the Constitution. To reclaim the welfare state from its obstinate opponents in government and in the Brettonwoods institutions Nigerians should be mobilised to ensure compliance with the various welfare laws and intensify the campaign for the full justiciability of the provisions of chapters of the Constitution. Having recorded tremendous success in the promotion of political and civil rights human rights lawyers should now engage in the enforcement of the right to development and the socio-economic rights of the people. This remains the best way to build a nation that can stand the test of time.

Conclusion: Between the truth and wishful thinking

This paper has attempted to address three questions. What is nation building? What are the challenges of nation building? What is to be one? However, while it is obvious that Nigeria is in need of nation building, there is little reason to indicate that the current leadership of the country is capable of addressing some of the most fundamental challenges in this regard. Ordinarily, State managers should learn from Nigeria’s history with regards to the civil war and the history of a number of states. But sadly, the warning of G. W. F. Hegel remains invaluable in the country’s quest at nation building. Hegel warned, a long time ago, that “the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history” (Banuri, 1991:27). Claims and promises of nation building have been trivialized and to the point where wishful thinking seems to have taken the position of the truth. In this situation, the State and its managers may be sitting on a keg gun powder which may explode to the detriment of Africa.

Concluded