GUARDIAN
Wednesday, March 29 , 2000
Not for 'patriots' only
By Bolaji Ogunseye
OPPORTUNITIES for pondering and exploring alternative structures, organising
principles and new evolutionary trajectories for our existence as one nation
have for long been hampered by a certain 'more-patriotic-than-thou' attitude
by our governments. Rather disappointingly, the Obasanjo administration has
also entered into this mindest. What is happening, unfortunately, is that
like its recent predecessors, our new civilian government is also wrapping
itself in the national flag, to the exclusion of millions of other Nigerians
who express a radically structural vision of the kind of future our country
requires. To label Nigerians who do not share government's steady-state,
functionalist, 'don't-rock-the-boat' attitude as 'unpatriotic,' is
especially disappointing under the present administration. Why? Because
Abacha's administration also made similar fraudulent claims about itself and
supporters, pretending that their preferences (e.g. self-succession)
constituted patriotism and love of national unity. Genuine well-wishers of
the Obasanjo government (like me) are often disturbed when we notice
striking similarities between it and the bestial regimes that Nigeria
recently experienced.
Of course, every government does have certain 'sovereign responsibilities,'
in its capacity as the current managers of the levers and machinery of
state. Essentially, these include good governance, maintenance of law and
order and a duty to secure the 'corpus' or integrity of the country in its
current composition. No one can fault the Obasanjo administration for
playing its constitutional roles in these aspects. But there is a more
important point. Any nation (even those more established than Nigeria) has
two kinds of status-dynamics. The first concerns the dynamics operating and
maintaining the 'sovereign responsibilities' or regular functions of the
nation-state as outlined above. The second dynamics deals with the
intra-societal tensions, circumstantial or historical realities defining
current status of the nation, and the rival proposals for the future, as
canvassed by the different stakeholders in it. Nigeria, as we all know, has
repeatedly experienced a major structural or foundational crisis at rough
intervals of 6 to 10 years since independence. The country is bound to live
with competing visions of society, especially concerning how to construct an
inter-stakeholder consensus for a harmonious future existence, so we can
stop staggering from one fundamental crisis to another every 6-10 years.
While a current (and by definition, temporary) government has a duty to keep
everybody in line, to define and maintain the boundaries of the first set of
dynamics as stated above, it cannot arrogate to itself a similar
policing-role on the second set of dynamics. This is because the second
dynamics deals with the more intrinsic, dialectical and evolutionary
conditions of the nation's existence. In that regard, no temporary,
time-bound government, like the current civilian regime, can presume to
possess exclusive knowledge of the best existential status required by the
country for all future time. This government, therefore, or any future one,
will be wrong to foreclose certain vices and proposals on Nigeria's future -
e.g. confederation, by labelling them as 'unpatriotic.' In proposing a
preference for confederation, the Eastern governors did not announce that
they wanted Nigeria to break-up. Who then are these 'more patriotic'
Nigerians who have decided that 'confederation' (merely proposed) means a
break-up plan? Those who want to keep an over-bloated central government by
using scare-mongering to avoid fundamental structural change in Nigeria,
will eventually do this country more harm than any national conference -
sovereign or not. They are the ones, in spite of their strident 'patriotic'
posturing, who really want to break up the country. Not all future
Presidents will necessarily practise Obasanjo's financial probity. We must
accept that without reaching some consensus for a new structure to
administer Nigeria in the future, all the regular governance reforms that
Chief Obasanjo is now undertaking can be bastadised and reversed in just two
years by a corruption-friendly presidency. Only a deep-rooted structural
change can minimise such a risk. Or guarantee us against the kind of power
sadism witnessed under the military.
At the height of Abacha's demented rule, the word 'patriotic' had become an
irritating cliche, describing those in government and their "think-alikes'
(Wada Nas, Daniel Kanu, Adedibu, Bukar Mandara etc.), while 'unpatriotic'
was for those who had contrary views of what the future Nigeria should be -
e.g. NADECO, Enahoro, Soyinka and prisoners Obasanjo and Yar'Adua. As usual,
the Abacha propaganda machine (then including NTA) claimed that these
'unpatriotic' groups and people wanted to break up the country. It must be
worrying that Abacha's kind of 'cheap shot' is now being used by a
supposedly more decent and legitimate regime in reacting to proposals about
our future, when such proposals happen to be different from government's
preference. Such an attitude has gone beyond the state's normal duty to
manage and maintain the country as currently composed. It smacks of a kind
of power indulgence, which aims to foreclose expression of alternative
visions for crafting a consensus for our future existence as a united
nation. And it is wrong.
Whether or not government and its think-alikes admit it, Nigeria faces a
structural problem well beyond the ordinary. Tinkering with a 'constitution'
that was so good it had to be hidden away from Nigerians until May 29, won't
take us very far. Doyin Okupe, presidential spokesman, recently argued on TV
that any structural change canvassed by anyone should stay strictly within
current constitutional legality. He then proceeded to contradict himself
when it came to the Sharia issue, conveniently claiming that 'everything'
(meaning Sharia) could not be dealt with constitutionally, and government
would therefore not follow the proper legal route by going to the Supreme
Court to seek formal clarification. Fair enough, I also happen to think (as
government does) that a 'political solution' would serve us better on Sharia
than strict constitutional legality. Well, that's an unconstitutional escape
route, no doubt. I won't label the government as 'unpatriotic' for dodging
constitutional legality on Sharia. But Okupe, on the contrary, was
stridently lecturing on TV that those asking for structural change in
Nigeria must necessarily restrict themselves to the present legislative and
constitutional framework. If they insist on a national conference through
any other route, then they are, as usual, likely to be 'unpatriotic.' Or,
just seeking relevance! But Dr. Okupe cannot conveniently dodge the
constitution over Sharia, and then wrap himself in the national flag of
'patriotism,' unity and constitutionality when trying to resist structural
change! It will be interesting to see what government intends to do about
Zamfara State, now that Governor Sani has started amputating limbs. He has
now practically shown that he is unimpressed by all the elegant, latin
phrase-making about 'status quo ante' The Federal Government now has to tell
Nigerians whether the recent amputation by Zamfara State is within the
already existing penal code (the status quo ante!) or a bold confirmation of
Governor Sani's new and uncompromising Sharia agenda, whose
constitutionality or otherwise government has refused to legally determine.
The truth is that there are more patriotic citizens outside government, who
are also fanatically keen that Nigeria should forever remain united. Some of
them just happen to think a national (or sovereign) conference, or a
confederation is the best route. Because they do not currently have
establishment power to back their preference does not mean their proposals
are 'unpatriotic' or necessarily bad for national unity. After all, we know
what many of the 'patriots' in this and previous governments have
contributed to our present under-development and anomie. Please let's allow
'a hundred flowers to bloom' in considering options for our future. After
all, the unity of Nigeria is not the concern of the 'patriots' in government
alone. Their posturing about exclusive patriotism must now stop, so that we
can freely discuss our common destiny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
