|
|
viewpoint
|
Gowon And The Four
Groups Sabotaging Nigeria
Sunday, March
22, 2009 |
|
By Reuben Abati
The Guardian |
General Yakubu Gowon, former Head of state of
Nigeria and a statesman recently came up with a
four-group theory in trying to analyse that old
subject namely the problem with Nigeria. Gowon is a
good man but his aforementioned theory is dumb. He
was speaking at the second anniversary of the
Central Working Committee of the Arewa Consultative
Forum where he was represented by Alhaji M. D. Yusuf
and he had concluded that the problem with Nigeria
can be traced to four main groups whose activities
militate against the corporate survival of Nigeria.
In his reckoning these are: the first group
comprising idealists who cannot wait to see a
perfect Nigeria. This group he says agitates for the
cancellation of the 1999 Constitution on the ground
that there is too much concentration of power in the
centre.
The second group wants the country balkanised into
small territories to be headed by tribal leaders,
"demagogues and other anarchists who will sooner
take Nigeria back to the chaos of the 18th century"
There is also a third group, which according to
General Gowon is similar to the first, and which
wants the country's broken up into "geo-political
territories, whereby the big ethnic groups may
swallow up small ones without a challenge." And the
fourth group which is "asking for a new constitution
that will allow them keep 100 per cent of money
derived from the sale of oil that is extracted
within their territories."
General Gowon says the nation may not survive the
next elections if the activities of these four
groups are not checked. But he then goes on to
contradict himself when he purportedly declared that
the country needs to be governed on the basis of
fairness, justice and rule of law in order to remain
one entity. He added that "harmony can only thrive
when all the components that make up the country
feel secured", and he urged leaders to "clearly
embody the esteemed values of honesty and integrity
and earn the willing respect and loyalty of the
people".
I have no problems with all that talk about harmony,
honesty and integrity in the later part of General
Gowon's presentation., but the same four groups that
he says constitute a problem to Nigeria are in fact
committed to the same objectives that he defines as
central to the making of a good country. Their
agitation is informed by the frustrated search for
justice, equity and harmony in Nigeria, and the
urgent need to re-negotiate the basis of our union.
Rather than see these four groups as saboteurs whose
opinions must be dismissed on the platform of the
Arewa Consultative Forum, it is perhaps advisable to
listen to their arguments.
The bigger problem in Nigeria is the refusal to
listen to dissenting views, the predilection by
certain persons and groups to think that their own
view of the coin is supreme and superior. Gowon's
four groups as identified indeed exist, but they are
not nihilists as alleged, rather they are major
contributors to the Nigerian debate, a debate that
should be encouraged. And to start with, the 2011
elections will not be jeopardised simply because
certain groups of Nigerians are determined to ask
questions, nor will the country disappear. The next
elections can only end up widening the fault lines
in Nigeria if President Umaru Yar'Adua and the
ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) continue to
play games with electoral reform and the integrity
of the ballot box. And if statesmen like General
Gowon continue to protect the status quo and fail to
summon the courage to speak the truth to power.
Now back to the four groups. The first one: what is
General Gowon's problem with idealists? And why is
he opposed to the idea of a perfect Nigeria? Nations
are made by idealists. By persons who dream and who
stretch their dreams to the end of the street. By
persons who see opportunities where others see
challenges. Persons who are willing to dare when
others scramble to protect their comfort zones. This
is the world of Mahatma Ghandhi, of Abraham Lincoln,
of Theodore Roosevelt, of Margaret Thatcher, of
Nelson Mandela, of Lee Kuan Yew, Othman dan Fodio,
Obafemi Awolowo, Mukoro Mowoe, Isaac Adaka Boro,
Adegoke Adelabu, Ken Saro Wiwa, and of all the early
nationalists in politics, society and the media who
fought for Nigeria's independence and so on. Each
man or woman in this category helped to make a
difference because he or she asked questions and
dreamt of possibilities.
Anthony Enahoro was once convicted by a colonial
court of law for daring to predict that Nigeria will
one day be an independent country. General Gowon
himself was once a member of this class of
idealists. As a young man in his early thirties, as
Head of State of Nigeria, he came up with the
idealistic vision that it is possible to end a war
in which there will be "no victor and no vanquished"
and that all Nigerians should "go on with one
Nigeria." Is the old man suffering from old age
crisis when he says those who want the 1999
Constitution thrown out and amended do not wish the
country well?
He says those who are opposed to the concentration
of power in the centre are more or less unpatriotic.
The simple truth is that the 1999 Constitution is
defective and the state of the debate is no longer
whether or not it should be amended but to what
extent. Whoever wrote that speech for General Gowon
is behind the times. And to respond to the
particular concern that has been expressed, let it
be noted that the over-concentration of power in the
hands of the Federal Government is a problem with
Nigeria. I shall not attempt to explain the nature
of this particular issue, I can only state that if
the General still does not understand this matter
which is directly at the heart of the Nigerian
question, he is invited to read the writings of
Professors Ben Nwabueze and Itse Sagay on it. The
two scholars, in various writings provide the
illumination that is required in the Gowon camp. And
by the way, a perfect Nigeria is a relative concept.
General Gowon in the speech under review also
deplores self-determination groups. He says they
want to take Nigeria back to the 18th century. For a
former Head of State, this is a very unfortunate
statement to make. He should allow his speeches to
be written only by persons with a sense of history.
A former Head of State of his stature cannot afford
to make statements that fall short on historical
context. It is not true that ethnic
self-determination groups are anarchists, indeed
they are just as concerned about the objectives of
harmony, equity and justice in the Nigerian state,
but confronted with a country where the opposites
reign supreme and the governance process is
anti-people, they are compelled to retreat to
primordial holdings to demand the rights of their
people to live. The question has been posed
variously by Professor Wole Soyinka most recently
and others as well: Is Nigeria a nation?. The
failure of this country to transform into a
nation in the real sense is what is responsible for
the calls for self-determination and the
proliferation of ethnic and tribal groups. The
General's response would have been more analytical
if he had looked at the causes rather than the
effects, and if as a statesman, he had come up with
suggestions as to how Nigeria, more than four
decades after independence can become a nation.
A third group he says wants the country broken up
into small geographical territories, where the big
can swallow the small. The latter part of that
observation is his own deduction. I doubt if there
is any group in this country today that is going
about openly saying that its intention is to create
the kind of geographical region that Gowon
envisages. Yes, there are calls for regional
governments as in the First Republic, and even the
adoption of a Confederal system, but these are
expressions of great frustration with the present
Nigerian arrangement. We need not look for the
danger that General Gowon describes in a new
arrangement. It already exists, in a Nigeria where
majority groups swallow up small groups, where the
Federal Government swallows the states, and the
states dominate the local councils creating a
nationwide web of inequity. The General says this
third group is related to the first, those who want
a new Constitution. Is he aware
that the 1999 Constitution actually recognises only
three indigenous Nigerian languages and by that fact
only three ethnic groups out of the over 400 ethnic
nationalities in the country? Besides, what is wrong
in dividing the country into geographical regions?
The arrangement worked in the First Republic and it
is probably the best way to raise the country's
competitive index which is at an all-time low.
General Gowon's fourth group and his protest about
its preference is an open assault on the Niger Delta
struggle. This group is "asking for a new
constitution that will allow them keep 100 per cent
of money derived from the sale of oil that is
extracted within their territories." Oh, come on
sir. The arguments for fiscal federalism, resource
control and justice in the Niger Delta and elsewhere
have been so well articulated it amounts to sheer
mischief to dismiss it in this manner. I had in fact
hoped that General Gowon would disown these
declarations, because they are most strange. The
whole point of the Niger Delta struggle, and he
should know, is tied to the continuing search for
harmony and justice in Nigeria. And if he, a member
of the same Council of State, that is often called
upon to advise the Federal Government and the
Presidency on national issues, does not know, and he
feels this way, then the country is truly in
trouble.
Besides, Niger Delta activists are not exactly
asking for 100 per cent by all means, they are
willing to negotiate, but since the First Republic,
the Nigerian ruling elite and their rent-collecting
cabals have treated every invitation to dialogue
with arrogance. This is what has brought us to this
sorry pass. And in any case, what if the people of
the Niger Delta keep all the oil sale revenue? Let
other Nigerians keep what they produce in their own
lands too and make a contribution to the Federal
pool. That way, we can get Nigeria to begin to work,
because the people in all parts of the country would
have to work to earn a living. For now, Nigeria is
such an unproductive country because the Federal
Government keeps oil revenue and every month, the
states go to Abuja to collect their share of the
national cake, and this effectively, we run a nation
of parasites.
General Gowon's speech in question points to two
things. One: the fact that a conservative elite
exists which is committed to the protection of the
status quo. They don't think, they don't believe,
they can't even see, that there is anything that is
wrong with Nigeria. They are happy with Nigeria as
it is. They are the problem with Nigeria. But if
General Gowon is opposed to idealism, change and
reform, then why does he lead a group called
"Nigeria Prays?" Isn't the act of prayer itself the
most idealistic of all human endeavours- the belief
that an unseen being possesses the powers to change
the course of human reality? And two: those who
write the speeches that Nigerian public figures
deliver are not always fair to them. It requires
discipline however to take a critical look at a
prepared speech and ensure that it does not become a
problem to the speaker's image.
The joke as I see it is on General Gowon, not the
four groups that he says constitute a danger to
Nigeria's corporate survival. But he is absolutely
right in one regard: Nigerian leaders need to
"clearly embody the esteemed values of honesty and
integrity and earn the willing respect and loyalty
of the people".
More article |
|
|
|
|
