|
History, optimism
and re-dedication :A Review of Time to Reclaim Nigeria (4)
By Edwin Madunagu Posted Jan
28,2012

LAST Thursday, at the end of the third
segment of this appreciation of Chido Onumah’s Time to reclaim
Nigeria, I realized that should I continue with my original plan
of approach, that is, chapter-by-chapter exercise, I would end
up with about seven more segments. As this
would be unacceptable, I decided to approach the
remaining appreciation thematically. But the new plan still gave
me about the same number of segments.
To solve my dilemma, I decided to stick to thematic
appreciation, but to pick only four themes:
Democracy and military governance, “June 12”; Political
economy of corruption; and Time to reclaim Nigeria.
In this fourth segment I shall look at the first two
themes. The fifth
and final segment, next Thursday, will be devoted to the last
two themes. But this is a book to which I will continue to make
reference for a long time.
Democracy and military governance: Here I
refer the reader to two of Onumah’s essays: In praise of
dictatorship (Pages 77-80; July 10, 2006); and Will Rawlings be
Africa’s Pinochet? (Pages 182 -184; August 9, 2001). I lived
through all the military regimes we have had so far in
post-independence Nigeria; and I closely watched the early
months of the regime produced by the December 31,1981 military
coup in Ghana. I
was 19-advancing to 20-when the first military coup took place
in Nigeria on January 15, 1966.
I was then a junior teacher and resident assistant
boarding house master in my alma mater, Obokun High School,
Ilesha, in present Osun State.
I remember that when the coup was announced I abandoned
my boys and hit the streets with other citizens – jubilating and
ransacking government offices in the city.
I was still at Ilesha when the coup of July
29, 1966 took place and can still remember the resulting
despondency and apprehension. I was, however, to learn later
that the coup was greeted with jubilation in some parts of the
country. By the
time the Civil War broke out a year later I was already at
Ibadan.
I can remember that the military coup of
July 29,1975, which produced the regime headed by General
Murtala Mohammed, was popularly received across the country
except in the areas where Mohammed, as field commander, operated
during the war. The abortive coup of February 13, 1976 which
claimed the life of General Mohammed was largely unpopular
across the country except, again, in the areas where
Mohammed commanded Nigerian troops during the war.
The coup of December 30, 1983 which terminated the
“democratic and constitutional government of President Shehu
Shagari” and produced
Generals Buhari and Idiagbon, was generally well received
among the masses and segments of the constitutional opposition.
There was mass indifference to the coup of August 27, 1985 which
produced the military president, General Ibrahim Babangida; but
there was jubilation in the community of politicians and media
institutions,whose experiences under Buhari and Idiagbon were,
to put it mildly, harsh.
There was mass indifference to the alleged
attempted coup of December 1985.
The Gideon Orka-led attempted coup of Sunday, April 22,
1990 was popularly received in some parts of the country and
segments of the population. The coup of November 1993 that
brought General Sani Abacha to power was generally unpopular
except possibly in the circles of small groups of politicians
who had hoped that the general would actualize the result of
June 12, 1993 presidential election which gave victory to
Moshood Abiola. The
alleged attempted coups of 1995 and 1997 were greeted with mass
disbelief and cynicism.
The change of government resulting from the sudden death
of Sani Abacha in June 1998 and the accession to power of
General Abdulsalami Abubakar was received with relief across the
country.
To complete this narrative I shall briefly
elaborate on the “foreign coup” which I earlier mentioned. I was
in Accra, Ghana, a couple of days after the December 31 1981
military coup d’tat that removed the government of President
Liman and installed the military regime of Air Flight-Lieutenant
Jerry Rawlings. I testify that from what I saw and heard and
read, the coup was very popular with the Ghanaian masses. I
spent several days in Ghana talking to several people
across class and social boundaries. In particular, I
spoke individually and collectively with several members of the
ruling Provisional
National Defence Council (PNDC).
I was deeply impressed by the discussions I
had with Flight-Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings, Captain Kodjo Tsikata,
Sergeant Akata-Pore and Chris Atim. Tsikata was the regime’s
security chief, Akata Pore was one of its ideologues and Chris
Atim was the student leader representing the militant youths.
I remember Sergeant Akata Pore telling me that their
uprising should be compared to the French Revolution rather than
the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. In response I told him that
though I considered what had happened to be profoundly
revolutionary, I would not compare the event either with the
French Revolution
or the Russian Revolution. On my return to
Nigeria I took on a self-assigned task of mobilising Ghanaian
“exiles” here to return to Ghana to
take up appointments in schools,
government departments and agencies.
I was on my way to Ghana on my third trip when I was
arrested at the airport. Gani Fawehinmi’s threats led to my
quiet release.
I have gone through these two narratives –
one from Nigerian history, the other from Ghanaian history – in
order to bring out the following propositions: One: That some
military coups in Nigeria and the one of December 31, 1981 in
Ghana were actually popularly received in all, or in
substantial, segments of the country and, in particular, by many
patriots, progressives, radicals and leftists.
Two: That the initial jubilation and enthusiasm
engendered by virtually all the popularly received military
coups quickly died
down, with some turning to disappointment, disillusionment and
anger, on account of the policies and
actions of the regimes. Three: That it is the duty of
political historians, analysts, critics and commentators to
explain generally and, then, case by case, the reasons for the
initial jubilation and subsequent disillusionment.
Last Thursday, in the third segment, I
recalled two facts of history brought out by Jack Woddis in his
book, Armies and Politics: “On September 11, 1973, the Chilean
army overthrew a democratic government and established a
fascist-type tyranny. On April 25, 1974, the Portuguese army
overthrew a fascist government and opened up the way to the
establishment of a democratic system”. My fourth proposition is
that Jack Woddis’ statement is not only factually true but also
indicates two actual historical trends.
June 12, 1993 presidential election and the
annulment of its result: Here, I refer readers to two of
Onumah’s essays: June 12: 15 years after (pages 99-102; June 12,
2008); and On June 12 we stand (pages 103 – 106; June 12, 2009).
I read the two essays very closely to be able to put my
finger on the author’s understanding and interpretation of the
import of “June 12”.
I can pick the following propositions (in his own words):
“June 12 election was adjudged ‘free and fair’ for the simple
reason that within the limitations placed by the military regime
of General Babangida, Nigerians played by the rules.
Compare that with what happened in 1999,
2003, and more recently, April 2007”; “One could rightly say
that June 12 was a watershed in the nation’s history. It was
truly Nigeria’s best opportunity at democratic reconstruction.
It failed because of the inordinate ambition of a few
individuals”.
Furthermore: “On June 12, Nigerians of all
walks of life made a fundamental political statement. On that
day, the country’s impoverished and forgotten masses were able
to overcome the bogey of ethnicity and religious divisions by
the ruling class, and showed these are weapons in the hands of
this inglorious class to maintain its stranglehold on the
country”; “No national honour would be too much for a man who
won an election and was murdered for attempting to claim his
mandate. He lost
his business empire, and his wife was assassinated in the
process”. To these five propositions – which can be interrogated
and expanded but which I endorse, in the main – I add my own
proposition, namely, that the specific weight of radical and
leftist forces in “Abiola’s electoral entourage” was large
enough to frighten segments of Nigeria’s power blocs and the
“international community”.
This fear tilted the “secret debate” is in favour of
annulment.
Related
History, optimism and re-dedication: A
Review of Time to Reclaim Nigeria
(3) By Edwin
Madunagu
History,Optimism and re-dedication: A Review of Time to
Reclaim Nigeria (2) By Edwin Madunagu
|