By Sam Onimisi
With all things being equal, Southern Sudan will become an independent nation in the next few weeks, seceding from Sudan after decades of brutal oppression, genocide and civil war. At last, the armed struggle of the black people of the South coupled with the global moral support of the international community has forced Arabic Sudan to let go, the Southern people they held down for ages. The causes of the civil war leading to secession are racial and religious discrimination against the black Christian South by the fair – skin Arabic Muslim North. Ethiopia, about 16 years ago was one country but split into two when Eritrea gained independence after a bloody armed struggle. The causes were ethnic and religious differences between the orthodox Christian Ethiopia and the Islamic ethnic Eritrea.
In Morocco, there has been a conflict between Rabat and El-Aaiun where the Saharawi (Western Sahara) people have been fighting to be independent of Morocco for similar reasons of ethnic discrimination and the quest for self determination. For well over 15 years now, Somalia has divided into clan smithereens and without a central government as a result of ethnic and clan differences even while sharing the same religion of Islam. Take note that already, there is the virtually independent Somaliland whose capital is Jibuti, as different from Somalia’s Mogadishu. Were both not the same country before they split? I did not begin my charity from home because Biafra could not secede from Nigeria even after 3 years of genocidal civil war against the Igbo people of Eastern Nigeria. However, if you think the ghost of secession was laid to rest by the result of the civil war, you need to answer this question: who is Chief Ralph Uwazurike of the Movement for the Survival of Sovereign People of Biafra (MASSOB)? If anyone is naïve enough to think that the examples cited so far are from underdeveloped Africa, there are even more poignant examples of how ethnic, religious, cultural and regional differences divided countries in Asia, India and Europe in contemporary history.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the World until five years ago when East Timor seceded and made Dili its capital, away from Jakarta on grounds of ethnic, regional and other differences. Cyprus was inhabited by the Greek and Turkish ethnic nationalities and divided by religious differences with Greek Orthodox Christians and the Sunni sect of Islam. Even the power-sharing arrangement in which the Christians produced the president and the Muslims the vice president (similar to what we practice in Nigeria) could not hold the country together. Korea was a very big country until their civil war in the 1950s which resulted in the division of the country into South and North Korea with Seoul and Pyongyang as their respective capitals. In Europe, Italy was one country with Rome as capital, but religious and secular politics separated them with the creation of the Vatican solely for the Pope and the Catholics.
Greece was one nation but now two countries as Macedonia is free with Skopje as its capital. Was the Netherland not one country? Call them Dutch or Holland, but to day Belguim had Brussels as its capital, away from Netherland’s Amsterdam. When Marshal Josip Broz Tito held Yugoslavia together with his iron grip, little did he know that after his demise, that country will split into Bosnia – Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo? A bitter civil war fought along ethnic, religious and regional divide saw to the disintegration of Tito’s Yugoslavia. Who can forget that there was Czechoslovakia with its capital at the Prague? Was it not out of it that the Czech Republic and Slovakia emerged with Bratislava as the latter’s capital?
If you think a religious monolithic country is safe from secession, you could not make a more fatal mistake. Remember Denmark? It was torn apart by denominational difference between the Catholic and the Presbyterians with some ethnic flavour and today, there are three countries from one, i.e. Denmark, Sweden and Norway making Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo their capitals.
Before 1947, India was a vast continent administered as one country by the British imperial powers. But India was a country of great contrasts and diverties. One cannot even vouch for which diversity posed the greatest challenge between ethnic, religious, regional, linguistic and cultural differences. While it remained India, the Muslims loathed the notion of being ruled by the Hindus after independence. They wanted a clean, pure and holy virgin land which they later christened Pakistan to which they fled at independence in 1947. On the night of August 15, 1947 when India was to be formally declared as independent, the Muslims embarked on Hijra to Islamabad and declared themselves as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It sounded and looked like an El-dorado, a sweet dream come true? Well, within 14 years, the ethnic differences between the Urdu and the Bengali came to a head and a point of no return was reached when the later declared the independent state of Bangladesh. Do not ask me what happened to their common Islamic heritage which took them to Pakistan in the first place. It only prove that ethnic nationalism will always smash religious bond as a stronger force in a polity devoid of justice, equity and fair play. Can you imagine that Pakistan – after being freed of Indian Hinduism and Bangladesh’s ethnic irritants is still torn in pieces by sectarian and ideological viruses? Where is the pure land, holy and wonderful paradise on earth, dreamt of by Indian Muslims in 1947? Both Indian and Pakistan held a piece of the divided Kashmir territory and the people are fighting for independence, finding no attraction in India or Pakistan. Strong ethnic nationalism in display and at work? May be or perhaps not, depending on your understanding or persuasion! From new Delhi to Islamabad and to Dhaka between 1947 and 1970!! Don’t you feel we need to think?
When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was at its zenith, it was militarily perceived to be more powerful than the United States of America. The USSR was a continent but administered as one country under a strict communist ideology and orientation as one unitary country. The ideological regimentation was so stuffy that no development could take place as the government puts every citizen under strict surveillance, suspecting infiltration by the democratic West, especially the United States of America, their greatest rival. Run under a highly centralized administration, and led by Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev etc, the sheer weight of ethnic diversities, religious differences and deficiencies in political administration suffocated the Soviet Union and brought her down some twenty years ago. Today, the USSR is no more, but fifteen autonomous countries with full sovereignty emerged from its ruins. The good news is that they parted ways peacefully without having to fire a shot. However, Abkhazia, Chechenia and South Ossetia are threatening to secede from Russia and Georgia and the defunct Soviet Union may become 18 independent countries, if not more before too long.
I have examined the history of the split of 14 nation-states across the world to prove that few countries are immuned from the scourge of ethnic nationalism and religious extremism. It is also to prove that heterogeneous societies are better run under true federalism rather than the unitary system obtained in Nigeria today. The two most intractable challenges facing our country are the same challenges that forced those countries to split. Some split peacefully, others did so after a devastating warfare, and some are rearing to go. With the Islamic Tala Kato, Boko Haram, Taliban and Al – Queda and the Christian MEND throwing their bombs anywhere they choose, can we honestly ascert that the bug of secession cannot, will not or shall not afflict Nigeria? Should we not revisit the work of the Pro-National Conference Organization (PRONACO) and take a look at the Peoples National Conference proposed Constitution which took care of our diversities? Can we continue to do the same thing in the same way and expect a different result?
The co-incidence of the upsurge in the rebellion of the Boko Haramites and the revolt of the supporters of Congress for Progressive Change could have resulted into a congregation for violent change, but for the grace of God. For if there had not been a wide margin between the votes of President Jonathan and General Muhammadu Buhari in the presidential election, the replay of the Ivorian experience could have been rationallu justified. Inspite of the fact that they have now produced the President of Nigeria, the people of Niger – Delta or more precisely, the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) is still threatening to bomb the daylight out of this country. Does this not suggest that the problem with Nigeria is not about power rotation, not revenue allocation and or a religious balancing act?
What appears to be so clear and does not need crystal gazing is the quest on the part of the various ethnic people for self determination – a universal desire which does not necessarily lead to disintegration. Nigerians need and wants an internal re-arrangement which recognize, grants and guarantees freedom of association, of religious faith as consistent with their own cultures and authority over their own local or regional affairs. This is different and beyond ‘power to the people’ but freedom to the people!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Hallmarks Of Character & Integrity
By Sam Onimisi
Adherence to promises made and known rules even if it hurts oneself are the hallmarks of integrity, or so I believe. There is no sphere of life where integrity or lack of it is easily manifested more than in public life and at the top echelon. The main difference between a man of honor and a villain is the balance between gross debasement of norms and the net application of rules. Perhaps we might go on excursion of contemporary history to buttress this point.
General Ibrahim Babangida had eight years to transit from military rule to democracy. He it was who promised to hand over in 1989 but failed. He shifted hand over date to 1990 and then to 1992 and eventually to 1993. He not only botched all his promises, it took the collective honor of the military top-brass to escort him out of power against the background of the how lings of pre-democracy activists who hounded his guts to the point of surrender. Although he had the privilege to claim that he “stepped aside” rather than being forced to go, his subsequent attempts to step-in to power met the roadblocks mounted by his perceived lack of integrity. On the other hand, General Abubakar Abdulsalam came to power after the mysterious demise of the despotic General Sani Abacha. He gave the nation an 11 months transition programme and handed over on the dot as promised. Abdulsalam has ever since become the toast of national and international conferences on peaceful transition of government and a highly respected statesman and a trusted arbiter. If the difference between the two former heads of state is not clear, then it would only be so to prejudiced minds.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was believed to have some integrity, especially when he served as military head of state at the end of which he returned the country to democracy. His eight year tenure as civilian president appears to have erased whatever was left of his integrity. His administration was characterized by unkept promises and much more, on promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Added to this are the various domestic and official scandals which dodged his person. His relevance today is mainly accounted for by the length of time of his rule, his age as well as the wealth he controls, not by the quality or strength of his integrity. Knowing that opinion is free and everyone has the right to his/her views; this evaluation is not an expression of judgment on these former heads of state. Rather, it is to serve as examples from which people in authority at whatever level should learn and make their choice.
The word of God in Psalms 51:1 asked a question thus: “Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” Mercifully, the answer contains nothing like anyone with deceitful toothy smile or a sarcastic sense of humour. The Lord is not amused by a man in Agbada strapped with a Sam Browne, (a leather belt for a dress supported by a light strap passing over the right shoulder, made popular by a British Army officer, Sir, Samuel James Browne). Even God is not impressed by he who is arrogantly humble or quiet. A wise saying in my language says that no one has his/her heart open for us to see what is contained therein; Enahinere! And so, the reliable yardstick with which the measure or evaluate integrity is, in the performance of what is promised. The answer, according to God’s word if found in verse 4 among other answers. It says that those who may abide in God’s holy hill or tabernacle is “he who swears to his own hurt and does not change”.
We have a new leader in President Goodluck Jonathan who, in the course of his campaign for the office, made various promises to individuals, group and the country as a whole. Since many of the promises were made public or to an audience, they may now be used to set an agenda for him and to evaluate the level and quality of his integrity at the end of his tenure. He has said, for example, that he would serve only one term in office. If it was not a joke then he is expected to leave office in 2015. However, the on-going speculation that the National Assembly is being pressured to amend the Constitution for a single tenure of six years for the president may tamper with his integrity – if the move sails through.
What should engage the mind of the President at this stage is to engage in dialogue with all shades of political opinion to cool the frayed nerves in the wake of the post election violence in parts of the country. For instance, he has done well to meet with opposition parties who won election at various levels. He should follow it swiftly with a parley with the rest 53 political parties and especially, with the 46 political parties that adopted or supported him for the election. Failure to do so will be a signal that he may not fulfill his promise and that those parties may have misplaced their trust. It is even dangerous to think of de-registering political parties just because the self-serving National Assembly amended the Electoral Act with a provision for de-registration. Political parties exist not only to contest and win elections, but also to contest and win the mind and support of the people, to champion their cause at critical moments; to criticize unpopular public policies and serve as opinion molders, among other responsibilities.
In Nigeria today, there exist over 2000 Christian and Islamic denominations of various sizes and spread across the country for the religious needs and desires of the people. What of the over 1000 civil society organizations, engaged in advocacy and championing civil or gender rights – and to which government and international agencies gives financial grants? For a country of 150 million people, even 100 political parties could be said to be too few, given the over 350 ethnic nationalities of the country. The Churches and Mosques, together with the CSOs exist in furtherance of the freedom of association and belief enshrined in our constitution. To short – circuit this fundamental human rights in the name of party de-registration, when new parties could still be registered without guarantee that they will win future election, to my mind, is a most myopic and futile venture. It is only a government intent on imposing a one party system that will embark on party deregistration, especially when they pay no grant to the parties.
Multi-party democracy is the only guarantee against the tyranny of the majority just as competition is against entrenched monopolies. No country makes progress with one party cultism, not even with an angel as President and a 5-party system may evolve, not by the fiat of an Act of the Legislature if democracy is the game. In effect, integrity is not just in fulfilling promises made voluntarily; it is also in doing things that are all inclusive and beneficial to the greater majority. Our concept and understanding of government must transcend partisan party loyalty because while a party is for a few, government is for all. Promises are known to be debts and persons of integrity go the extra mile to pay their debts.
Many of today’s lawmakers defected from one political party to the other in order to contest the election that put them in the National Assembly. Prof Dora Akunyili left the PDP just as Dr. Chris Ngige to join APGA and ACN to contest a senate seat. Chief Okorocha left PDP to form Action Alliance and yet, went to APGA to contest and won the governorship election in Imo State. There are numerous other examples where the multi-party system has helped to ease tension and reduce or minimize intra – party wrangling; as a result thuggery and violence did not feature so much in the general election just concluded. This is not because we no longer have thugs but because the candidates had options of party platforms from which to choose if and where dissatisfied with their original parties. It takes a small spark of fire to ignite a revolution and if that spark comes in form of party de-registration and deprivation of our freedom of association, then the reckless piece of legislation by our rudderless National Assembly will take the credit for it. Who doesn’t know that when the voice of a diverse heterogeneous people is muzzled, the first victim is always the muzzlers and the result is always in favour of freedom for the people? If the defunct Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Chekcoslovakia are not sufficient examples, the combustive revolution over turning the entire Arabian world is an eye-opener, even to the willfully blind!
President Goodluck Jonathan did not promise to compress the democratic space by party de-registration. There is no way nor have we been told how the multi-system has harmed the peace of the country to warrant the odious thought of deregistration of parties. Those who have ears let them hear.
Adherence to promises made and known rules even if it hurts oneself are the hallmarks of integrity, or so I believe. There is no sphere of life where integrity or lack of it is easily manifested more than in public life and at the top echelon. The main difference between a man of honor and a villain is the balance between gross debasement of norms and the net application of rules. Perhaps we might go on excursion of contemporary history to buttress this point.
General Ibrahim Babangida had eight years to transit from military rule to democracy. He it was who promised to hand over in 1989 but failed. He shifted hand over date to 1990 and then to 1992 and eventually to 1993. He not only botched all his promises, it took the collective honor of the military top-brass to escort him out of power against the background of the how lings of pre-democracy activists who hounded his guts to the point of surrender. Although he had the privilege to claim that he “stepped aside” rather than being forced to go, his subsequent attempts to step-in to power met the roadblocks mounted by his perceived lack of integrity. On the other hand, General Abubakar Abdulsalam came to power after the mysterious demise of the despotic General Sani Abacha. He gave the nation an 11 months transition programme and handed over on the dot as promised. Abdulsalam has ever since become the toast of national and international conferences on peaceful transition of government and a highly respected statesman and a trusted arbiter. If the difference between the two former heads of state is not clear, then it would only be so to prejudiced minds.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was believed to have some integrity, especially when he served as military head of state at the end of which he returned the country to democracy. His eight year tenure as civilian president appears to have erased whatever was left of his integrity. His administration was characterized by unkept promises and much more, on promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Added to this are the various domestic and official scandals which dodged his person. His relevance today is mainly accounted for by the length of time of his rule, his age as well as the wealth he controls, not by the quality or strength of his integrity. Knowing that opinion is free and everyone has the right to his/her views; this evaluation is not an expression of judgment on these former heads of state. Rather, it is to serve as examples from which people in authority at whatever level should learn and make their choice.
The word of God in Psalms 51:1 asked a question thus: “Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” Mercifully, the answer contains nothing like anyone with deceitful toothy smile or a sarcastic sense of humour. The Lord is not amused by a man in Agbada strapped with a Sam Browne, (a leather belt for a dress supported by a light strap passing over the right shoulder, made popular by a British Army officer, Sir, Samuel James Browne). Even God is not impressed by he who is arrogantly humble or quiet. A wise saying in my language says that no one has his/her heart open for us to see what is contained therein; Enahinere! And so, the reliable yardstick with which the measure or evaluate integrity is, in the performance of what is promised. The answer, according to God’s word if found in verse 4 among other answers. It says that those who may abide in God’s holy hill or tabernacle is “he who swears to his own hurt and does not change”.
We have a new leader in President Goodluck Jonathan who, in the course of his campaign for the office, made various promises to individuals, group and the country as a whole. Since many of the promises were made public or to an audience, they may now be used to set an agenda for him and to evaluate the level and quality of his integrity at the end of his tenure. He has said, for example, that he would serve only one term in office. If it was not a joke then he is expected to leave office in 2015. However, the on-going speculation that the National Assembly is being pressured to amend the Constitution for a single tenure of six years for the president may tamper with his integrity – if the move sails through.
What should engage the mind of the President at this stage is to engage in dialogue with all shades of political opinion to cool the frayed nerves in the wake of the post election violence in parts of the country. For instance, he has done well to meet with opposition parties who won election at various levels. He should follow it swiftly with a parley with the rest 53 political parties and especially, with the 46 political parties that adopted or supported him for the election. Failure to do so will be a signal that he may not fulfill his promise and that those parties may have misplaced their trust. It is even dangerous to think of de-registering political parties just because the self-serving National Assembly amended the Electoral Act with a provision for de-registration. Political parties exist not only to contest and win elections, but also to contest and win the mind and support of the people, to champion their cause at critical moments; to criticize unpopular public policies and serve as opinion molders, among other responsibilities.
In Nigeria today, there exist over 2000 Christian and Islamic denominations of various sizes and spread across the country for the religious needs and desires of the people. What of the over 1000 civil society organizations, engaged in advocacy and championing civil or gender rights – and to which government and international agencies gives financial grants? For a country of 150 million people, even 100 political parties could be said to be too few, given the over 350 ethnic nationalities of the country. The Churches and Mosques, together with the CSOs exist in furtherance of the freedom of association and belief enshrined in our constitution. To short – circuit this fundamental human rights in the name of party de-registration, when new parties could still be registered without guarantee that they will win future election, to my mind, is a most myopic and futile venture. It is only a government intent on imposing a one party system that will embark on party deregistration, especially when they pay no grant to the parties.
Multi-party democracy is the only guarantee against the tyranny of the majority just as competition is against entrenched monopolies. No country makes progress with one party cultism, not even with an angel as President and a 5-party system may evolve, not by the fiat of an Act of the Legislature if democracy is the game. In effect, integrity is not just in fulfilling promises made voluntarily; it is also in doing things that are all inclusive and beneficial to the greater majority. Our concept and understanding of government must transcend partisan party loyalty because while a party is for a few, government is for all. Promises are known to be debts and persons of integrity go the extra mile to pay their debts.
Many of today’s lawmakers defected from one political party to the other in order to contest the election that put them in the National Assembly. Prof Dora Akunyili left the PDP just as Dr. Chris Ngige to join APGA and ACN to contest a senate seat. Chief Okorocha left PDP to form Action Alliance and yet, went to APGA to contest and won the governorship election in Imo State. There are numerous other examples where the multi-party system has helped to ease tension and reduce or minimize intra – party wrangling; as a result thuggery and violence did not feature so much in the general election just concluded. This is not because we no longer have thugs but because the candidates had options of party platforms from which to choose if and where dissatisfied with their original parties. It takes a small spark of fire to ignite a revolution and if that spark comes in form of party de-registration and deprivation of our freedom of association, then the reckless piece of legislation by our rudderless National Assembly will take the credit for it. Who doesn’t know that when the voice of a diverse heterogeneous people is muzzled, the first victim is always the muzzlers and the result is always in favour of freedom for the people? If the defunct Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Chekcoslovakia are not sufficient examples, the combustive revolution over turning the entire Arabian world is an eye-opener, even to the willfully blind!
President Goodluck Jonathan did not promise to compress the democratic space by party de-registration. There is no way nor have we been told how the multi-system has harmed the peace of the country to warrant the odious thought of deregistration of parties. Those who have ears let them hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
