Nigeria Content Online

Last week, Christians across the world
commemorated Ash Wednesday, thus kicking off the season known as Lent,
which culminates in Easter, the celebration of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Lent consists of 40 days meant to be dedicated to
self-denial (fasting), prayer, a heightened sense of submission to God,
self-reflection, benevolence, and repentance.

Socrates it was who said, centuries ago, that “the
unexamined life is not worth living.” In this harried age of ours, it
seems easier than ever before, to succumb to the lure of the unexamined
life. We have periods like this, to be found in most religions, to
thank for seeking to provide an oasis of calm amidst the maddening
bustle of contemporary life.

There’s no reason why non-adherents cannot
identify with the reflective impulse behind such commemorations.
Whether it is Ramadan, or Lent, or any other similar period in other
religions, we believe all Nigerians, irrespective of religious
persuasion, ought to see it as a time to pursue the admirable ideals of
the season. The earlier Nigerians start to understand that religion
should never be a basis or excuse for exclusionary attitudes, the
better for us all as citizens of a secular nation.

In one of our previous editorials to mark the
commencement of the Ramadan season, we said: “Perhaps one of the
biggest feelings of the post-Ramadan period is one of rebirth. A period
when – as Christian theologians would say – old things pass away. It
would be fitting if Nigeria’s leaders, a large percentage of whom are
fasting Muslims, would also draw a line under their past inadequacies.”

That message still stands. This Lenten season
demands something from all Nigerians, leaders and followers. The
concepts of contemplation and self-sacrifice are endangered species in
this land. The insistence on prayer during Lent is meant to symbolise
the importance of quietude, contemplation and submission; while the
fasting ought to stand as a manifestation of the need for suppression
of physical desire; the quelling of the often wayward impulses that
drive the human body. As a symbol of sacrifice and selflessness, the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ – which form the cornerstone of
Christianity and the inspiration for the celebration of Lent – stand
high up there.

Sadly, Nigerian leaders show little desire
whatsoever to demonstrate self-restraint in their actions in office. If
there is one overriding theme in all of the diplomatic cables in our
possession, courtesy of the whistle-blowing site, WikiLeaks, (and from
which we’ve run a series of stories all week), it is that there are too
many greedy persons in the corridors of power; driven by unbridled
hunger to amass as much of our commonwealth as they can, for themselves
alone.

This greed, coupled with an inability to be sober,
reflective, to ask common-sense questions – for example, in James
Ibori’s case: how are the ordinary people of Delta State expected to
live decent lives when all of these billions meant to be spent on their
welfare are ending up in my foreign accounts? – has kept Nigeria
underdeveloped for all of 50 years

But the leaders are not alone. Followers, averse
to the idea of sacrificing immediate and transient pleasure for the
purpose of overwhelming future gain, must also share in the blame. This
inability to think in sacrificial terms is partly why politicians find
it so easy to purchase the loyalties of the electorate with meagre cash
sums and bags of rice. Citizens that sell their electoral birthright
for a mess of badly-cooked pottage are as disgraceful as the
politicians who make the proposition in the first place.

The coming general elections will take place
during Lent. We expect all our politicians, and their supporters, to
take that into consideration, and strive to comport themselves in a
responsible manner; a manner that demonstrates respect for the ideals
that the season represents. This should happen irrespective of
religious persuasion. On the campaign grounds, we hope to see
politicians humbly attuned to the yearnings of the electorate;
campaigners who understand that true leadership is actually
servant-hood, self-sacrifice and submission.

It would be a tragedy for Nigeria if the message of Lent was lost on
us, especially at this crucial time in our existence as a democratic
nation.

Unrest across North Africa and the Middle East has
afforded Nigeria an outstanding opportunity to re-invigorate the
country’s oil sector and refresh its depleted currency reserve funds.

In May 2008, Nigeria’s foreign currency reserves
stood at US$62 billion but had dwindled to $40 billion by March 2010.
The rate of depletion has since slowed but has not yet shown a
sustained return to growth. But the current global situation combined
with a sustained reduced level of conflict in the Niger Delta plays
into Nigeria’s favour in terms of increased oil revenue. Libyan oil
production has halved from 1.6 million barrels per day (mbd) to as
little as 850,000 barrels per day as a direct result of the current
conflict. Libya’s 1.6mbd represents about 2.3 per cent of global crude
oil production, which rates the country as the fourth largest oil
producer in Africa.

Libya’s oil production can quickly be ramped back
up to 1.6mbd if conflict subsides and oil production and transport
facilities are not significantly damaged. However, with Muammar Gaddafi
ordering the sabotage of the country’s oil facilities, resumption of
production may be severely limited.

The anticipated reduction in production due to
political tensions in North Africa and the Middle East will mean that
available spare capacity may have to be brought online. The bulk of
that spare capacity lies with OPEC countries which have increased spare
capacity from 1.4mbd in 2008 to the current level of 5.2mbd. The
majority of that spare capacity or 3.5mbd is in Saudi Arabia which
could not be said to be immune to the current political instability
sweeping the Middle East. With an estimated 37 billion barrels of oil
reserves, Nigeria could continue production at the present level of
2.4mbd for around 42 years. Coupled with around 183 trillion cubic feet
of gas reserves (at January 2010) Nigeria has an impressive
resource-based potential but a reasonably near term horizon. In fact,
at the present rate of production and without any further major oil
discoveries, Nigeria would have less years of oil production ahead of
it than it has had of production since the first commercial production
of oil in 1956 at Oloibiri in present day Bayelsa State. At the current
rate of depletion and without major replacement through discovery, most
of the current population of Nigeria could live long enough to see the
end of oil as the country’s main income stream. If Nigeria’s oil
production reached the projected target of 4mbpd within the next couple
of years, then its current known reserves could be depleted within 25
years.

These sobering figures start one thinking and
inevitably asking, “So what’s the plan?” The long term question is:
“What are we doing to ensure Nigeria has a solid economic base when oil
reserves are finally run down?” The short term question is: “What are
we going to do with the additional revenue from increased production
and higher than budgeted oil prices?”

The amnesty in the Niger Delta has facilitated a
dramatic rise in oil production that was languishing around 1.35mbd in
the first quarter of 2010 to 2.35mbd in the first quarter of 2011.
Production has continued to rise by around 100,000 barrels per day each
month in 2011.

According to Minister of Petroleum Resources,
Diezani Alison-Madueke, with current oil production at 2.4mbd, Nigeria
now earns around N43.7 billion (US$282 million) per day from crude oil
sales based on the combined daily production figure of crude and
condensate.

These recent production figures all sound very
encouraging and a possible cause for celebration. However, one must
recall earlier years and soon realise Nigeria’s relatively recent
growth in oil production has not reached new heights but merely
returned to levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of the
intervening years saw much lower levels of production. Nigeria’s oil
production was 2.2mbd 10 years ago and briefly touched current levels
in 2004. In the euphoria of Shell achieving daily production of one
million barrels, the optimistic oil sector development strategy set a
target of 4 mbd to be achieved by 2010. The government bought into the
dream. The reality saw production reach only half the target level.

Nigeria is presented with a second chance. With
oil currently trading at over $100 a barrel on the back of North
African and Middle East unrest compared with the $65 anticipated in the
country’s 2011 budget, there is a clear opportunity to significantly
increase Nigeria’s revenue from crude oil. With the indications of
global economic recovery comes the prospect that demand for oil may
sustain higher oil prices. Many industry analysts expect oil to remain
above $100 a barrel for several months despite Barack Obama probably
opening access to US strategic reserves.

With this revenue windfall comes an opportunity to kick-start a
sovereign wealth fund in some form, whether it be the Nigeria
Infrastructure Fund, the Future Generations Fund and the Stabilization
Fund or something similar. Most importantly, the construction of a
sovereign wealth fund must ensure it can’t be tapped at the whim of
government to finance the government’s running costs or cover budget
mismanagement.

One thanks ‘Bisi
Fayemi, the wife of the Ekiti State governor, for putting things in
perspective; legislating on matters like indecent dressing is truly
nothing but a distraction. With so many other national challenges, it
boggles the mind that anyone would consider making laws to regulate
mode of dress. What shall be the rules? It’s easy to ban the obvious
favourites of the Indecent-Brigade: spaghetti, show-me-your-tummy and
sagged pants. But how will the rules be enforced with outfits that are
not specifically described in the law? Who determines what constitutes
‘indecency’? Won’t we create another set of bullies with such a
subjective test?

“It is hereby
decreed that all women’s blouses must be at least eight [8] inches from
the tip of the nipple to the neck; with said 8 inches measurable only
when or after breasts are safely ensconced in appropriate housing.”

And on to the glossary: “In the context used, the real and implied meaning of appropriate housing is bra.”

Or this as Section 1:

“ALL women shall,
by this law, have their clothes appraised and approved by ALL relevant
bodies without exception; said appraisal shall not be deemed concluded
until a certificate of clearance is obtained, duly signed by ALL
members of the panel;

Provided that ALL
members of the panel reserve the right to seek, without any dissent,
‘further clarification’ in form of dress rehearsals, either held
publicly and/or privately, solely for the purpose of determining how
the said woman actually looks in the clothing, and more importantly, if
she could be a potential source of grave sin.”

For crying out
loud, what’s next? Indecent eating; indecent farting but only if it
stinks; indecent face if one is ugly; indecent sex if your overtly
enthusiastic bedtime activity disturbs a neighbour; indecent wickedness
for frying and eating chicken weekly when your neighbours can’t afford
it? Some things are just too personal to regulate! How will that law
make life better for anyone, other than to conspire to further the
cause of those who consider women to be a lesser specie? Or do you
doubt that the law will only be enforced and enforceable against women?
Is indecent dressing the cause of a teenager raping a grandmother of 79
years?

Puritans may say
what they want, but beyond conforming to what is considered as the
traditional mode of dress in any country, the only other way you can
decree dress is on religious grounds or within a group. In other words,
either one’s religion or group prescribes a dress code, or one wears
standard traditional clothing in the traditional manner it is worn in a
country. In choosing to wear any country’s traditional-wear, one ought
to respect the rules as set out by her owners. One may try to bring
individuality into the outfit but without killing the essence of it.
For instance, Nigerian men now have their traditional trousers (buba
and sokoto) made with an elasticised waist because the original string
style is cumbersome, especially when a man needs to take a quick leak.

So, what is
indecent? Is it not dangerous to legislate about something with
limitless opportunities? We are ruled by a fear of cleavage and thigh;
but as fashion evolves, should a law predict and can you regulate
future behaviour, or indeed this law when it becomes operative? This
obnoxious focus on dress as the source of all that is evil is
ridiculous! Women will now be blamed for the animalistic behaviour of
an uncontrollable carnally besotted man? The only result is that people
will seek to help enforcers enforce; women will be stripped naked by
mobs that feel justified by a warped law supposedly supporting their
action.

Will policemen be
sympathetic towards women who are beaten? Capital No! In these parts,
an assault on or rape of a female is always her fault; ‘stubbornness’
is considered a valid reason to ‘discipline’ women! And stubbornness is
a quality attributed to ‘over-sabi’ women: the schooled, the
opinionated and wearers of ‘open-eye’ clothes. Disciplining is deemed
fair punishment for being unduly attractive, brilliant or confident;
and rape is a form of discipline because it is the fault of the woman.
As if to say conspiratorially, “You too…why are you so beautiful?
It’s your fault for being so fine; how did you expect me to resist you?”

Finally, what’s that rule of jurisprudence again? Thou shall not
make any law that shall be impossible to obey; otherwise the law shall
be observed only in its breach? This law, if passed, shall act in vain!

The rebellion in
Libya stands out among the recent unrest in the Middle East for its
widespread violence: unlike the protesters in Tunisia or Egypt, those
in Libya quickly gave up pursuing nonviolent change and became an armed
rebellion.

And while the
fighting in Libya is far from over, it’s not too early to ask a
critical question: Which is more effective as a force for change,
violent or nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately for the Libyan rebels,
research shows that nonviolent resistance is much more likely to
produce results, while violent resistance runs a greater risk of
backfiring.

Consider the
Philippines. Although insurgencies attempted to overthrow Ferdinand
Marcos during the 1970s and 1980s, they failed to attract broad
support. When the regime did fall in 1986, it was at the hands of the
People Power movement, a nonviolent pro-democracy campaign that boasted
more than two million followers, including labourers, youth activists
and Catholic clergy.

Indeed, a study I
recently conducted with Maria J. Stephan, now a strategic planner at
the State Department, compared the outcomes of hundreds of violent
insurgencies with those of major nonviolent resistance campaigns from
1900 to 2006; we found that over 50 per cent of the nonviolent
movements succeeded, compared with about 25 per cent of the violent
insurgencies.

Why? For one thing,
people don’t have to give up their jobs, leave their families or agree
to kill anyone to participate in a nonviolent campaign. That means such
movements tend to draw a wider range of participants, which gives them
more access to members of the regime, including security forces and
economic elites, who often sympathize with or are even relatives of
protesters.

What’s more,
oppressive regimes need the loyalty of their personnel to carry out
their orders. Violent resistance tends to reinforce that loyalty, while
civil resistance undermines it. When security forces refuse orders to,
say, fire on peaceful protesters, regimes must accommodate the
opposition or give up power – precisely what happened in Egypt.

This is why the
Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, took such great pains to use armed
thugs to try to provoke the Egyptian demonstrators into using violence,
after which he could have rallied the military behind him.

But where Mubarak
failed, Muammar Gaddafi succeeded: what began as peaceful movement
became, after a few days of brutal crackdown by his corps of foreign
militiamen, an armed but disorganized rebel fighting force. A widely
supported popular revolution has been reduced to a smaller group of
armed rebels attempting to overthrow a brutal dictator. These rebels
are at a major disadvantage, and are unlikely to succeed without direct
foreign intervention.

If the other
uprisings across the Middle East remain nonviolent, however, we should
be optimistic about the prospects for democracy there. That’s because,
with a few exceptions – most notably Iran – nonviolent revolutions tend
to lead to democracy.

Although the change
is not immediate, our data show that from 1900 to 2006, 35 per cent to
40 per cent of authoritarian regimes that faced major nonviolent
uprisings had become democracies five years after the campaign ended,
even if the campaigns failed to cause immediate regime change. For the
nonviolent campaigns that succeeded, the figure increases to well over
50 per cent.

The good guys don’t
always win, but their chances increase greatly when they play their
cards well. Nonviolent resistance is about finding and exploiting
points of leverage in one’s own society. Every dictatorship has
vulnerabilities, and every society can find them.

Erica Chenoweth, an
assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University, is the
coauthor of the forthcoming “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic
Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.”

New York Times