Nigeria Content Online

As we celebrate
this season of ‘peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind’, it is
important to pause and ask how the millions of Nigerians living beneath
the poverty line – in a country blessed with so much wealth – will be
spending their time. They will not have much to celebrate even if the
conditions they live under allow them the space to acknowledge that
this is one that is supposed to stand out from all the rest.

President Jonathan
should ask Nigerians what he has done to make this Christmas a better
one than last year’s. True the one difference this Christmas is that we
have a president and we know where he is. But is there more? For a
country whose citizens still regard electricity as a miracle, who
hesitate to entrust their healthcare or security to the state,
leadership can only be meaningful when there are recognizable changes
in the way the daily lives of citizens play out. Can we count any
practical changes for the better in the basic services that the
lowliest citizen would require to maintain the modicum of existence
water, light, shelter? We know elections are round the corner, but we
know too that there are no guarantees we can point to that the basic
elements of modern existence will improve once those elections are
over.

For far too many
Nigerians, Christmas is merely another reminder of the extent of their
poverty. One thinks of how many children will spend this season hawking
on the streets to bring a few more naira to their parents; and of the
millions for whom gift giving will be out of the question, because
there is nothing to be given.

No Nigerian
president can claim to have offered genuine leadership if Nigerians
still have to fuel generators to ensure constant power supply; if the
highways continue to be deathtraps ignored by the government.

During this season
we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who, 2,000 years after his
death continues to provide an exemplary model of leadership. He solved
practical problems – healed the sick, fed the hungry, raised the dead,
spoke words of wisdom that have stood the test of time and continue to
inspire and guide millions of people around the world today.

We are not asking
Mr. Jonathan to become Nigeria’s Messiah; neither are we demanding that
he heal the sick and raise the dead. What we are asking is for him to
provide inspired and determined leadership, the kind that has
constantly eluded Nigeria.

And in fact, he
actually has the power to heal the sick – by improving Nigeria’s health
infrastructure, ensuring that healthcare workers enjoy excellent
working conditions and remuneration, devoting a greater percentage of
the budget to health, Mr. Jonathan can ensure that millions more
Nigerians enjoy access to better medical care.

Indeed, as
president, Mr. Jonathan also has the power to raise the dead. What is
the Power Holding Company of Nigeria if not a dead institution, unable
to fulfill its mandate of ensuring that Nigeria has enough power to
function as a 21st century nation. If we decided to list Nigeria’s dead
institutions and projects, it would be a long one indeed.

Where is the
National Independent Power Project (NIPP)? What happened to the
National Health Insurance Scheme, the renovation of the Lagos -Sagamu –
Benin Expressway?

Nigerians require a
president whose ambition plays out not in Aso Rock intrigues but in the
quality of his or her leadership. The Biblical story of the Nativity
features King Herod, a cruel ruler who, in his bid to kill the baby
Christ, wiped out an entire generation of children. Nigeria has had its
own fair share of Herods. Their effects are evident all around us,
death and destruction in various guises.

As we celebrate
Christmas, we would like to remind President Jonathan that this country
needs a new model of leadership, a life-giving, promise-fulfilling one;
committed to putting an end to Nigeria’s continued occupation of the
thin line separating hope and despair.

It is now more than
seven months since he took office as president and this is his first
Christmas as leader of Nigeria. Depending on how things turn out in
next year’s elections, it could also be his last. Whatever happens in
the future, the present is all that Mr. Jonathan has. To make the most
of it, he should constantly ask himself: What am I doing to make
Nigeria a better place?

And of course, that is a question we all need to ask ourselves as
well. What are Nigerians as citizens doing to ensure that the leaders
they have are responsive to their needs?

Many Nigerians are sceptical about the
ability of democracy to deliver the promised progress in the social and
economic lives of the people. Many more are even doubtful of the
willingness of elected politicians to do what is necessary to advance
the cause of democracy and leverage on its strengths to move the country
forward. Such sceptics would have grounds to support their opinion.

But then, there are also those who argue
that, imperfect as it may be, Nigeria’s democratic system is making
progress and that, with the necessary vigilance by Nigerians, there is
no reason why it should not deliver on its potential. This group of
people would have been heartened by the decision of our senators, on
Tuesday, to jettison their plan to amend an aspect of the electoral bill
following general opposition from a majority of Nigerians.

Even the House of Representatives, which
had appeared hell bent on passing the controversial bill, coyly agreed
to shift voting on it to another date. This should hopefully, result in
quiet and unmourned death to their version of the bill. In any case, the
rejection of the section by the Senate should mean the end to this
sorry episode.

The part of the electoral act which
generated so much hostility was section (87 sub section 12), which seeks
to make it compulsory for all political parties to make federal
lawmakers members of their highest decision making body, the National
Executive Council.

The Senate version of the bill
stipulated that besides the leadership of the National Assembly, who are
currently members of the NECs of their various parties, all chairmen
and deputy chairmen of standing committees shall henceforth be members
of their parties’ executive committees.

Since there are 55 standing committees
in the Senate and 85 in the House of Representatives, it would have
meant that the National Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic
Party, the largest party in the National Assembly, would have about 250
lawmakers as members. This would have made the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Senate President the most powerful party members
in PDP, putting them ahead of state governors who currently hold that
status. .

It was little wonder that the governors were at the head of the opposition to this open power grab. But they were not alone.

Leaders of the PDP and other opposition
parties, including federal lawmakers of the Action Congress of Nigeria
(ACN) were up in arms against it, as were civil society organisations.
In fact, a gaggle of youth organisations was at the National Assembly on
Tuesday to protest what they feared would be the passage of the bill.

Mercifully, the opposition worked. The
statement by the deputy senate president, to announce the climb down
could qualify as the understatement of the year. Mr. Ekweremadu, who
said the decision to throw out the amendment was in response to the
desire of the public, said, ‘there has been a lot of heat in respect of
this amendment. The passage today, I believe, will finally settle the
issue.’ All of which goes to prove the exhortation that eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty. Probably our politicians are not
worse than others elsewhere and the missing link in getting them to
function as they should is the lack of engagement of Nigerians in the
governance process. So, rather than continually moan about the perceived
incompetence of our political leaders and the system, we should do more
to push them to do what is right by us. The prescribed way to do this
is obviously by making choices at the polls. But that is hardly enough.
We also need to constantly monitor their activities, sometimes openly
and vociferously if necessary, make our views known.

Politics, as a wag says, is too serious a
business to be left to politicians. Things will work if the people
demand so. Our lawmakers have demonstrated that by their action and they
deserve praise for it.

</

Since the result of the November 28th run-off election was made
public by the Independent Electoral Commission, outgoing President Laurent
Gbagbo has defied international pressure and is clinging tenaciously to power.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the European Union, the
United States of America, France, China and the United Nations Security Council
have all backed Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister who was named winner
with 54.1 percent of the votes. But Gbagbo has refused to budge, preferring
instead to foist a national crisis on his country, shutting down almost all the
media in the country and closing the national borders. He has gone ahead to
swear himself in as president for another term.

During an African Development Bank meeting with civil society, I
inadvertently stepped on dangerous ground. In the course of my interventions, I
had a reason to crack a joke and made jest of the so-called “Ivorization”
policy. The immediate response I got from my predominantly Ivorien audience
shocked me and I had to quickly move over to a different topic altogether. A
colleague of mine from Mali, who knew the fragility of the situation better,
later warned me never to joke about that kind of thing during my stay.

The ‘Ivorization’ policy is a politically motivated tribalistic
policy introduced by the now 76 year old deposed former president Henri Konan
Bedie, after the death of the former president and father of Cote d’Ivoire
Felix Houphouët-boigny. Bedie’s main objective was to solidify power as
Houphouët-Boigny’s successor. The policy sought to deny Ivorien citizenship to
people who were born in and had lived in Cote d’Ivoire, but who had one or both
parents born in a neighbouring country such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal or
Niger Republic. It was a very unjust policy that was primarily designed to
prevent the now newly elected president Alassane Ouattara from contesting for
the presidency in July 1999 because he was a “foreigner”.

That policy made it easy for Konan Bedie, who was then President
of Parliament to retain presidency of the country in a flawed election process.

The cancerous consequences of that single virulent political
seed has followed that country ever since. It metamorphosed into bitter
divisions that ended up in an armed conflict in 2002 after President Gbagbo
continued with ethnocentric politics to retain power and control the economy.
Cote d’Ivoire is rich in cocoa, coffee, timber, petroleum, cotton, and palm
oil. The access to the lucrative proceeds of these natural resources has been a
contributory factor in the Ivorien crisis.

In response to the election of Ouattara, the chairman of ECOWAS,
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, convened a meeting of ECOWAS Heads of
government on 7 December 2010 in Abuja, where the leaders unanimously backed
the president-elect and asked Mr. Gbagbo to step aside. The African Union (AU)
also sent an envoy, former president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, to meet with
and persuade the defeated Gbagbo to step down. But that seems to have failed.

After the report back of Mbeki, the AU announced its suspension
of Cote d’Ivoire’s membership. Many other major powers, including multilateral
agencies, are threatening other forms of sanctions if the Ivorian strong man
continues to be obdurate.

The former university-lecturer-turned president has rebuffed all
of these actions as “western intrusion”. He seems impervious to mounting
international pressure and willing to risk an impending international isolation
and internal conflict just to ensure that he defiantly clings to power.

Two issues come to my mind amidst this dangerous political
drama. The first is the need for Nigeria to step up and re-energize her
prominence in the affairs within the African continent. It falls on President
Jonathan’s shoulders to rally other African heads of government to make it
categorically clear in an ultimatum to Gbagbo that he cannot continue to hang
onto power. Press releases and shuttle diplomacy can no longer suffice, and so,
more needs to be done. The other issue is the need for politicians in Africa to
understand the fundamental tenets of democracy.

Kenya was recently plunged into an avoidable conflict when Mwai
Kibaki refused to allow his rival Raila Odinga to form a government, when it
was crystal clear that he had been defeated. Ditto Zimbabwe, where the strong
man Robert Mugabe lost the election but refused resign and allow his rival
Morgan Tsvangirai to take over. Enough of these African strong men! These are
exactly the kind of men the US President Obama says we do not need. Africa
needs strong institutions instead.

African leaders must learn to accept defeat with equanimity and
put national interest and continental prosperity above selfish quest for power.

To sit down with Laurent Gbagbo to consider a unity or coalition
government as has been done in Zimbabwe and Kenya is tantamount to denying the
democratic process and the legitimate voice of the Ivorian people expressed
overwhelmingly on November 28. Africa must for once confirm to the world that we
can get it right. The Cote d’Ivoire logjam must not be allowed to degenerate to
war.

Uche Igwe is an Africa
Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre

Last week, WikiLeaks released cables about Nigeria. The
information focussed on discussions between President Goodluck Jonathan and
former U.S ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Sanders.

Since the publication of the alleged conversations, many
political opponents have tried to profit from the revelations, distorting and
misinforming the public in order to score cheap political points.

Some would want us to believe the cables have portrayed the
president as not being equipped for the job. According to a statement credited
to Garba Shehu, spokesperson for presidential candidate and former vice
president Atiku Abubakar, “this expose has once again continued what we have
always said, Jonathan is not a man to be trusted”.

But away with political opponents and let us face the real
contents of the leaks and look at them intelligently.

The leaked cables quoted Sanders quoting Jonathan as saying
after her meeting with him on February 26, 2010, “I was not chosen to be vice
president because I had good political experience… I did not. There were a
lot more qualified people around to be vice president, but that does not mean I
am not my own man.”

Some people would want us to believe this means President
Jonathan cannot be trusted: what an irony. It is uncommon, for a Nigerian
politician to admit that he is not the almighty and the omnipotent. In a
society where people who are trusted with public office immediately turn
themselves into deities to be worshipped, never to be questioned, it is rare
that a Nigerian could admit that he is not the only qualified person to occupy
a public position.

Public office is not necessarily given to the most experienced,
or the most educated, but to the man who is best able to bring about
development, a man who embodies the two fundamentals of leadership as postulated
by Steven R. Covey, the personal effectiveness guru: they are sense of service
and knowledge.

President Obama had little public administration experience when
he decided to run for the highest office in the country. But the American
people followed him because they saw in him a man willing to admit his
limitations and thus willing to learn. They also saw he had the passion and the
will to serve. Leadership is not self-centred behaviour, but others centred
behaviour. How many Nigerians can resist the temptation to trumpet their own
credentials and exaggerate their achievements in order to impress?

According to the revelations Jonathan allegedly, also said he
had intended to dissolve the Cabinet early in the week of February 22, and had
planned to make that announcement at the February 24 FEC meeting but found out
that Yar’Adua was returning and this dissuaded him from acting. He said the
last Cabinet meeting was disastrous, included yelling and screaming, and was
totally dysfunctional. Sanders reported that Jonathan said he is ‘not a
politician’ and had very limited experience as an administrator, but concluded,
“I will not tolerate a brawl.”

Is President Jonathan your usual Nigerian politician? The
obvious answer is no. The president is not a desperate power monger, as some of
his opponents would want the public to believe. In the heady days of the
Yar’Adua debacle when the nation tottered on the brink, had Jonathan been your
usual politician, our circumstances as a nation may have been different today.
He would have dissolved the Cabinet, instead he was loyal to his boss when he
learnt that he was arriving even though nobody told him formally or put him in
the picture. But he remained calm, not desperate to prove a point, but willing
and ready to step up to the plate at the appointed time. And he did.

Nigerians should be optimistic about the prospects of President
Jonathan. He has the right frame of mind to determine that electoral reforms
are germane to Nigeria’s development. Sanders said: “His sole focus is to leave
a legacy of both electoral reforms and credible elections, including changing
the entire Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).”

The question we should ask is what can be revealed in leaked
cables regarding other politicians in Nigeria especially the ones aspiring to
become President in 2011? There is no need to wait for WikiLeaks to do that for
us. A number of such names are synonymous with corruption. That is not the case
with President Jonathan.

The leaks have shown him to be humble, truthful, sincere and
patriotic. These may not be the best attributes for a politician in these
climes but they are the attributes Nigeria needs at this time. Jonathan is a
transforming leader not a transactional leader like those who have paraded the corridors
of power for too long.

Read the final verdict from Sanders: “We believe the US
government is firmly placed to advance our bilateral agenda, including the
creation of enabling environment conducive to free, fair and credible elections
with the approval and assistance of Nigeria’s de facto head of state. Even if
he decides to contest for the presidency, Jonathan seems sincere in wanting to
leave a lasting legacy of electoral reform for Africa’s most populous nation.”

Afam is a public
commentator and a pro democracy activist, he lives in Lagos

Quiet please! Now,
say the word ‘N-A-I-J-A’; say it again, SLOWLY! Doesn’t it just evoke
feelings of endearment? Try putting your right hand on your heart as
you say the words ‘NAIJA FOR LIFE’. See if you don’t feel a connection
to your ‘Naijaness’.

NAIJA is to
Nigerians what Yankee is to Americans and CHARLIE is to Ghanaians. If
you doubt it, clench your raised fist and say NAIJA-for-life where many
are gathered, and see what happens. The word is probably the nearest
we’ll get to evoking feelings of true patriotism.

There is nothing as
warm and comforting for instance, as hearing those three words when all
alone in some God-forsaken town in a country where you have not had the
privilege of running into a fellow Nigerian for months, and some
‘black’ person recognises your accent, and says ‘Naija for life’. I
dare you not to hug that person! So whether some adults like the word
or not is immaterial,; you cannot command people to ‘un-feel’ by fiat
and this, is where the challenge lies.

How do you coerce people into not feeling feelings that they have an inclination to feel?

One gets a distinct
feeling that people in government know just how angry we are about
things but they hope to blackmail us into seeing evil, hearing evil but
not speaking it. They hope to legislate good vibes into us by force,
whether we like it or not! If it were possible, they would make it an
offence to speak negative thoughts about anything to do with this
country, in a clampdown reminiscent of a dictatorship.

Jurisprudence
teaches that the law shall not act in vain, therefore, states shall not
make laws that will be impossible to obey or laws that will only be
breached in observance. Does a minister have the right to prevent a
word being used by anybody? In fact, is the use of the word NAIJA the
crux of our problems as a nation? That anyone is griping about NAIJA ab
initio shows the huge gulf between the old and young, and the governed
and government.

Ordering today’s
youth without justification or explanation won’t work. Today’s
generation has seen through that age-old deceit of parents all over the
world: do as I say, not as I do! So, if they truly do not see something
to emulate, they won’t and, they’ll tell you so too!

Through the years,
there have always been slangs; and slangs have always been the choice
of youths who wish to keep their gist sacrosanct. Slang is the code; it
is the job of the youth to continuously strive for codes that no adult
will decipher. Conversely, it is the job of adults to constantly try to
break the codes of the young.

The word NAIJA
always existed; maybe it was spelt differently back in the 80’s and
90’s. It was never said derogatively though; it was always an
acknowledgement of our uniqueness. The spelling changed from NIGER
because it confused things with a certain country up north in Africa.

But what was to be
achieved by starting this needless debate? In the midst of so many
problems, is it our use of the word NAIJA that should be bothering
anyone? Is it NAIJA that’s left us without real governance?
Universities have been on strike for the most part of this year; is it
because of NAIJA? When you even go further to consider that no Nigerian
university made it to the top 5500 list of universities in the world,
is it NAIJA that made it so? How does anyone propose to stop the word
from being used?

Does the Minister
have powers to prevent businesses operating legitimately from using the
word? Who will bear the cost of abandoned advertising campaigns for the
company that has already embarked on a full-blown NAIJA campaign?
Methinks this is another exercise in futility; and I’m in good company
too!

My two favourite
teenagers in the world, TE [with School Certificate results 4A’s, 4B’s,
1C] and TO [with 1A, 7B’s] think that no one should expend energy on
the matter. If we stop using NAIJA, will the roads get better? Will we
have at least 18 hours of electricity a day? Will doctors, teachers and
ancillary workers, get a better deal? Will it stop the padding of
contracts? Will it give us credible elections and leadership? Is
someone taking the piss here?

The things we
REALLY like, government will never give us; instead it is the
impossible they will be striving to do. Maybe it is a major achievement
perhaps, to be included in one’s resume, that as a Minister of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, and at great pain too, one stopped the
citizens from harming themselves irreparably, by banning the use of the
word NAIJA!

The death of one of Nigeria’s political icons,
Anthony Enaharo, this week should cause a moment for deep introspection
on our history as a nation. For 67 years, Enaharo was a major factor in
our political history. We can identify three distinct phases in his
political life.

The first is as a fiery nationalist and major
campaigner for Nigeria’s independence. From 1941 as lead writer and
editor in the nationalist press, he was a significant player in the
struggle for our independence. He was a founding member of the Action
Group and in 1953, moved the motion for accelerated independence. He
was a significant player in all the constitutional conferences leading
to Nigeria’s independence.

The second phase of his political life was from
1967 when he was appointed Federal Commissioner for Information and
played an exceptionally successful role as the chief defender of the
integrity and unity of the nation throughout the civil war up till 1974
when he was moved to another portfolio having successfully helped build
the post war reconciliation. One of my most valued possessions is
Anthony Kerk-Greene’s two volume documentary source book “Crisis and
Conflict in Nigeria: 1967-1970.” It documents the role of political
actors during those difficult years.

I quote extensively from page 148 of volume two
where Enaharo was defending the Nigerian nation on the Kingsway in
London on 17th July 1967: “If succession by Ojukwu and his group is
accomplished, Nigeria would most probably disintegrate. Once
fractionalisation starts, it certainly would result in the further
disintegration of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria. Neighbouring
states with ethnic and other problems will in due course also
disintegrate and a chain reaction will be set up all over Africa.
Africa would end up in petty little principalities. Each successor
‘mini state’ would be sovereign enough to acquire foreign protectors
and purchase arms. Such a situation with its inevitable dislocations
and frictions over boundaries, trade and division of assets would
produce wars. Foreign countries would intervene on behalf of their
‘protectorates’ and the conflagration would be bloodier and more
permanently damaging to the interests of Nigeria and Africa.” I cannot
agree more.

The third phase of Pa Enaharo’s political life
started when he took the leadership of NADECO in 1994 and his discourse
changed radically. For the last twenty-five years of his life, he
became the champion of the restructuring of Nigerian federalism on the
basis of ethnic collectives and transforming the polity from a federal
to a confederal one in which each ethnic group would have its autonomy.

He established the National Reformation Movement,
which later transformed into a political party committed to breaking up
Nigeria into ethnic conclaves with the right to self-determination. He
abandoned his earlier campaign about the dangers of fractionalisation
into tiny principalities and became steadfast and stubborn that ethnic
nationalities should meet and re-negotiate the existence of Nigeria.
His campaign was picked up by the Campaign for Democracy which
organised a conference in 1998 calling for a new Nigeria in which
‘ethnic nationalities should be the building blocks of the Federation,
with the right to self-determination”.

I have always argued that this approach is wrong
and politically dangerous. It is a system that cannot but lead to
disintegration of the state. Pa Enaharo in the third phase of his
political life worked so hard to destroy what he had worked so hard to
build previously.

In 2006, the late Beko Ransome Kuti convinced me
to meet with Pa Enaharo to discuss the reasons why many in the North
shunned the invitation of the ProNational Conference Organisation
(PRONACO). Beko, Wale Okuniyi and I had a long meeting with him in
Lagos. His opening line was that civil society activists from the North
had an obligation to convince the leaders of their ethnic nationalities
to join PRONACO in the process of renegotiating Nigerian federalism.

I explained to him that the Hausa for example do
not define themselves as an ethnic group and that the key identity
categories they use are territory and religion. By insisting on a
conference composed of ethnic groups, the political base is reduced to
a level to which many feel excluded and therefore dismiss the effort as
a joke. His response was that there is ample anthropological and
sociological evidence that categorises all Nigerian groups into ethnic
categories and no one could pull wool over his eyes.

We ended the meeting on the note that he would
tour the North to have interactive sessions with civil society groups
that I offered to organise. When I called his secretary to follow up on
the tour, I was informed that Pa Enaharo had decided there was no
purpose talking to civil society groups in the North. Northerners, I
was told, only listen to their Emirs. Pa Enaharo would tour the North
and talk to Emirs to get their representatives to be part of PRONACO. I
was saddened by the determination of Pa Enaharo to pursue the political
wilderness in the third phase of his political life. Nonetheless, I
remain a great admirer of his contribution to building and preservation
this complex country of ours.

May his soul rest in perfect peace.

With developments
and events playing out in convoluting sequence in the political arena,
there are clear indications of the passing of certain givens in the old
order in which politics is played in our country. One clear source for
these ripples is the emergence of the Jonathan presidency and his
adamant refusal to back down in the face of scathing opposition by some
Northern politicians within the People’s Democratic Party, PDP.

The Northern
Political Leaders Forum, NPLF, led by Adamu Ciroma, which was clearly
not on a mission necessarily to choose the best candidate from among
its candidates, spent over two months on what must have been a tasking
search for a presentable candidate from the line up of Ibrahim
Babangida, Atiku Abubakar, Aliyu Gusau and Bukola Saraki.

It probably did not
matter that the aspirants from whose fold they laboured so to produce
Atiku, came largely with back bending baggage, gathered mostly from
stints at the nation’s most powerful political positions with
unregulated access to public funds.

One of them
Babangida, still has questions to answer over his role in the
disappearance of over $12.8 billion proceeds from the sale of crude oil
during the Gulf war and allegations of involvement in the 1986 murder
of Dele Giwa, founding Editor-in-Chief of the Newswatch magazine.

Atiku is fighting
hard to distance himself from money laundering allegations involving
his fourth wife, Jennifer Douglas Atiku, a US citizen now relocated to
Dubai.

With battle lines
clearly defined between Jonathan and Atiku in the PDP primaries, the
dynamics of forces and issues at stake have seen a compelling
alteration. But for the emergence of a Jonathan on the scene, the
contest within the PDP would have perhaps been a straight fight between
Atiku and Babangida.

The two men have,
over the years, marked out for control choice chunks of the political
space from which they operate ‘political structures’ buoyed by the
massive personal wealth they acquired. In reciprocity, the
beneficiaries of the patronage make themselves useful by placing
themselves at the ready to defend the interests of their principals
when duty calls.

Such duties may
involve those that have thrown up the Soboma Georges and NURTW’ Tokyos.
A young man Oseleye Gideon, who said he was part of such political
structures that were active in the riverine areas in Rivers State at
the return of party politics in 1998, recently described how these
structures work.

“What happens is,
the big politicians, usually those vying for a position gather us in a
boat or bus to the communities during the elections. We get there and
carry out the thumb printing and stuffing of ballot boxes. In
situations of opposition, you have to be ready to run away with ballot
boxes when electoral materials arrive.

“It’s dangerous
assignment and people have been shot and killed or deformed with
machetes. But, by 1998 when I did anything like that, the risks were
fewer compared to what happened in subsequent elections. At the end, I
realise that I gained nothing. You get used by politicians who rise to
the few positions, while the thousands of youths they use are mostly
forgotten after the elections. I have moved on”

Like a stirring,
stormy wind from the coastal fringes of the Niger Delta’s demands for
recognition, for inclusion has been thrust upon the national
consciousness. Since Jonathan’s aspirations became public months ago,
some have held the view that he should have stayed off the fray and
merely played the role of umpire overseeing the political process to
birth what should be the first steps in the march to a brave new world
marked by the supremacy of the vote.

Perhaps so. But
against the reality that hardly anything in our political circumstances
can be described as normal, persons who are already in the contest must
be allowed the creative liberty to determine how they wish to engage
with the process. Indeed, many more Nigerians especially from among
groups, which have endured age-old marginalisation, view in Jonathan’s
aspirations, possibilities for their own desire to ascend to positions
which certain interests had captured as their birthright these long
years.

At the end of the
day, the sort of societal transformation which millions of Nigerian
citizens, activists and observers have canvassed for will not
materialise by merely wishing that reality into being. It will involve
people rolling up their sleeves to get into the fray.

Twelve years after
the youths and peoples of Ijaw and subsequently other Niger Delta
communities stood firm on their demands for equity and justice, the
penurious material conditions of millions of them have not much
altered. But no one can deny the changing dynamics of the oil bearing
area compelled into being by the tenacity of the original apostles of
the Kaiama Declaration and others. Certainly not the Nigerian political
elite, compelled by the thrusting, throbbing urgency of the rising from
the coasts to accept first a Vice President of Ijaw stock and now a
president, bearing in his insistence, the yearnings of millions for
unconditional inclusion in the Nigerian project for which they pay a
higher price than most.

Given the scope of
the issues raised by this third set of WikiLeaks revealing the contents
of its diplomatic cables, the United States has handled the matter with
an admirable insouciance – although this commendation is necessarily
qualified by the unfortunate fact that it is shutting stable doors
after several horses have already bolted. But since the stable appears
to contain many more potential runaway horses, the United States can
hardly be blamed if it is writing such a huge book that anyone at whom
it might be thrown will be cowed into quashing any feelings of outrage
at government actions and policies and continue keeping secrets secret.

Constrained by
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, the U.S. used
government-to-government damage control, apologies to offended friends
and stony weathering of the storm with apparent foes, all the while
maintaining a disingenuous ‘Look, no hands!’ posture, leaving it to
citizens to call for the head of Julian Assange and block donations to
WikiLeaks, and to Swedish prosecutors to delve into private conduct and
come up with sexual assault charges behind which it is impossible not
to smell conspiracy. Frankly, if not, why not?

The anger does
slip through from time to time. But as Australian Foreign (and former
Prime) Minister, Kevin Rudd – perhaps stung into action on behalf of a
citizen to whose defence his government ought to have sprung as soon as
the rabid right in the U.S. started calling for Assange’s
assassination, by some less than complimentary remarks about him in the
cables – pointed out, the fault lies with the U.S. and its outraged or
disaffected citizen – possibly intelligence analyst Bradley Manning –
who took and then leaked the relevant material. And of course, the
system that allowed so much information to be gathered together in the
first place – a bonus of the post-9/11 push for joined-up government.

It goes without
saying – particularly when Manning has been held in solitary
confinement for seven months – that a lot of double standards have been
exposed, but there is not really anything remarkable in these
contradictions, obvious and glaring as they are to the whole world.
Instead, here in Nigeria, one can’t help wondering: if the WikiLeaks
source acted out of outrage at his government’s actions and policies,
where are our own outraged moles? Or ‘disgruntled elements’?

Remember the
Members of Parliament expenses scandal that consumed – and for a time,
defined – British political life from 2009 until that country’s general
election in May this year? Unlike Nigeria, Britain does have Freedom of
Information laws, and it was in response to a request under this
legislation that its parliament had to reveal details of MPs’ expenses.
To comply with the High Court ruling ordering the release, the
Stationary Office was censoring (or, to use the word of the moment –
‘redacting’) the list so that only the final amount agreed to be paid
would be revealed.

But in order to
earn money with which to buy functional equipment for use in
Afghanistan, soldiers on leave from the war there were having to
moonlight by doing guard duty at – among other places – the Stationary
Office. The MPs’ grasping insistence on claiming for every bar of
chocolate eaten on government time, and numerous little and large
luxuries was in such contrast to the government’s refusal to find money
to buy the best equipment for soldiers at war, that it stirred a level
of outrage which led a civilian colleague to download the entire lot,
grasping claims, comments and all, and hand them to a former SAS
officer, John Wicks, who sold them to the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Beleaguered MPs
and members of the House of Lords hardly dared to complain. The
revelations caused such general fury that it was easy to accept that
the initial taking of the damning material was occasioned by outrage,
not monetary reward.

We’ve had a lot of
anger here at home too, mostly about our own legislators with the
spotlight temporarily removed from our profligate a-borrowing
executive. But where are our own outraged civil servants and
whistle-blowers? Even if our rulers are being protected by their own
inefficiency (searching as we are, for any government at all, let alone
the joined-up kind) if the Pentagon Papers had to be physically
photocopied and carried out of the Pentagon in the 1970s, where are our
own documents and details of projects – parliamentary and executive,
contract awards?

Surely the
nationwide black-out that is heralding President Goodluck Jonathan’s
promise of electricity for all (in, er, May 2011) isn’t preventing a
similar manual approach in 21st century Nigeria? Where is the outrage
within our own corridors of power?

Having refused to
sponsor or pass access to information laws at the federal level (kudos
to Lagos State for its efforts at state level), our rulers should not
try hiding behind the U.S. response to the WikiLeaks saga to justify
their own opacity and lack of transparency: their secrecy is mostly
about money and corruption, not about national security or
international relations. The American reaction certainly reveals their
belief that not all leaks are good. But not all leaks are bad either.
The declension of the appropriate verb goes something like: he betrays,
you leak, I whistle-blow.

The saga of the recent stolen elections of Cote
d’Ivoire is both a nightmare and a blessing for Africa. Mr. Gbagbo is
not the president of Cote d’Ivoire, whatever he might think and however
many unarmed civilians the Ivorian army may kill.

It is a nightmare because, if Mr. Gbagbo is
allowed to stay in office, African elections lose credibility. Why go
to the voting booth in any African country if the loser can use armed
force to remain in power? In essence, Mr. Gbagbo is attempting a
civilian coup d’etat.

It is a blessing so far because the Ivorian
electorate and African states have spoken with a rare unanimity against
the naked theft of power by Mr. Gbagbo and his supporters. That voice
of unanimity heralds the end of “African solutions” in which
governments of national unity allow electoral thieves and their victims
to share power in an uneasy coalition.

We have a nightmare of a journey to walk in Cote
d’Ivoire before Cote d’Ivoire’s real president assumes office. That
nightmare could last several months. Mr. Gbagbo is determined to use
military force to quash his opponents. Three days ago, soldiers in
Abidjan killed at least six individuals. Despite the imposition of
sanctions against Mr. Gbagbo and his entourage, he knows that it is
unlikely that the international community will impose sanctions to
impede the daily activities of Ivorian individuals and businesses.
Thus, Cote d’Ivoire will be able to earn foreign exchange to pay for
imports.

Impeding the ability of Cote d’Ivoire to earn
foreign exchange imposes huge costs on the CFA Franc zone because Cote
d’Ivoire accounts for approximately 40% of that Francophone West
African Economic Zone’s exports. The loss of 40% of that zone’s foreign
exchange earnings would necessitate a devaluation of the CFA Franc
against the Euro, leading to high inflation throughout that zone and
imposing unexpected losses on French-controlled businesses.
Nevertheless, it is easily predictable that Cote d’Ivoire will default
on its external debt if Gbagbo remains in office for several months.
Cote d’Ivoire will do so to conserve foreign exchange.

It is one thing for Mr. Gbagbo to desire to stay
in office despite his defeat. It is another for his Ivorian military
and civilian supporters to remain steadfast in their support. Those
supporters will have to weigh carefully the possibility of a trial for
post-electoral violence and human rights abuses before the
International Criminal Court after the departure of Mr. Gbagbo from
office, whether that departure takes place in 2010 or in 2015.

The December 15 issue of summons by the
International Criminal Court for six Kenyan politicians and civil
servants to answer charges of committing crimes against humanity should
give Mr. Gbagbo’s supporters food for reflection. After all, Charles
Taylor, the former leader of their neighbour, is now on trial before
that very court. The more violence and deaths inflicted by the military
of Cote d’Ivoire, the higher the likelihood that its leaders will end
their lives in some foreign jail. Consequently, I doubt that members of
Mr. Gbagbo’s entourage will remain united in their support for him for
too long. If I had to guess, I would give their current unanimity a
shelf life not exceeding six months.

Mr. Gbagbo hopes that the current firm stand of
the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and
the United Nations will wither in the next six months of military and
police intimidation. The position of West Africa’s regional powerhouse
– Nigeria – is paramount. Nigeria’s domestic politics favour a tough
position against Mr. Gbagbo during its 2011 election season. President
Jonathan is able to project the image of a statesman indifferent to
religious origins by supporting the assumption of actual power by
President Ouattara. Mr Ouattara is a Muslim from the north of Cote
d’Ivoire. If Nigeria votes for a Northern president to replace
President Jonathan, then its position against Mr. Gbagbo is likely to
continue after the expiry of the current Jonathan term of office.

Let us turn to Cote d’Ivoire’s neighbours. They
have no domestic reason to change their current position of hostility.
Except for the Liberians, most of Cote d’Ivoire’s neighbours have
ethnic kinsmen in Ouattara’s camp; not Gbagbo’s camp. So, it is
unlikely that Gbagbo will find Ecowas changing its tune in the next six
months.

The Gbagbo nightmare is likely to end in a good
way for Africa if Africans remain united. Its end will spell good
riddance to dictatorial rubbish!!

It came at 5pm on the dot; a rude awakening from
someone pressing insistently on the bell at the front gate. Like Lagos,
the inhabitants of Johannesburg’s suburbs live behind high walls,
topped with electrified fencing, backed up by subscriptions to
emergency response security services and on top of that ringed by 24
hour community automobile street watch patrols. The threat of crime is
constant in these parts as always when you have people with lots of
money on one side and those with very little on the other.

But perhaps it is also the constant presence of
the forces arrayed against crime that makes you so mindful of it. Maybe
that is a good thing. I know when I am faced with complaining South
Africans I say to myself at least you guys have someone to call.

The ringing at the gate though was of a different
nature. I hesitate to say it was criminal per se but my thoughts did go
there. The voice that came over the intercom wasted little time after
the loud and effusive greeting to make its intentions clear. It was my
friendly neighbourhood garbage man coming to demand his Christmas gift.

December had barely begun; I think we were just a
day into it. Schools were due to close on the 3rd and the children were
not yet home so it could not have been any later that December 1.
Besides that, it was a Wednesday, midweek. My garbage men collected on
Friday mornings. Exasperated at being disturbed from my peace I
shouted, it is too early. I am not ready and dropped the earpiece.

The next day same time, 5pm on the dot the ringing
came again and I could hear from outside the voices on the street and
surmised that this was a group of usurpers trying to steal a move on
legitimate council workers by striking early.

So this is what it has come to; the season of
goodwill and giving has become a time to demand, importune and harass,
in effect do what you can to get as much as you can.

Am I being churlish? I don’t know. I remember a
time when a greeting was just that. I remember being chided for not
rushing to greet my elders first and being slow to utter those words
that were at the root of social interaction: acknowledging a person’s
humanity is acknowledging yours. I am because you are and this is the
thread that unites and gives us value.

It is a recognition that takes on deeper meaning
in certain contexts. Away from home the nod of acknowledgement signals
shared roots to a mother continent. In another kind of gathering the
uniting bond can be the agreement over shared values.

But the debasement of the generous acknowledgement that we define as greeting has been going on for a long time too.

‘Good evening, sah’ is an invitation, with a
price, or should I say many prices. God Bless you Aunty is not an
endearment brought on by the effect, as you may imagine, of the pure
and utter goodness shining from your face. It can just be request for
money.

You may think that this perfect stranger is simply
expressing the traditional fraternal goodwill members of a community
are supposed to have for each other. You are at a wedding or a funeral
and some lady who looks like your favourite aunty rushes up to you and
pins a rosette on your bodice, and you think what a pleasant touch
until you get a shock at the look that greets you when your hand does
not do the expected and reach instinctively for your purse, or inner
pocket of your agbada as the case may be.

And then those praise singers and drummers who
have done some natural googling of you. If you have to pay for praise
can it be genuine?

These are the times when you hear about a
politician’s skill at counting and talking at the same time one hand in
his pocket flicking silently through notes, his eyes fixed on the
person he is addressing as if there is nothing else on his mind. Then
there is the deft move as the roll of notes is delivered to the
expectant hand and he moves on, campaign complete.

So now a stranger greets you and you are
immediately wary. Even, “I am believing in God,” often just leaves out
the additional, “to work through you to help me.” You meet fellow
Nigerians abroad or even at home and you close up, taking careful
scrutiny before you begin to divulge any information that could end up
in a 419 scam.

The world is just is not the same anymore.