The Cost of Identity Politics

The Cost of Identity Politics

Today is Democracy Day, but I shall not dwell on it here as many other commentators will surely do justice to the subject. I will instead discuss on the cost of politics being played along the lines of identities like ethnicity, religion and so on. The trend is quite rife in Nigeria and we shall demonstrate its impact on our national life, with the handling of the Chibok abduction as an example. After the girls were abducted, the natural expectation is that every relevant – I say relevant – information about the abductees be released. Such briefing would not be out of place.

But nothing was released other than the fact that they had been kidnapped; and the simple reason for the non-information is because of their presumed identity as Muslims – at least that much the President himself said in his media chat as noted in my last piece. Kindly note that by this time, whether anybody likes it or not, the president is directly in charge of security in Borno State, as with Yobe and Adamawa, because of the state of emergency declared on them and, therefore, any and everything concerning the security of those states is under the direct purview of the president. But the president, with all the powers of his office, did not provide any such information and in fact never quite made any comment on the abduction until after almost three weeks.

Yet again, in spite of the emergency rule in Borno, even if for the simple reason of morality, the state governor, Alh Kashim Shettima, had and still has a responsibility to his people because it is him that they voted as their governor and he still is the governor with administrative powers in the state. He also has a responsibility to support the president in the restoration of peace and stability in his state. And by the virtue of his expected better understanding of and closeness to his people and their diversities as it were, it also behooves on him to support with every piece of information that will lead to the recovery of those girls and the amelioration of the general security of the state. Therefore he could have provided their details even if unsolicited. But for whatever reason he did not.

In the face of these failures at these two levels, it is only natural that people find a way of letting their voices out and their cries heard if they are in pain of any sort. Chibok is predominantly a Christian population as with the south of Borno State in general. If the Nigerian state and Borno State which have the constitutional responsibility of listening to and addressing their distress fail to do so they would turn to other means to let their voice out. They have an identity as Christian and under this identity, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) came to the rescue: CAN at least gave a voice to their cry by compiling the names of their missing children and presenting them to the whole world. Uncomfortable as the action of CAN appears, it is legitimate.

So then one asks the question: why did Gov Shettima fail to, in his own capacity, produce as little as a list of the abducted girls? Is it simply because of the fact that the emergency rule has effectively stripped him of the role of “Chief Security Officer” of his state? Or did he fall victim of the false thought that, because a crime has a certain identity colouration, information should be withheld – in the name of information management – so as to avoid a backlash or reprisal elsewhere? But it is true that what has brought these backlashes and reprisals is very much because leaders in the past have failed to dispense justice. Leaders, and people in general, think that it is a given that if Muslims kill Christians or vice versa, there will certainly be reprisals or backlash of sorts, but where justice and rule of law reign, that is not true.

Let us look at the converse picture. Everybody now knows that Boko Haram has gone maniacal; they bomb market places and motor parks where innocent people of all persuasions and identities converge. Therefore if Gov Shettima himself had come out with a list of the Chibok girls as soon as the abduction happened, with a call to the FG to go for them, he would have received a hero’s applause because the list would shown the fact that most of the girls are Christian; and he being a Muslim, in spite of Boko Haram putting on an Islamic toga, ready to fight for all of his citizens is a good signal of his commitment to justice and equality for all. He would have won the confidence of the Christians in his state. CAN would not have had to take it upon themselves to present to the world any list. He would have begun to challenge the theory in some quarters that Boko Haram is a grand design by the Muslim north, or even Islam, against Christian elements in Nigeria or Christianity. He would have given the Muslim community an opportunity to be spared of the bad image Boko Haram and their ilk are giving to Islam. But the governor failed, on the moral count, to take advantage of a good opportunity.

The long and short of this is that identity politics ruins any society and the best way to deal with it is with good governance, equality before the law, equity to all citizens and the prompt and transparent dispensation of justice t all times. Otherwise it is a lose-lose situation both for the ones that have the upper hand and those that have the lower.

 


Published on BLUEPRINT Newspaper; May 29, 2014

Identity Albatross and the Dearth of Courage

Identity Albatross and the Dearth of Courage

During the last presidential media chat, when the issue of the over two hundred and seventy abducted Chibok girls came up, the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Dr Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (GEJ) remarked to the effect that upon the occurrence of the kidnap, he requested to be furnished with the names and pictures of the victims. He was, however, told that because of their Muslim background most of them would not ordinarily have their faces shown, hence pictures taken. He said he would later learn from a certain list that most of them, about 80 percent, were infact Christian. To the best of public knowledge, the list that came out which the President probably referred to was made available by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) as presented by Evangelist Mathew Owojaiye, a Kaduna based northern Christian leader. It is interesting to note that we are talking about a group of girls kidnapped from a school while sitting for the West African Examination Council (WAEC) examination: this means that the school should ordinarily have their records, including passport photographs, and that since they are WAEC candidates, WAEC should equally have their most current identity records. The president, however, took the explanation he was given, as he himself indicated, inspite of the fact that, to an ordinary onlooker, he only had to request for all the 2014 registered candidates of Government Secondary School, Chibok – Borno State, from WAEC headquarters in Abuja. As it stands, nobody knows of, neither did the president in his media chat allude to, any other list than the one made available by CAN as at the time of the chat with him. In other words, facts were not made available, and were not demanded for, for reasons of identity.

This piece is not about the administrative decisions taken by the president, and their quality, concerning information about the abductees: it is more about the reality that has become the lot our national life in Nigeria regarding the diverse identities that people this country and how they have affected the way it is and has been run for a while now. In the face of the end of the Cold War with the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism, Samuel P. Huntington, in his 1992 American Enterprise Institute lecture titled the Clash of Civilizations, advanced the theory that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War era. This has proven to be true as politics today is defined in terms of identity almost globally. In the Middle East, it is Israelis versus the Palestinians, Shiites versus Sunnis; in Iraq it is Shiites versus Sunnis, Kurd versus Arabs; in India it is the Hindus versus the Muslims; in Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia it is the Buddhists versus the Muslims; in Europe it is the locals versus the immigrants. There is also the fact that there is generally a contestation between Islam and secularism – or secularity, depending on who is speaking on what. All of these different identities have defined modern day politics around the world with very dire consequences and with huge costs to lives and property.

Identity politics and contestations are not new to Nigeria, and the world at large. In what is today known as Northern Nigeria, the pre-Western colonial times were characterized by serious identity contestations between the Muslims of particularly the Sokoto Caliphate and the many smaller animist populations. It continued into the colonial era until the dawn of independence when the north, under the charismatic leadership of Sir Ahmadu Bello, had to close ranks in order to confront the south in the oncoming national elections. New identity lines emerged along regions through to post-independence period upon which a brutal thirty-month civil war was fought. Lately, these regional political identities have again emerged very strongly – if they really ever blurred at all.

Northern Nigeria, from the 1980s, has witnessed a steady rise in identity political contestations along religious lines. With time this has mutated along indigene-settler identity lines, without losing the religion factor, and all of these have sparked off violent conflicts that have continually deepened the faultlines to precipitous points.

Unfortunately, many northern leaders, instead of courageously finding means to positively deal with the dangerous trajectory, have actually taken advantage of it for personal political gratification. Because of this, reports of several commissions set up to look into some of the various crises in the north have been swept under the carpets and this has further worsened the situation as justice has not been seen to have been done or truth pursued which will form the basis for reconciliation and forgiveness. People still harbour bitterness over such crises as the Kafanchan riots of 1987, the Zangon Kataf crisis of 1992, the many Tafawa Balewa crises, the Reinhard Bonnke motivated killings to mention but a few; all of these because of the lack of courage to rock the identity boat.

The advent of the fourth republic, while holding within it a lot of promise, also carried with it its own share of uncertainties which include the identity baggage and conundrum, also influenced by global events. It was therefore not surprising that votes were canvassed for and won on the basis of such identities as we saw in Zamfara State where Ahmed Sani became governor on the promise of instituting Shari’a in the State if elected. Though already elected, many other northern governors fell into the fray of Sharianization just to gain political mileage, the consequences of which became very dire and further precipitated Nigeria’s nationhood journey. By the way, because of the intransigent flaw that has characterized successive elections in the country, even declared winners have found themselves left with no choice but to always compromise in order to win some legitimacy; therefore they have found themselves abysmally bereft of the incentive needed to address issues and face governance forthrightly, especially as they border on the spikes of identity, hence driving society further into the trenches of sectarianism.

But never, perhaps, in the life of this country has identity politics taken this gladiatorial centre stage at the national level like now. It is made even worse by the fact that we are currently facing a vicious insurgency and, as a nation, we have found it almost impossible to deconstruct the simplest problem because of our thick identity veils through which everything has come to be viewed. A healthy debate appears to no longer be possible as one runs the risk of either offending “one’s side” or the “other side” as one is construed not on the merits of one’s argument but on what identity side one belongs to.

It is against this background that, when comments such as those of GEJ on the facts about the Chibok girls are considered – facts which are supposed to serve in strategizing for the recovery of the girls – one cannot help but conclude that Nigeria has not been very blessed with courageous leadership on the whole. This has been the reason why we have not had accurate census results; this has been the reason why we have not been able to adequately police our borders; this has been the reason why our civil service, which is supposed to be the fulcrum of growth and development, has continually stood in the way of anything that looks like progress due to the lack of courage to purge it. One can go on and on. This has been the reason why we cannot come up with facts and figures on virtually anything, no matter how simple and innocuous, in order to guide public policy formulation.

How can the Commander-in-Chief claim that he was told that he could not have the pictures of almost three hundred abducted girls, sitting for a trans-national examination, on account of religion and then he lets it go? Whose boat is the C-in-C afraid of rocking in this situation of insurgency? Or is he cashing in on some identity window that the situation and the yarn must have provided him? This is not healthy for a nation in such dire reality as Nigeria.

We crave for bold and courageous leadership now more than ever at all levels of government and society: leadership that will never hide behind or cower before any identity.

Published on NIGERIAN NEWSDAY; May 2014

Achaba Ban in Kaduna State

Achaba Ban in Kaduna State

On May 7, 2014, the Governor of Kaduna State, Alh Mukhtar Ramalan Yero, signed into law a bill banning the use of motorbikes for commercial commuter services, popularly known as Achaba, in three major cities of the state namely: Kaduna, Zaria and Kafanchan. The law will take effect on May 21, 2014. For many onlookers, it was a rare show of courage on the part of the state government and, very specifically, Gov Yero himself.

The idea of the ban was mooted much earlier on, during the ebbing days of the late Gov Patrick Ibrahim Yakowa. The simple reason behind the policy was security. The Achaba riders had become a major and present risk to security in the state. With the rise of terrorism in the north, a lot of such acts were being perpetrated on so called commercial bikes. Also, the state experienced horde of commercial motorcyclists who trooped into the state, having been banned from virtually all neighboring cities and states. The effect of that turned out to be not just the sheer volume of lawless bikers on the streets, but many young and energetic men without address rendering transportation services in the city. It was of course not in doubt that most of these Achaba riders, probably over sixty-five percent of them, were not originally from or based in Kaduna state and many never really cared to take up meaningful accommodation, which will demonstrate that they were ready to live in and have proper stakes in the state. Therefore a lot of them slept in the open air, in mosques, in filling stations and within the precincts of shopping plazas around the city. The implication of this is that anything could go wrong, given such a huge army that has nothing to lose and can move on to the next available location without blinking. It even got to the point that these “homeless” commercial bikers allegedly became targets of extortion by errant men of the police force to the point that some resistance of sorts was beginning to brew among the former, which portended grave consequences.

Sometime early last year after Yero became governor, the immediate past Commissioner of Information in the state, Hon Sa’idu Adamu, in a briefing after a state executive council meeting, mentioned the proposed ban as part of the issues discussed. The reaction was deafening against the move from a vocal section of the population within the state, which was quite surprising given the security reality in the state and the north. The state government was stampeded into eating her words, claiming that the commissioner actually went ahead of himself on the issue. This particular recanting by the Yero administration, by the way, gave some quarters in the state the balls that his is a weak government which can always be intimidated in the event of any policy they consider unfavourable: and we have seen such muscles flexed.

Of course the security situation in the country, especially the north, has become more and more dire and it has become clear to the Kaduna state government that, no matter how much it wants to remain politically correct, it has to take some difficult decisions and the ban on Achaba is one of such. While many people have applauded Yero and his government for the courage in this direction and are ready to make the sacrifice needed to better secure our own part of northern Nigeria, there are others who, like before, have harangued the government. They claim that some people are being denied a source of livelihood by that law. True, some people will lose livelihood as a result of the ban but an example will suffice here. War, as bad as it is, provides some people with legitimate means of livelihood, not to mention the illegitimate, and examples abound in Nigeria to this effect. Does that mean that war should continue, or that effort should not be made to stop it, simply because it provides food for some people? By the way can anybody really claim that being an Achaba rider is a long term means of livelihood? On another count, should we continue to wallow in uncouth systems and not seek to progress and modernize as a society simply because people feed from the subsisting disorder?

Right now the commercial bike union in the state, along with Comrade Shehu Sani’s Civil Rights Congress, has taken the state government to court, the outcome remains to be seen. Some of the Achaba boys have started leaving the state in search of other operations areas. Gov Yero himself has promised more tricycles, in addition to the 700 others including cabs and buses already provided since last year, to palliate the immediate inconveniences brought about by the new law. He has also promised more job opportunities in addition to earlier interventions under the SURE-P scheme. He must keep his promises.

Published on BLUEPRINT Newspaper; May 15, 2014

On Kema Chikwe and the Chibok Girls

On Kema Chikwe and the Chibok Girls

Last week, Dr Kema Chikwe, the PDP National Women Leader and erstwhile Aviation Minister, received some very blistering scathes on account of comments she made during a prayer session of the PDP women. In her remarks, she asked the questions: “how did it happen? Who saw it happen? Who did not see it happen? Who is behind this?” She also went ahead to say “Our hearts are bleeding, not just broken. Please God send the Chibok girls home to their mothers and families. We plead with the school authorities to release their names and their pictures. Let God touch the hearts of those who know and have perpetrated this heinous action.”

The first salvo came from the Gov Shettima of Borno State, upbraiding the ex-minister for the questions she raised, thus portraying her as attempting to cast doubt on the reality of the kidnap, which amounts to insensitivity to the immediate families of the victims and the nation at large. He retorted and boasted that they are able to provide the names and pictures of all of the girls.

The APC also jumped into the fray. The Nigerian Tribune, on May 2, reported thus: “In a statement issued in Lagos by its interim national publicity secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party expressed concern that such an incautious and insensitive statement could be made by a woman, a mother, a grandmother and a top official of the ruling PDP over an issue that was undoubtedly the worst tragedy and biggest embarrassment to Nigeria.” Lai Mohammed was quoted as saying “It has been said that politics should not be brought into issues of national security. How can anyone keep quiet in the face of this glaring assault on the sensitivity of a whole nation by a supposed leader of the ruling party, who, indeed, is attempting to politicise a national tragedy, undoubtedly the worst in the history of our nation, if not the PDP?”. As usual, many Nigerians reproved the lady along those lines rather mercilessly.

But come to think of it. By way of an analogy, only last Saturday a friend of mine parked his and went into church only to come out and be confronted with an empty spot; the car had been stolen. He had had to park outside, as with other parishioners, because of the insecurity which has made the church authorities to keep all vehicles outside the church’s perimeter. By the time I called him, he was at the police station to make a report. The police naturally asked him many questions, ranging from the brand of car, its colour, other specifics, to the time in between when he parked the car and when he discovered it missing. They also must have sought to know if he noticed any suspicious movement when he parked the car. These are valid questions if the police must make any headway in the attempt to help my friend recover his car.

To the best of my knowledge, Kema Chikwe was the first to ask any intelligent question since the Chibok abduction; most of us went emotional, reveling in our grief and forgetting how these girls had to be found, after the recanted ruse from the military that most of them had been recovered – which was quite demoralizing. Only for her to be laid on the slab…?!

The fact remains that at every point in time, a society must construct a narrative that captures its reality especially in difficult moments such as Nigeria finds itself today. Whether or not these girls are all found and in whatever condition, this nation must have a narrative on this issue and unless the questions that Kema Chikwe raised are frankly answered, we can never tell the true story. This about Memory; it is the only way by which sound public policies and national pathways are crafted.

It is curious that it would take the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Borno, to come up with a list after almost three weeks of the abduction. It is also curious that the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic would reveal, during his presidential media chat, that he had asked for names and pictures of these abductees and was told that because of their Muslim background, most of them would not have their faces revealed only for him to later realize that 80% of them were infact Christians. It is curious that the number-one citizen would accept that yarn, under whatever impression, when the girls registered for and were sitting for WAEC examination. It’s strange!

Everything in this saga reeks sinister. Therefore, inspite of whatever her motives could have been, by Kema Chikwe and her questions should every Nigerian stand.

Published on BLUEPRINT Newspaper, May 8, 2014

Man-United, Moyes and Nigeria

Man-United, Moyes and Nigeria

This week’s piece is rather light hearted.

Manchester United football club, on Tuesday the 22^nd of April, sacked their manager, David Moyes, after only ten months into his six-year contract. In many quarters, this was not unexpected. This season, 2013/2014, has been a rather tortuous one for the club and its teeming fans. Going to any viewing centre or joint where people come to watch these matches while downing some beers and isiewu, the Red Devils’ fans have become quite subdued lately. They have approached most of their matches this season, even with non-descript teams, with so much reticence and trepidation for lack of confidence as to the likely outcome as it has been the most shambolic season for the club in the last half of a century. It is more disheartening for the team and its fans that they had entered the season not just as the defending champions but favourites. However, their “noisy nieghbours” and sister Manchester club whom they had always trounced, Manchester City Football Club, deafened and out-gunned them. Their home ground, Old Trafford, which hitherto was theartre of dreams, became a theatre of nightmares as they seemed to even lose more matches there. Beer, at joints, became sour and isiewu tasteless in the mouth of fans as all the Chelsea and Mourinho followers became pestilent with their jeering and a mirage of a wind began to fill in the lungs of Arsenal FC fans too long asphyxiated with lack of silverware, to the point of nuisance.

However, only a season ago, Man- United had been the team to beat under the stewardship of the legendary Sir Alex Ferguson. For twenty-six year they dominated English football and the English Premier League trophy practically became theirs, with other teams only managing to have a feel of it for one or two seasons only to return it to the certified “owners”. But like with everything in life, an end must come and Ferguson had to go. He chose Moyes as successor on whom the sobriquet “The Chosen One” was dubbed. One guesses that nobody expected that Moyes would easily fill the shoes left by Ferguson, for they were very big indeed, but as it would turn out, these shoes became just too big for him. People, fans especially, probably did not expect that he would win any trophy and they did not hope for any, at least for now; but at least they expected some promise. They were ready to give him time to build his own system and carve his own niche in the club as it had become clear that United had become Ferguson and Ferguson, United. But as much as the season has gone so far, Moyes never sparked much promise. It is easily conceivable, therefore, that the management of the club lets him go. In life, no matter how low anybody can go, there are irreducible minimums; and for a club of the pedigree of United, Moyes has performed below its irreducible minimum and go he had to.

Irreducible minimums: this is what brings the question of Nigeria into all of this talk about the sack of David Moyes. Even though Nigeria could not quite be said to have flown the heights that Man-United had done before the coming of Moyes, everybody had always seen her potentials and she had towered above many others in Africa and beyond. We have been in this democracy thing since 1999 and it has been absolutely evident that this country has been very under-led and at no time has the impact of this mis-leadership been more manifest than now. This problem is not just at the federal but at all levels of our national life. Just as with United, erstwhile “noisy neighbours” whom, as a nation, we were head and shoulders above and who used to look up to us as big brother now laugh at us and treat us even with disdain and scorn. Small countries around no longer take us seriously. The other time, Robert Mugabe took a passing swipe at Nigeria and it would take the Nigerian government three solid months before they would realize and attempt to respond; an eloquent proof of the quality of leadership in the country.

The difference between United and Nigeria is realizing who the boss is. In a democracy, the people are the boss but the Nigerian people have failed to accept the fact that they are now the boss. These bad Nigerian leaders actually are the ones playing boss. Nigerians have also allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by these bad leaders with religion, ethnicity and all manner of sectarian devices, therefore they do not have the incentive to be able to identify bad leadership and deal with it appropriately.

We must learn to fire people in leadership positions if they fail to deliver regardless of whatever. There must be irreducible minimums, below which we must be prepared to take nothing else. The bosses in Man-United were able to fire Moyes after only ten months into a six-year term. Most offices in Nigeria are for less than six years and so non-performing holders may damn well be fired at anytime.

Published on BLUEPRINT Newspaper April, 2014