Writing about Nigeria
in these days of a menacing or threatened enactment of a Hate Speech law can be
irksome. The writer may be unable to properly delineate the terrain of a
possible infraction of the law even as he attempts to give rein to free speech
or truthful exposition. There is also the difficulty of plotting the graph
between transcendental truths and the fraying of irritable nerves or temper of
persons in authority.
An accustomed tendency to be infatuated or be deprived of
judgement regarding the passion to speak the truth about the actual state of
affairs in the country is thereby unfortunately hampered or put on hold.
Inimitable Prof. Wole Soyinka, in expressing his moral opposition
way back in 1984 to the Buhari regime’s strange jurisprudence which
un-dialectically posited that truth was not enough to uphold or situate one’s
judgment of issues, has reminded us of the ornate character of truth. Said he,
characteristically:
“Truth is unambiguously ethical
and here is a regime which decrees
that the presentation of truth does
not suffice to validate one’s ethical
commitment.”
and here is a regime which decrees
that the presentation of truth does
not suffice to validate one’s ethical
commitment.”
Here we are talking about a country that may
only be held together or rebuilt by open, truthful discussions, insightful analyses
of issues and no-holds barred denunciation of cant regarding her desultory
affairs. Chinua Achebe has morbidly described Nigeria as “an example of a country
that has fallen down; it has collapsed…” Nigeria may therefore be rebuilt or
re-positioned from its present state of chaos, poverty, corruption and of the
paradox of “a nation conceived in hope but nurtured by its own leaders into
hopelessness.” She may be helped only by a sustained commitment to the values
of morality, responsibility, truthful discourse and ability. Even as writing
about Nigeria
is a most engaging assignment, it can be confounding or frustrating.
Many ethnic groups’ perception of
marginalisation from the national political arena is a continuing source of
tension, agitation and unease.Nigeria has been gratuitously credited with or
lulled to sleep regarding a presumed propensity of an uncanny ability to pull
back from the brink each time i.e. ability to rebound from adversity even in
the face of contrary reasoned postulation or prediction. But it must be
recognised that the various recurring strains and stresses that are the
characteristic afflictions of the Nigerian nation are sure to make her fabric
tear, wrinkle, rumple or crack at the seam. Some have jocularly found
metaphorical analogy for the situation in the popular local parlance or lingo
of ”one day, one day, monkey go go market, e no go return,” to suggest that the
country may run into brackish waters or out of luck some day.
The Nigerian political system’s inability to
deal with its fiscal challenges, for instance, is compounded by the absence of
a Left-Right ideological polarisation of the National Assembly or of the
country’s politics generally; and also by the un-exercised power of entrenched
interest groups. Trade unions, the organised private sector, civil society
organisations, etc. are unable to exercise an effective veto on legislation
that are injurious to their vocation, take-home packets or their bottom-line.
Even as it is legitimate for citizens to defend their interests in a democracy,
it is important that at certain points this defence should be pursued with
reasoned combativeness or “aluta”. The rising level of populist anger is truly
reflective of the social reality that is conflictive with the government’s own
legitimating objectives or principles.
It is the consequent result of the chasm
between the ideals of governance and the practical reality of increasing income
and wealth inequality. Our system has remained illegitimate as the values of
hardwork and honest living are generally held in derision or scorn. It has
failed to ensure a growth pattern or a steady development of the community or
individual. Research has shown that a society that fails to confront a major
fiscal or political crisis, through serious institutional reform is tempted to
resort to a host of short-term fixes that eventually corrupt its own
institutions. Many examples confirm this position. There is, in Nigeria , a
gnawing institutional inertia compounded by the present government’s
slow-witted or slow-moving approaches to urgent issues of state. There is a
worrisome emergent or creeping delegitimisation of the Nigerian state.
The problem of implanting modern institutions
in the Nigerian society is made even more exacting as political choices do not
revolve around ideology or policy. Voters by and large make their choices based
on parameters other than programmes and policy positions. The result has been
chaos as voters do not vote for political programmes; rather, they support
their kith, tribesman or his comprador agent who is believed to be able to use
his influence to direct government resources back to their homeland. Despite
the existence of a national government, with all the trappings of seeming
sovereignty, e.g. a flag and a standing army, few Nigerians have a sense of
belonging to a larger nation outside of their tribal homeland.
The on-going scenario of decamping of notable politicians from one party to
another, particularly those in the National Assembly, has added a new dynamic
to the process of social change that will have huge political consequences.
This Nigerian experience is one of the ways political development occurs in the
contemporary world. It should not be decried as primitive or backward simply
because of its occurrence. Political development itself implies movement beyond
patrimonial relationships and personalistic politics. Practices like we are
currently witnessing have survived in many places and are sure to have a strong
foothold in this clime.
Serious difficulties encountered in the effort
to construct a modern state should not be shied away from but must be
confronted headlong. Our weak political institutions may well be headed for a
major test of their adaptability.
A system that was conceived around a diffident
conviction that concentrated political power constitutes an imminent danger to
lives and liberty of citizens, can ill-afford the absence of a range of checks
and balances symbolically represented by an alert official opposition.
Different parts of the government have been constitutionally fashioned to
prevent any of them from exercising tyrannical control. This, it must be noted,
does not dis-allow the exercise of state authority when the need arises as
there is always the existence of a social consensus on political ends. In the
horizon however is a dreadful emerging elective dictatorship in the form of an
over-bearing or imperious Executive. Our present dreary situation is rooted more
in the immediate sense of our exigent political practice even as the country’s fortunes,
future and destiny appear irreparably impaired, weary or worn particularly
under a desultory, rambling or loose government.
No comments:
Post a Comment