I don’t envy President Muhammadu Buhari. The sheer enormity of the burden on the leader of a nation like Nigeria is certainly not a thing to trivialise or dismiss with the wave of the hand. Before Buhari’s emergence as president, there were issues that threatened the very existence of the nation and had eaten deep into the very fabric that should hold us together. All these issues preceded the administration of President Buhari. True.
However, and sadly too, nothing much is being done to build this slowly but steadily disintegrating and dysfunctional nation. Every of those fault lines that threaten the nation are daily accentuated by the action and inaction of the Buhari regime. There is a clear lack of willpower to arrest the decline. To this end, we have been regaled with stories of denials and blame trade that will ultimately do no one any good.
Former President
Olusegun Obasanjo and Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, were in the news
again. Though there is no love lost between them, they have managed to agree on
one issue, the frightening and delicate descent of the nation into a deep or
seemingly bottomless chasm.
Obasanjo again, stirred the hornet’s nest
when he gave a damning verdict on the APC government led by Buhari, declaring
as he had done severally in the recent past that the nation is drifting into a
‘failed and badly divided state’ under Buhari. This, according to him, is owing
to the “mismanagement of diversity and socio-economic development of our
country.”
Obasanjo,
who spoke while delivering a paper entitled “Moving Nigeria Away From Tipping
Over” at a consultative dialogue in Abuja, said, “Old fault lines that were
disappearing have opened up in greater fissures and with drums of hatred,
disintegration and separation and accompanying choruses being heard loud and
clear almost everywhere.
“I
do appreciate that you all feel sad and embarrassed as most of us feel as
Nigerians with the situation we find ourselves in. Today, Nigeria is fast
drifting to a failed and badly divided state, economically our country is
becoming a basket case and poverty capital of the world, and socially, we are
firming up as an unwholesome and insecure country.
“It would
appear that anybody not dancing to the drum beat nor joining in chorus singing
would be earmarked as ethnically unpatriotic or enemy of its tribe or
geographical area. In short, the country is fast moving to the precipice.
“Before
continuing, let me say that we must remind those who are beating the drums of
disintegration and singing choruses of bitterness, anger and separation that if
even Nigeria is broken up, the separated parts will still be neighbours. And
they will have to find accommodation as neighbours or they will be ever at war.
And those who prevent justice to be done invite violence to reign.”
However, in its reaction, the presidency, in a statement by presidential
spokesman, Garba Shehu, described Obasanjo’s action as “attempts to divide the
nation while President Muhammadu Buhari continues to promote nation-building
and the unity of Nigeria.”
But,
backing the ex-president, Prof. Soyinka who had also made similar statements in
the past said the country is more divided as never before under the current
administration.
Soyinka
in a statement signed last Tuesday, entitled, “Between ‘Dividers-in-chief’ andDividers-in-law,” said, “I am notoriously no fan of Olusegun Obasanjo, General,
twice former president and co-architect with other past leaders of the
crumbling edifice that is still generously called Nigeria. I have no reasons to
change my stance on his record. Nonetheless, I embrace the responsibility of
calling attention to any accurate reading of this nation from
whatever source, as a contraption teetering on the very edge of total
collapse.”
The Nobel
laureate stated that on Africa Day, May 2019, organised by the United Bank of
Africa, he similarly seized an opening to direct the attention of the current
government to warnings by the ‘Otta farmer’ over the self-destruct turn that
the nation had taken, urging the wisdom of heeding the message, even while
remaining wary of the messenger.
He lamented that
his advice seemed to have fallen on deaf ears and in place of reasoned response
and openness to some serious dialogue, what this nation has been obliged to
endure has been insolent distractions from garrulous and coarsened
functionaries, apologists and sectarian opportunists.
“We are
close to extinction as a viable comity of peoples, supposedly bound together
under an equitable set of protocols of co-habitation, capable of producing its
own means of existence, and devoid of a culture of sectarian privilege and will
to dominate. The nation is divided as never before, and this ripping division
has taken place under the policies and conducts of none other than President
Buhari – does that claim belong in the realms of speculation?
“Does
anyone deny that it was this president who went to sleep while communities were
consistently ravaged by cattle marauders, were raped and displaced in their
thousands and turned into beggars all over the landscape? Was it a different
president who, on being finally persuaded to visit a scene of carnage, had
nothing more authoritative to offer than to advise the traumatised victims to
learn to live peacefully with their violators?”
The verdicts of these elder statesmen can only be faulted by those who have
chosen to deceive themselves. We have for the umpteenth time submitted that the
greatest disservice that anybody can do any government in power is to continue
to massage their egos in the name of patriotism. The real patriots are those
who would speak truth to power knowing that the nation belongs to us all and
that whatever we make of it would shape our collective destiny as a
nation.
The
Fragile States Index, FSI; formerly the Failed States Index, produced by Fund
For Peace (FFP), a United States think tank, is a critical tool in highlighting
not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in
identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of
failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, the FSI —
and the social science framework and software application upon which it is
built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict
accessible to policy-makers and the public at large. The list aims to assess
states’ vulnerability to conflict or collapse, ranking all sovereign states
with membership in the United Nations.
Controversy
over the “failed state” terminology in the index’s name contributed to change
in 2014, with a shift from the Failed States Index to the Fragile States Index.
Critics had argued that the term established a false binary division, or false
dichotomy, between states that were salvageable and those that were beyond
recovery.
At least
that would bring some comfort to us as our case cannot be said to be beyond
redemption. However, 12 conflict risk indicators are used to measure the
condition of a state at any given moment. In the list of indicators used are;
Security Apparatus, Factionalised Elite, Group Grievance, Economic Decline and
Property, Uneven Economic Development, Human Flight and Brain Drain, and State
Legitimacy.
Others
include Public Services, Human Rights and Rule of Law, Demographic Pressures,
Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons and External Intervention.
A look
into some of these indexes as published by FFP for 2019 by any dispassionate
person would bring these realities home.
Let us,
for the purpose of this exercise, briefly highlight some explanations on some
of them as given by FFP: The Security Apparatus indicator considers the
security threats to a state, such as bombings, attacks and battle-related
deaths, rebel movements, mutinies, coups, or terrorism. The Security Apparatus
indicator also takes into account serious criminal factors, such as organised
crime and homicides, and perceived trust of citizens in domestic
security.
The
Factionalised Elite indicator considers the fragmentation of state institutions
along ethnic, class, clan, racial or religious lines as well as brinksmanship
and gridlock between ruling elite. It also factors in the use of nationalistic
political rhetoric by ruling elite, often in terms of nationalism, xenophobia
and communal irredentism.
The Group
Grievance indicator focuses on divisions and schisms between different groups
in society – particularly divisions based on social or political characteristics
– and their role in access to services or resources, and inclusion in the
political process. Group Grievance may also have a historical component, where
aggrieved communal groups cite injustices of the past, sometimes going back
centuries, that influence and shape that group’s role in society and
relationships with other groups.
Economic
Decline indicator considers factors related to economic decline within a
country. For example, the indicator looks at patterns of progressive economic
decline of the society as a whole as measured by per capita income, Gross
National Product, unemployment rates, inflation, productivity, debt, poverty
levels or business failures.
The Human
Flight and Brain Drain Indicator considers the economic impact of human
displacement (for economic or political reasons) and the consequences this may
have on a country’s development. On the one hand, this may involve the
voluntary emigration of the middle class – particularly economically productive
segments of the population such as entrepreneurs, or skilled workers such as
physicians – due to economic deterioration in their home country and the hope
of better opportunities farther afield.
The
Public Services Indicator refers to the presence of basic state functions that
serve the people. On the one hand, this may include the provision of essential
services such as health, education, water and sanitation, transport
infrastructure, electricity and power, and internet and connectivity. On the
other hand, it may include the state’s ability to protect its citizens such as
from terrorism and violence through perceived effective policing.
Finally,
the External Intervention Indicator considers the influence and impact of
external actors in the functioning – particularly security and economic – of a
state. On the one hand, External Intervention focuses on security aspects of
engagement from external actors, both covert and overt, in the internal affairs
of a state by governments, armies, intelligence services, identity groups, or
other entities that may affect the balance of power (or resolution of a
conflict) within a state. External Intervention also focuses on economic
engagement by outside actors, including multilateral organisations, through
large-scale loans, development projects, or foreign aid such as ongoing budget
support, control of finances, or management of the state’s economic policy and
creating economic dependency.
Perhaps,
of all the 12 indicators listed above, the only one that may be open to debate
as it relates to our situation as Nigerians, may be the one on external
intervention, which again still applies to our case as the current rising
proclivity to borrowing and the feared neo-colonialism plot of China in Africa
is also giving many reasons for concern. All these are realities that cannot be
disputed except by those who have made deceiving themselves a favourite
pastime. But is our case irredeemable? The answer is an emphatic NO. Yet, there
can only be a way to getting ourselves out of this dungeon, and that is by
telling ourselves the truth.
Is
Obasanjo a saint? Certainly not, if anything, he too missed the opportunity of
establishing for us the much desired institutions we so badly require. He
abused institutions like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and
used it as a lapdog to hunt his perceived enemies. But then, we still can
concede to him that even some in his government, like Tafa Balogun, the former
Inspector General of Police, were convicted under his administration for
corruption; a thing we are yet to experience under this regime.
Be that
as it may, the Presidency should be more accommodating and learn to work with
some criticisms in order to achieve its set goals. For instance, when Ibrahim
Magu, the suspended EFCC boss, was first accused of malfeasance, by the Eighth
Assembly, a government that is touting its fight against corruption should have
immediately set machinery in place to investigate those allegations, rather
than shielding him until the personality clash between him and the powers that
be, finally led to his investigation by the Presidency.
If after
ranking as the most-worsened country in 2017, according to FFP, Ethiopia has
staged a remarkable turn-around in 2019, ranking as the most-improved country
in the wake of the ambitious reform agenda of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed that
has led to more political and social inclusiveness, breaking down the previous
ethno-centric system that the country endured for decades, why can’t we? We can
achieve a democratic and egalitarian society, where all are equal before God
and the law and where appointments are made taking the pluralistic nature of
the country into consideration. But this cannot be achieved through rebuttals
and diatribes but through hard work and sincerity of purpose.
*Okoh, a commentator on public issues, is a columnist with Daily Independent newspaper
No comments:
Post a Comment