National Conference and the Ethnic Argument
By
Kunle Fagbemi
mediagurujc@yahoo.co.uk
culled from NEWAGE, February 28, 2005
Of all the powerful arguments mustered against the
convocation of the National Political Reform Conference, the most galling and
shocking are those based on ethnic and sectarian grounds. Both grounds, which
have little to do with real issues, have been canvassed in recent days by the
Abuja-based Daily Trust newspaper in a hysterical and emotive editorial, and by
Mohammed Haruna, a former editor of the New Nigerian and now columnist with
Daily Trust, in fairly restrained and detached language. Both Trust and Haruna
seemed to think the conference would fail because President Olusegun Obasanjo
was prejudiced in his selection of delegates. The president’s nominees were,
according to Haruna, mostly Christians and southerners, especially from the
Southwest.
The nominations to the “ill-defined and hastily convened conference”, argues the
Trust, are lopsided. “This is the first step towards perdition”, the paper sums
up in frightening tones. In terms that are full of rage and dismissive
characterisations, the paper carpets proponents of the sovereign national
conference as “remnants of the dedicated northern- haters from the Southwest,
personified by Wole Soyinka and others (who) want to break up the country to
free the Southwest from the purported drag of Nigeria (represented) more
particularly by the North. The editorial considers that Obasanjo wants to use
the conference to change the system “so as to remain in power to enable him to
deploy federal funds to the Southwest as he has been doing for the last six
years to the detriment of the North and the East.” Perhaps the most robust
accusation against Obasanjo centres on what the paper considers his “dubious
agenda to consolidate the economic foundation of Oduduwa Republic simultaneous
with the deliberate pauperisation of the North and East and even the oil-rich
South-South…” This is all very sweeping and breathtaking.
If the Daily Trust and its columnists must take on Obasanjo, is it inescapable
that they must also drag along the Southwest and even instigate other parts of
the country against it? Was it not the same Southwest that resoundingly rejected
Obasanjo in 1999 arguing that his records in 1976-79 showed how pedantic,
shallow and selfish he was? Was it not the same Southwest that warned the rest
of the country, especially the North, that they were backing an apocalyptic
horseman who would bring stagnation, death and destruction to the country? In
both the column and the editorial, the impression was created that the Southwest
was in active collusion with Obasanjo “to avenge a perceived, or more
accurately, misperceived wrong by a whole section (i.e. the North) of the
country.” It is clear they do not understand the man they describe so
affectionately in spiteful words.
When the paper and its columnist launched into the proposition that cast
Obasanjo as an avatar of sectarian politics, I began to snicker with great and
uncontrollable mirth. Obasanjo a defender and promoter of Christianity? Why, if
Haruna and the Trust really think Obasanjo is capable of such gallantry, then it
should be possible to frock late Gen. Sani Abacha and canonise Lawrence Anini
and Tafa Balogun. Not many people can stand the person of Obasanjo, especially
his disdain for contrary opinion, his self-centred schemes, his interminable
intrigues and his hardness of heart. I myself find it difficult to understand
how one man can harbour in his heart so many turbulent, divisive and
contradictory characteristics. When the rest of the country opted for him, I
shook my head in amazement wondering what magic Obasanjo had worked to send the
electorate into a swoon.
I do not think the Trust represents the North either in part or in whole, for if
it were so, the region would have denounced the conference in ways that are
unmistakable. I, however, believe that any paper or citizen has the right to
dislike both Obasanjo and his method in relation to the efforts to restructure
the federation and write a new constitution. For many reasons, which I have
spelt out in my column, I remain steadfastly opposed to the conference as it is
organised. I have argued that more transparency was required in the selection of
delegates, and that the report of the conference should be presented not to the
president or National Assembly but to the public in a referendum. Perhaps this
may still happen. But at the moment no one in government gives that impression.
If the Trust and its columnists do not like the person of Obasanjo and his
policies, they are at liberty to excoriate him as I have done repeatedly with
relish. But to tie the hatred for Obasanjo to his ethnic stock and dispose of
both in unpleasant and poisonous language does grave damage to fair comment. I
have little patience for Obasanjo’s policies and behaviour, and I have indicated
very strongly my reservations about him in my articles. I had very little
patience for Abacha’s or Ibrahim Babangida’s economic and foreign policies, but
I cannot remember lumping them together with their ethnic stock. More
significantly, however, the Trust and its columnists must grow up. Only the
blind and the anachronistic will not appreciate that Nigeria has moved on and
driven past the era of ethnic and religious jingoisms. Though there are still
religious upheavals in some parts of the country, and though too there exist
some ethnic organisations such as the Odua Peoples Congress (OPC) and Movement
for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), ethnic and
sectarian politics have suffered reduction in prominence in national politics.
And one man that has made this possible is Obasanjo himself. By his
insensitivity, policy misadventures and worship of self, he has so united his
opponents perfectly against himself that it has become obvious what Nigeria’s
problem is. I doubt whether there is any serious analyst, except those trapped
in the politics of the 1950s and 1960s, who still think Nigeria’s problem is
ethnic differences and competition, or sectarianism. These are merely tools of
conflict whipped up by the irresponsible elite whenever members confront a
disadvantage in leadership struggles.
By its apocalyptic headline and arguments, the Trust seems to give wide berth to
ethnic factor as main causal agent for conflict and instability in Nigeria. The
paper also unfortunately lent its esteemed professionalism to the defence of a
highly suspect, and to use its own word, dubious cause, that is, the defence of
the North against other section(s). Do we still have national papers that so
rabidly promote one ethnic or sectarian group against another? This is indeed a
great surprise. As a young journalist I oscillated very wildly between ethnic
and class analyses in the search for an understanding of Nigeria’s developmental
problems. The ethnic explanation, I confess, was the simplest and the best to
grab attention and curry favour. Class analysis was more tedious and had a
surfeit of deprecating but fanciful terms and concepts, some downright abusive.
But as a senior reporter today, I have come to a more rational understanding of
the problems our nation faces, and that some of these problems cannot be
pigeonholed in one-explanation-fits-all theory. More importantly, recent history
teaches us so clearly that the leadership problem we face today has very little
to do with ethnicity. Did Babangida implement his own or the North’s agenda?
When he stole his billions, did Abacha do it on behalf of the North or his
shameless family? When Babangida annulled the June 12, 1993 election, was it
only northerners who helped him take the decision or were there no other selfish
Southwestern and Southeastern politicians in league with him?
It is shocking that in 2005, there are apparently still some people and writers
who take a long look at the Obasanjo government and conclude that he is
implementing an ethnic and a sectarian agenda. Are these people blind? Can’t
they see that all of us, young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor,
Christian or Muslim are suffering equally and greatly from the ineffectual
management of the economy and society by the Obasanjo government? The problem of
Nigeria is not the North, East or West, nor will the solution be found by
putting in power ethnic champions, which the idiotic principles of zoning and
rotation presuppose.
In 1975, Murtala Ramat Mohammed captured the hearts and minds of Nigerians so
effectively by his daring and bold leadership and chutzpah that no one thought
it significant where he came from. In 1993, Nigerians elected a Moslem-Moslem
ticket to the presidency. That election was annulled by a Moslem, but defended
most vigorously by essentially Christian southerners. In the same year, a Yoruba
man was put in power as interim leader, but was stoutly resisted by the mainly
Yoruba Southwest. Do these things not mean anything to our brave analysts and
us?
Let us assume that newspapers no longer have adequate respect for logic, but
what of their hallowed principles of helping to build up and consolidate the
body politic? If they cannot go beyond the surface, they can at least restrain
themselves from instigating one group against another. I think the Trust owes
its readers a follow-up editorial in which the right issues concerning the
on-going National Conference are canvassed. It is time to disavow the
superficial explanations of the problems that confront us and promote rational
and feasible solutions. It is time to leave the 1960s. It is time to grow up and
appreciate that there is no settling the precedence between Obasanjo, Abacha,
Shonekan, Babangida and even Abdulsalami Abubakar, who Mohammed Haruna seems to
think so highly of. If we look very closely, we would see that what unites them
has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion. When they congregate at table to
feast and casually throw ethnic and religious bones at us knowing full well that
we can’t chew them, the last thing on their minds is their different places of
origin. As for religion, they don’t even have any in the first instance in spite
of their pretences.
