A former Presidential Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to
Goodluck Jonathan has written yet another explosive piece to Nigerians.
It's a must read!
Reuben Abati
It
is sad that many Nigerians today talk glibly about the possibility of a
coup or of military intervention in politics. They make it seem as if
this democracy is something we can exchange for something else. We need to be reminded, as we celebrate democracy day 2017, how we got to this very moment, and how precious democracy
is to us as a sovereign people. From 1966 to 1999 (with the short break
of civilian rule from 1979 – 1983) the military dominated the political
landscape in Nigeria. It was eighteen years ago yesterday when our
country returned to civilian rule.
The military
practically overstayed their welcome. The first military coup in Nigeria
was in January 1966, followed by the counter-coup of July 1966, and
then the civil war of 1967-70 which turned Nigeria into a military
theatre more or less as the Federal forces engaged the Biafran
secessionists in a fratricidal war that resulted in the loss of more
than a million lives, starvation and the tearing apart of the Nigerian
fabric. The military would remain in charge of Nigeria and its affairs
for more than 30 years in total, and it is worth remembering that
virtually every successful coup was welcome by the people.
It
was thought particularly in the 70s that the military had a role to
play in many developing countries in Africa to ensure stability and
national discipline. The civilians who took over from the colonialists
in Nigeria and Ghana, to cite two close examples, proved worse than
their predecessors, and hence the usual argument for military
intervention was corruption, and the need to keep the country together,
and check the excesses of the civilian rulers. Military rule was perhaps
closer to what the people had known traditionally and also under the
colonialists. Kings or feudalists who did not tolerate any form of
opposition, or free expression governed the traditional communities and
likewise, the colonial masters were dictators. The military continued in
that tradition. In-fighting among the emergent military elite and the
competition for power eroded discipline, and resulted over the years in
more coups.
To be fair, military intervention in
Nigerian politics yielded some positive dividends, and created a
leadership cadre, and indeed till date, the influence of the military in
Nigerian politics, as seen in the transmutation of many military
officers into professional politicians, remains a strong factor in the
making and unmaking of Nigeria. But by 1990, with the global wave of
democratization, glasnost and perestroika, the collapse of the Berlin
wall, and the greater emphasis on human rights, and the rise of civil
society, the Nigerian public began to subject the military to greater
scrutiny than was hitherto the case.
After a
fashion, every military government presented itself as a corrective
regime, with the promise to hand over power in a short while to
civilians. By 1986, the Babangida administration after a year in office
had launched a political transition programme, beginning with the
establishment of a 17-man Political Bureau. In 1989, the ban on
political activities was lifted. The military junta would later ban
these existing political parties and create its own parties, the Social
Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention.
This
seemingly endless transition programme and increased civil society
activism merely drew more attention to the military and its record in
the public sphere. The people began to demand an inevitable return to
civilian rule. They complained about the human rights abuses of the
military, the apparent domination of power by the Northern elite, the
marginalization of other groups in Nigeria, and the spread of injustice
and inequities.
When a Presidential election was
held on June 12, 1993, and the SDP candidate, Chief MKO Abiola won the
election- an election that was adjudged to be free and fair, Nigerians
felt that the hour of their liberation from military rule had come. But
the Babangida administration refused to announce the final results and
subsequently, it annulled the election. It was a disastrous moment for
the Nigerian military and the administration. It also marked the
beginning of a national crisis that dragged on for six years. The
Nigerian people were inconsolable. In the course of the crisis, General
Ibrahim Babangida had to “step aside”, handing over power to an Interim
national Government (ING), which was soon shoved aside by General
Abacha. Between 1993 and 1999, Nigeria had three different leaders:
Chief Ernest Shonekan, General Sani Abacha and General Abdusalami
Abubakar.
The ensuing struggle for democracy was
long and momentous. Progressive Nigerians and the civil society turned
against the military. The South West declared that it had been robbed.
MKO Abiola fought for his mandate. The international community
ostracized the Abacha government. Nigeria became a pariah nation. The
media was in the forefront of the struggle, and many journalists were
jailed, hounded into exile, publishing houses were set ablaze. Anyone
who criticized the soldiers was framed for one offence or the other and
thrown behind bars.
The progressive forces
insisted that the military must go. “Never Again”, the people chorused.
There had been no other moment like that in contemporary Nigeria. The
martyrs of that people’s revolution were the ones that died, including
Chief MKO Abiola who died in Abacha’s detention camp, the many innocent
persons who were shot by the military, and every one who suffered one
major loss or the other. The heroes were the valiant men and women who
stood up for democracy and justice and opposed military tyranny. The
villains were the soldiers who trampled upon the people’s rights, and
their opportunistic agents in civil society. On May 29, 1999, Nigeria
returned to civilian rule. It was the day of our country’s second
liberation, liberation from the “years that the locusts ate.”
In the month of June, there would be another historic date for Nigerians, that is June 12, a definite milestone in Nigerian democracy
even if the Federal Government has been largely in denial since 1999.
MKO Abiola deserves to be honoured post-humously not just selectively by
states in the South-West but by the Nigerian Government as a kind of
restitution, and by this, I mean a formal declaration, for record
purposes, that he was indeed the winner of that June 12, 1993 election.
This
brief excursion to the recent past is important because it is so easy
to forget. I have met young Nigerians who have never heard of Chief MKO
Abiola. In a country where history is no longer taught in schools, that
should not be surprising. The Nigerians who were born in 1993 are today
out of university, and many of them may never have experienced military
rule. They were still children when their parents fought for this democracy.
Whoever makes the mistake of even remotely suggesting any form of
return to military rule is an enemy of the Nigerian people. Such persons
would be taking this country back to 18 years ago and beyond.
Whatever may be the shortcomings of our democracy,
this system of government has served the Nigerian people well. We may
worry about the form or the shape, or the character of our democracy,
the opportunism and imperfections of the professional political class,
or the weakness of certain institutions but all told, this is a much
better country. The best place for the military is to function under a
constitutional order and to discharge its duties as the protector of
national sovereignty. Any soldier who is interested in politics should
resign his commission, and join a political party, politics being an
open field for all categories of persons, including ex-convicts,
prostitutes and armed robbers. I find the auto-suggestion of military
intervention gross and odious. It is regrettable that those whose duty
should never in any shape include scare-mongering were the ones who
started that nonsensical discussion in the first place.
For
the benefit of those who do not know or who may have forgotten, we once
lived in a certain country called Nigeria, ruled by the military, where
the rights of citizens meant nothing. The soldiers were our rulers.
They were above the laws of the land. The people were their
subordinates. They called us “bloody civilians.” The media was not free.
Your insistence on free speech could land you in jail. Under the guise
of enforcing discipline, the military treated the people as if they were
slaves. Everything was done “with immediate effect!”, including the
suspension of human rights.
Today, democracy has
given the Nigerian people, voice. There is a greater consciousness of
the power of the people, as well as the need to hold persons in power
accountable. The electoral process is still imperfect, but the people
are now supremely confident of their right to choose. But not all our
problems have been solved. For example, exactly 50 years ago today, the
late Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, hero of the Biafran Revolution, led the
people of the Bight of Biafra on a secession move out of Nigeria.
He
said: “…you, the people of Eastern Nigeria, Conscious of the Supreme
Authority of Almighty God over all mankind, of your duty to yourselves
and prosperity; Aware that you can no longer be protected in your lives
and in your property by any Government based outside Eastern
Nigeria/Believing that you are born free and have certain inalienable
rights which can best be protected by yourselves. Unwilling to be unfree
partners in any association of a political or economic nature… Now,
therefore, I, Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, by virtue
of the authority and pursuant to the principles recited above, do hereby
solemnly proclaim that the territory and region known as and called
Eastern Nigeria together with her Continental Shelf and territorial
waters shall henceforth be an independent sovereign state of the name
and title of The Republic of Biafra…”
In other
words, the people of Eastern Nigeria no longer felt free or protected or
respected inside Nigeria. They opted out. In the Ahiara Declaration of
1969, Ojukwu summed it all up as follows: “When the Nigerians violated
our basic human rights and liberties, we decided reluctantly but bravely
to found our own state, to exercise our inalienable right to
self-determination as our only remaining hope for survival as a people.”
The
civil war ended on January 12, 1970 but 50 years since the declaration
of secession by the people of Eastern Nigeria, Igbos are still
protesting about their relationship with the rest of Nigeria. But
significantly, they are not the only ones complaining. Farmers are
complaining about pastoralists, indigenes about settlers, Christians
about Muslims and vice versa, women about men, men about women, youths
about the older generation, the people of Southern Kaduna are unhappy,
other Northern minorities too, the people of the Niger Delta have been
unhappy since the Willink Commission of 1957/58, the other over 400
ethnic nationalities that are not recognized in Section 55 of the 1999
Constitution are also wondering whether they are truly part of this
union…Basic human rights and liberties are still being violated.
Nigeria
remains a yet unanswered question. Democratic rule may have opened up
the space, but our country still suffers from a kind of hang-over. The
people are free, but they are today everywhere in chains: politically,
economically and ethnically. This is the sad part of our democracy, but
the best part are the many lessons that the people are learning about
the meaning, the nature and the cost of the choices that they make or
that they have made.
About the Author:
Reuben Abati is a columnist in The Guardian and former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to former President Goodluck Jonathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment