"Well, one thing, which was working before, but not adequately institutionalised, was a system in which the North exercised political power and the South exercised economic power." Ali Mazrui
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73084:how-nigeria-can-overcome-its-security-political-challenges-by-mazrui-&catid=176:newspeople-a-goodpeople&Itemid=703
How Nigeria Can Overcome Its Security, Political Challenges, By Mazrui
In an exclusive interview with MARCEL MBAMALU in Lagos, renowned Kenyan scholar and thought leader, Professor Ali Mazrui, who was a guest speaker at the Second Arc. Goddy Jidenma Public Lecture, where he spoke on "Democracy and the politics of Petroleum: Comparative African perspectives," reflected on how Nigeria could solve its current security and political challenges. Excerpts.
YOUR controversial position on certain cultural and political matters has often put you on a warpath with other African intellectuals, including the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka; could you give an insight into what informs your stance on those?
Once you try to identify issues in ways, which are different, unusual and which are a departure from the mainstream, you are already entering into a domain, which is likely to be controversial.
I describe Nkrumah as a Leninist Czar. Dr Nkrumah, one time, was a Leninist in his ideology but his style of rule was often monarchical and I wrote an article in a magazine called The Transition which was at the time based in Kampala which now is about to celebrate its 50th anniversary.
Nkruma had a lot of admirers and fans and though my article was positive about him, it also drew attention to what was negative about him.
Terrorism seems to be taking a dangerous shape in Africa — the menace of Boko Haram in Nigeria and insurgency in parts of Kenya of the Somalian Al-Shabaab terrorist group. What, in your opinion, are the remote and immediate causes of these unrests in a continent that was once peaceful?
It is a consequence of a failed state. Somalian people got a bad deal and now the bad deal is from their own people. In general, it is a terrorist movement against Somalia, and now it has provoked reactions in Kenya, which is an authentic military reaction. One thing with handling the terrorism in that manner is that it does attract more violence in the streets of Nairobi potentially. So, in general, I don't think they are handling it the right way. But the movement itself is a very sad consequence of the failed state.
What, in you opinion, is the actual reason for the emergence of this group?
Very often, when people are driven by political circumstances into acts of desperation, they legitimise it through aspects of their culture or through an ideology of some kind.
So, Al Shaabab is really a movement of the youths demanding attention and using Islam as part of their justification for what they do. Many of them don't come from poor people (some of them come from the United States) but they witnessed a society, which has collapsed in Somalia, and some of that arouses not only their discontent but also their anger at the world.
So, there are two bad manifestations of the failed Somalia. One is street terrorism and the other-piracy on the seas nearby, which affects international traffic and affects countries that use the Indian Ocean for legitimate trade. They hold ships and sailors hostage.
But it serves only one good purpose: There is a tendency to exploit the waters of Somalia, not just over-fishing; foreigners come in and throw in their cabbage
Are you saying it has a good side?
Yes; because there is no government to stop them. So they help themselves to fish too much because the government is only in name. And then they get rid of stuff by throwing in parts of the Indian Ocean; so, the Somali people have the right to be angry with that.
Could that have also fuelled the militancy in that area?
Yes, they are definitely part and parcel of the whole situation. The militancy is taking the form of terrorism and piracy, especially on the high seas.
It is only a section of what used to be Somalia because there is another section, which has pulled out on its own — the Republic of Somaliland. That is primarily the former British Somali land, and the one that totally disintegrated is primarily the former Italian Somali Land.
The former British Somali Land, for some reasons, is much more stable. I have been there; they invited me to come and see what they are doing. They relatively democratic and stable and have managed to maintain civility and good standards.
The world is not interested in them; the world is interested in collapse.
You mean the world is interested in collapse?
Yes; they spend a lot of money. The stable Somali Land complained to me bitterly that the world doesn't recognise them because they are not as rich and strong as the former Italian Somali land.
Everybody wants to solve the failed state and totally ignore the stable state. Although it is a poor country their people were not victimising others and they are not resorting to violence.
There seems to be political destabilisation in the entire horn of Africa; how could it be addressed?
The part that is collapsing and producing terrorism is the Somali part of it. But other forms of violence are taking place and so you should regard the horn of Africa as including Sudan.
We split part of Sudan and thought that would end the conflict but that triggers new forms of conflict both within the South (Southerners fighting each other) and between the South and the North.
Generally, people assume that if you have problems and one part of the country sees itself as different, one solution is to split the country.
It doesn't work; every time we do that, we create more problems. The lesson of the 20th century was that when we partitioned the India, we created new forms of conflict within India and Pakistan; when we partitioned Palestine, and we continue to have wars between the Arabs and the Israelis; when we partitioned Ireland, we continued to have problems between Catholicism and Protestants; when we partition Ethiopia and created Eritrea, we had large-scale warfare that was not happening when Eritrea was part of Ethiopia.
So, in general the idea that you solve these problems by partitioning the country shows that we still haven't learnt our lessons.
What then do you recommend for Nigeria that is having related challenges; there are calls for sovereign national conference, with some people suggesting that confederation could be the right form of government for the country in these trying times?
Confederation, as an idea, is defensible. So, I am not opposed to situation where you decide…
What do you recommend now?
It is about what I oppose. I oppose splitting up, so I was against Biafra and against any other effort to split Nigeria. That is not the way to solve it because, as you would have known, if Biafra had succeeded in seceding, they would have been fighting each other within Biafra and there would have been other conflicts between Biafra and Nigeria. So, the question was to treat the people — the Igbos — justly, instead of saying, 'let's go the partition way.'
Given the current situation in the country, in what ways would your position have differed from what it was in the 1960s when the issue of secession of the Igbos came up?
Yes, splitting is not the solution. A lot needs to be done in Nigeria to solve the problems; territorial splitting won't solve them, it is just a continuation of conflicts in other ways.
The only case of a country that split and did not have problems was Czechoslovakia. But even Somalia themselves decided to unite and then decided to split; now, they decided to split into the present situation. They united in 1960 because they had been divided by imperialism.
In Nigeria, there is the call for a National Sovereign conference, do you support it?
Well, that presupposes the outcome of the conference. Meeting when you have already decided that you are sovereign people prejudges the outcome. What are you going to negotiate after that?
But the idea of different segments of Nigeria meeting and saying this is not working, we must decide how we are going to live together is not out of place.
Sovereign national conference in this case supposes that government is not going to appoint the people representing the ethnic nationalities; they would be allowed to democratically select people to represent them at a 'roundtable' conference…
If that becomes the outcome, yes; but you are saying that this is the beginning. If the outcome is we want to negotiate the terms under which you have considerable sovereignty conceded to states or communities, that's fine. But I think starting up by saying, 'we start with this; we demand nothing else', then the risk is that some parts of the country won't enter into negotiation and you already agree on the outcome that hasn't been debated. We have a system in which the different units are already sovereign; it is a major decision, which is worth discussing but it is not proper to start with it. This is what I'm saying.
Do you see the country coming out of its present socio-political upheavals — the Boko Haram menace and others — unscratched?
Yes, there is this problem of relations between ethnic groups and territorial regions, especially between North versus South, and then the relations between religious groups, especially between Muslims and Christians.
There are hardly any secular ideological divisions in Nigeria. So for better or for worse you don't really have left versus right, as in other societies, including the United States (US), where it is left versus right confrontation which has paralysed the legislature.
There are other forces. Ethnicity, Regionalism, Sectarianism are very strong and they are ideas that could be handled if people are prepared not to prejudge as having sovereign states negotiating from the start. So, they are ideas that could be sorted out to find out whether we could deal with it.
How can it be dealt with; what is your recommendation?
Well, one thing, which was working before, but not adequately institutionalised, was a system in which the North exercised political power and the South exercised economic power.
That was very similar to the solution that Malaysia in the 1970s decided to adopt so that the political power will be disproportionately be in the hands of the Malays, and then economic power will be disproportionately in the hands of the Chinese. Before then they literally fought each other, like Nigerians have been doing, with violence.
So, the Chinese said, 'okay, don't interfere with our business life and our role in the economy and we will try and give you extra age in the political power.
White people and Black people in South Africa have a similar deal, which I coined that whites say, 'we have the crown'; and they tell the blacks, 'you have the crown and we keep the jewel.' So, the crown is the political crown. 'You have the crown of political power' and that's why we have had three Black presidents in a row since 1994.
So, the North should keep the political crown and the South the economic power?
Find a formula where Northerners don't feel 'we are marginal in everything,' and the South doesn't feel 'we are totally marginal in politics.'
So, the North should be appeased?
Yes, but the word, appease, is a relative one. The thing is that you have to live together if you want your fellow citizens not to feel marginal regardless of their numbers.
Some people argue the North has held political power for a cumulative of 40 years…
Yes, and the Southerners have had economic prosperity for 40 years. So, the wealth of the society has been disproportionately in Southern hands and political power was disproportionately in Northern hands.
Find a formula where the North could share more in the economy and the South could share more in the polity.
So, you have to identify what is happening, what has happened? There was a division of control of the society, one was controlling the political system and southerners were disproportionately richer and better educated.
There is nothing wrong in the North having the presidency. I have mentioned to Nigerians many times to have a rotating presidency, which Tanzanians have. Yes, Tanzania had a Christian President, Julius Nyerere; and then he directly participated in the Muslim president as his successor, and then the Muslim president was followed by a Christian president and then the Southern president is in his second term as a Muslim president and they have observed the time limits. And it is not constitutional, except that they decided this is way of making the different sections of the population feel they are participants in affairs of the state.
So, I think Nigeria should find something similar on the economy but at the same time find ways of having the political and economic power shared more fairly and economic prosperity and intellectual programme distributed more evenly. I know it is hard for whichever side you belong to.
How can Nigeria specifically resolve the menace of Boko Haram?
Well, you have to get ready to discuss with the people you arrest. The temptation is: "these are bandits and I will kill them or lock them up." But, as it is happening right now in Afghanistan, they are beginning to talk to the Talibans after 10 years of describing them as terrorist and therefore unworthy of any dialogue.
So, government should treat them as lawbreakers?
Oh, they are. But the thing is that, if you have a movement that is continuing in existence and their normal methods of your law enforcements are not working, you have to start thinking of alternatives because if you are the governor or the head of state you maybe safe, but you know very well that a lot of innocent people are dying because they are law breakers, they are bandits.
'Why many considered my friendship with Gowon as offensive'
How would you describe your relationship with African political leaders; do you share some of these views with them?
I lived in Uganda for 10 years. Then, you had ups and downs in my relationship with Milton Obote and my relationship with Idi Amin became dangerous. That's why I'm in the United States because Idi Amin changed
At first I was a favourite of his and I became critical of what he was doing and my own life was in danger. And then with Kenya, which is the country of my birth and my citizenship, most people don't know I am a citizen of Kenya. They think I became an American; it's not true. I'm not an American.
I have been in the US for four decades and, because does not permit dual citizenship, I did not want to give up my Kenyan citizens.
I didn't object to being an American, and I didn't cease to be a Kenyan. For as long as Kenya did not allow dual citizenship, I remained only a Kenyan. Now, the situation has changed; I do have the option of being both.
Under the first two presidents of Kenya— Kenyatta and Moi —some members of my family were locked up but government thought they should leave me because of my international visibility. People thought I would be arrested because I criticised the President saying that it was time for him to go.
Newspapers followed me around, even to the Airports, thinking that I would be arrested anytime.
But they decided they were better off with me out of the country. They decided I shouldn't have a job in the country. Since I had a job abroad, they didn't allow me to have a job in Kenya; they preferred it that way.
But President, Mike Huckabee came, and that became a turning point. He decided to appoint me a Chancellor of one of the State Universities in Kenya and awarded me a First-class National Honour; and then my Television series, which have been shown in Nigeria and other countries many times but had not been shown in my country, was shown on television.
So, things have changed with regards to my status in my country.
Then, you have leaders of other countries. In Nigeria, one of the leaders that became close friend of mine was General Gowon. I became his admirer not only when he was in power but also when he was a student in Britain. I regard it as a mark of humility for someone who has been Head of State to become an undergraduate.
Many Nigerians regarded it as offensive; but I regarded it as a mark of humility that he went to get a degree after being head of state of Africa's largest country in population.
I went to give a lecture and he was in the audience among the students when I first met him. We were on the phone talking yesterday (two weeks ago) and I would have gone to pay my own respect.
He has visited me in the US twice; so, I regard him as a friend more than President Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee has been good to me but I wouldn't say there was any special relationship with him.
Other Nigerian presidents that I have met, including General Sani Abacha, also had good relationship with me.
General Gowon took me to Abacha to introduce me to the Head of State at that time and I used the opportunity to appeal for the release of Moshood Abiola, who had just been taken in at that time.
What happened after that?
It was slightly embarrassing for my friend, General Gowon, because that was not why he introduced me. He didn't take me there to go and appeal for Moshood Abiola. I could tell he was embarrassed and I told Abacha that General Gowon had no idea of what I wanted to discuss with him but that I thought it was in Nigeria's interest to release this man.
'My Disagreement With Soyinka; And How We Resolved It'
IN general, I like to believe I brought Gowon and Wole Soyinka together. I invited both to my University for a conference. I wasn't surprised that Gowon accepted but I was surprised that Soyinka accepted.
Why were you surprised he accepted?
It is because the relationship, which had deteriorated over the years.
That was then…
Now, it is better. Bit it was, at one time, pretty bad. We had public debate that was unworthy of elders to call each other names. It deteriorated at that magnitude.
Why did it have to deteriorate to that level?
That is better answered by Wole Soyinka.
Why?
Because I have nothing against him.
Do you think he has something against you?
He expressed it. Strangely enough, my television series discussed what I regard as the convergence of three civilisations of Africa — African civilisation, Islamic and western — and then he regarded the television series as a propaganda for Islam. It turned out later he hadn't seen the TV series.
It was a reaction almost instinctive. It emerged in the debate that he hadn't seen the TV series... And then, later on, I criticised his friend's TV series. He and I had no bad relations; I was just criticising his product.
You did that to get back at the Professor…
No. I was surprised when Soyinka reacted. What I criticised turned out to have much of black and African support, because much of his TV series alleged that the fault of the slave trade were Africans themselves.
It is called the Wonders of the African World and he interviewed Africans, who confirmed his theses; so, you can always lead Africans to say something
There was no blame for the West?
Yes it (the slave trade) has nothing to do with the White people, the TV series claimed. The debate occurred on the Internet and I had no idea Wole would be one of the strongest supporters of that TV series, because they were friends in Cambridge university, England.
That was not a common knowledge, and when I was criticising it, Wole Soyinka was not in my mind at all.
How did you resolve your differences as you said?
I think by inviting him to my university for the conference. It was a plus for him that he accepted.
I criticised the debate because I could not understand how a TV series about Africa would deliberately leave out Nigeria.
On the slave trade?
No. on everything about Africa. So, he was making fun of me and said how could I feel more about Nigeria than him. And he had some Yoruba proverbs but he didn't know I was married to a Nigerian and that I have children by her.
He behaved as if I was just a Kenyan pretending to love Nigeria.
So, I think when he discovered that in my final answer (most Nigerians didn't know at that time that I was married to a Nigerian), it did have an effect on him.
So, by the time I invited him to come to the State University at New York, he came. I wasn't offering him money. I just said I would like you to come to my conference; we paid his expenses.
Of course Gowon was there; so, I said, 'ok, here is your jailer.'
There was a lot of interest in the audience, because I said it publicly and people clapped and clapped, and we took photographs together.
| Next > |
|---|
No comments:
Post a Comment