Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
The ruling class, challenges of development and electoral reforms in Nigeria
By Dr. Festus Iyayi, University of Benin, Benin City
on the occasion of the celebration of the 50th Birthday of Comrade Tony Iyare in Lagos on Saturday, October 2, 2010.
1 Introduction
Yesterday, the 50th anniversary of the country's independence passed off with a whimper. Although like prostitutes, the country's rulers came out in their plumes and fineries at Eagle Square and counted their blessings to the accompaniment of 21 gun salutes, our celebrated palm wine tapper looked at the scene from his elevated position atop the palm tree and declared, 'what a shame!' What a shame indeed. After 50 years of independence, and given the natural and human resource endowments that, perhaps, no other nation is blessed with in the world, these are what the country can boast of:
· The third largest population of the poor in the world
· A life expectancy of 46 years, down from 65 years that it was in 1960
· Some of the worst health statistics in the world: the highest neonatal mortality rate in the world; the 3rd highest infant and maternal mortality rates in the world
· Monumental corruption
· Adversarial rather than collaborative relations between the different ethnic groups in the country
· Epileptic power supply / low per capita energy consumption
· A worsening and dying educational system
· Collapsed road networks
· Resurgence of cholera and increasing scarcity of potable water
· Conduct of politics as warfare / massive rigging of elections
· A subservient and subordinate role in the global capitalist division of labour
Several reasons have been offered for the dismal performance of the country that include her size, age, corruption, ethnic relations, the capitalist nature of the economy, the place of the country within the global division of capital, etc. While there is no doubt that each of these factors is important, some of them do also beg other questions. For example, why are ethnic relations more adversarial than collaborative? Why is there rampaging corruption? Why has the country remained not just capitalist but has accepted the subservient and subordinate role assigned to it within the global capitalist system? Why has the country failed to evolve into a nation?
I want to use this occasion to focus upon a particular factor that has played the defining role not only in producing the outcomes that we have cited but that also provide answers to the questions that have been asked. In making this decision, I am aware that I may be disappointing the expectations of the organising Committee of this occasion which had asked that I dedicate my speech to the very topical and important subject of electoral reforms. But it is important to recognise that the best electoral reforms and even the existence of free and fair elections can, and sometimes do lead to the death of a nation and its people. For example, between the late 1920s and early 1930s, not only did the Nazis gather enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag, Hitler eventually converted the party's non-majority but plurality status in the Reichstag into the effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933. Six years later, Hitler was involved in a war that defined the Jew and the African as subhuman. If Africans did not suffer the fate of between 5 and 6 million Jews who died in Hitler's Germany and its gas chambers, it was for the simple reason that, unlike now, very few of them, if any at all lived in Germany. Thus the freest election, one person one vote and electoral reforms will make absolutely no sense where the system in place is rightwing, bigoted or even worse as in Nigeria. In a country that is currently ruled largely by an entrenched class of thieves, free and fair elections can amount to no more than allowing the relay of power to be run between different groups of the thieves.
It appears to me then that the more fundamental question about elections in Nigeria has to be not how to have credible electoral reforms or free and fair elections but how to have free and fair elections or electoral reforms that are meaningful in terms of the aspirations, dreams and material needs of the people. We must ask, free and fair elections for whom, for what? Electoral reforms for what, for whom? These questions can only be answered by looking at the conditions that need to prevail for votes to count, for electoral reforms to be meaningful and for free, fair and credible elections to match and fulfill the expectations of the people. From both historical and theoretical evidence, it is clear that for this to happen, at least, two critical conditions must prevail. The first is that there must be a ruling class in place that understands the historical challenges of the context and the responses as well as initiatives that are needed for addressing the challenges. The second condition is that there must also be in place a subordinated class that is sufficiently conscious and organised to pose a continuing challenge to the rule of the ruling class. In appreciation of these facts but also to meet some of the expectations of the organisers of this occasion, I have decided to dedicate this address to the theme of, 'The ruling class, the challenges of development and electoral reforms in Nigeria'.
In terms of the structure of the presentation, I shall begin with an examination of the nature of a class. This will then provide the basis for the discussion of the nature and character of a ruling class. Following from this, I shall then specifically focus attention on the nature and character of the ruling class in Nigeria. The performance of Nigeria's ruling class in the area of elections and electoral reforms will be specifically examined. Since the analysis will show that Nigeria's ruling class does not perform as a ruling class, the question of the conditions that must prevail for this to happen will be analysed. It will be shown that there is a dialectical relationship between the character of the ruling class and the character of the subordinated classes in society. Thus the nature of the subordinated classes in Nigerian society will also be examined. The concluding section of the presentation will draw the implications of this last observation for Nigeria's development imperatives in the areas of the economy, politics and culture. Since I am also aware of the nature of this occasion, I shall attempt to deal with the issues as summarily as I can; anyone interested in joining issues with me will have to wait for an occasion where there is no promise of an after, in the form of some elaborate entertainment.
The nature of a class
While there are debates about what constitutes a class, I will be more interested in this discussion on the characteristics that all classes share. This is not a subject that has been explored in the literature; the more popular exploration has been on the differences between classes. From a philosophical standpoint, it should be clear that once designated a category, then that category must have certain elements in common even if different forms of the category exist. In relation to the category of class, historical as well as experiential evidence indicate that a class:
· Derives from the sphere of production and the organisation of production in society
· Subscribes to a common and shared vision of the nature of society that it wants to create and sustain
· Shares an awareness of itself as a class
· Develops and shares a culture on the basis of this awareness
· Acts in solidarity to advance its interests against the competing claims of other classes within and outside the given society. This does not rule out the possibility of collaboration with similar classes outside the particular society but it captures the essence of a class 'being for itself'
· Has an active interest in power and control and how such power and control can be acquired and increased
· Has and builds discipline into its members not only as a necessary instrument for actualising its interest in power but also for ensuring 'correctness and legitimacy' in the perceptions of other classes
· Is indigenous to the context; even when imported, subordinates others or is transplanted, it claims indigeneity
These characteristics not only apply to both ruling and subordinated classes; indeed, the fact that one is the ruling and another is the subordinated class occurs precisely as a result of differences between them along these common dimensions. Let me take two or three of the above characteristics of all classes and demonstrate how they are realised in the ruling class.
The nature of a ruling class
The ruling class in any society is responsible for leading the development process in the society. It is accountable for the failure or success of society; for the level of development or underdevelopment attained; and for the shame or pride of society. Karl Marx noted, for example, that the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling class. The ruling ideas are often reflected in the vision of the class about the kind of society that it seeks to build and sustain. Material production as well as all other forms of social life will be anchored on and structured according to this vision. Society under the rule of the capitalist is structured around the ideas of private property, the freedom of the market, the supremacy of profit and the incessant pursuit of the rationalisation of every sphere of life. Society under the rule of the proletariat is structured around the ideas of collective property, the subordination of the market and profit to the needs of members of society, and the employment of rationalisation only in so far as it advances the material and spiritual life of members of society.
Historical evidence shows, however, that having a vision is not enough; of equal or perhaps more importance is the idea of 'paramountcy' embodied in the vision. The British ruling class, for example, did not simply share the capitalist vision of society with the ruling classes of France, Spain, Germany and Portugal. Each ruling class within the framework of the vision also sought to be the 'paramount' or pre-eminent capitalist class and therefore the dominant capitalist nation in the world. In Made in Japan, Akio Morita has described how the Japanese ruling class vowed, in the aftermath of the 1939 – 1945 World War, that it would become the dominant capitalist economic power in the world. The Soviet ruling class shared the socialist vision with the Chinese and the Cubans but the Soviet proletariat sought to function in a leadership role in relation to the class of ruling proletariats in the other countries.
While all classes are defined by their relationship to the system of production, a group becomes the ruling class because it organises and controls production in society. Indeed, a class becomes a ruling one precisely because it brings into being a system of production through which it seeks to meet the material needs of members of the immediate and other societies. The more effective such a system of production, the more legitimate the power and rule of the ruling class are in relation to other classes in society. Although a large number of examples can be found in feudal society, many compelling instances are provided in the modern period, the period of capitalism. Thus, in Britain, the transition from feudal to capitalist rule was enabled by the invention of the manufactories by the rising capitalist class. This class went on to use discoveries in science, which it also sponsored, to build the steam engine, the spinning jenny, the canon and modern industry. It built railways, steel plants and established capitalist agriculture. Bringing a system of production into being and sustaining it is crucial for legitimizing the domination of the ruling class over other classes in society.
A ruling class also necessarily has an active interest in power and control and how such power and control can be increased not only in relation to the subordinated classes but also in relation to the ruling classes in other societies. It thus seeks a position of pre-eminence over man and nature both internally and externally.
Internally, power and control are expanded by increasing the material base and wealth of society. As the material base and wealth of society increases, the legitimacy of rule by the ruling class also increases; the ruling class will be able to demonstrate the superiority and power of its vision; it will be able to seduce and mobilise large segments of subordinated classes around its rule and vision of society. This, for example, is the power of the American ideology, or at an international level, the power of the ideology of neo-liberalism, at least, until the end of 2007.
Externally, a ruling class will seek to expand its power by subordinating classes, both ruling and ruled, in other societies. It will create empires. All forms of empire building derive from this logic. The British Empire, whose sun set more or less after the Second World War, derived from this logic. The current American Empire also derives from this logic. It is a logic that makes the exploitation and conquest of other countries a 'legitimate' source of 'food for the dinner tables' in the Empire as Marx once put it. However, not all ruling classes seek to expand their material base and power through building empires: many ruling classes seek to conquer markets rather than territories. We see this today in the examples of Japan, Singapore, China, India, Brazil and even Dubai. In these cases, the ruling class offers to the world its unique skills, creativity and hard work in the form of superior products and services. On this basis, the ruling class not only earns legitimacy but also the respect and even loyalty of segments of subordinated classes in society.
While it is important to take account of the factor of migration, it is the case that a ruling class is usually indigenous to its context. This context will shape not just the character of its rule but more importantly the character of the class. Indigeneity will lend parochialism to the behaviour of members of the class; they will be fiercely loyal to the context and will extol its virtues over and above those offered by other contexts. Thus the British ruling class is British as the American ruling class is American, the French ruling class, French and the Cuban ruling class, Cuban. No matter the circumstances under which it arises, it will claim the context not just as its own; it will be prepared to swear and die in the name of the context.
Finally, while some members of the class may sometimes display bizarre exuberance, ruling classes as a general rule maintain strict discipline among its ranks. Discipline may relate to subjecting itself to and living within, rather than above, the limits of the law. It may also be observed in the way in which members of the class display their wealth and in the display of a sense of morality that pretends to be the standard of society. For example, Queen Antoinette of France was hated and subsequently lost her head to the guillotine during the 1789 French Revolution for her indiscretion and arrogance in asking why the poor would not eat cake if they could not afford the price of bread. A recent example of ruling class discipline is provided by Bill Clinton who had to expose his genitalia to the scrutiny of the American Congress following his alleged affair with Monica Lewinsky. Another recent example is the case of the British Ministers who had to return monies they had illegally collected for personal expenses; some ministers returned as little as GBP 10; others returned thousands of pounds. The essence of these and other examples is to show that members of the ruling class are sensitive to the need to engage in behaviours that ensure 'correctness and legitimacy' in the perceptions of other classes. It does not matter that this correctness will more often than not be hollow and pretentious; what matters is that it forms part of the culture through which the class functions and remains the ruling class.
The exhibition of discipline, provision of a vision, active involvement in production, patriotism on its part or claiming the context as its own, the passion for subordinating nature to the control of man are the qualities in a ruling class that produce the results that we see as development in society. They are the qualities that qualify and enhance the legitimacy of a class to be the ruling one. A ruling class therefore that has no vision of society that is unique to and takes account of its own context; that is only involved in consumption and hardly in production; that has no active interest in increasing its power and control through expanding the material base of society or that undermines this base; that does not claim the context not just as its own but will be prepared to swear and die in the name of the context; or that cannot exhibit discipline within its ranks and therefore acts more with impunity and arbitrariness cannot legitimately be called a ruling class; if it claims to be one, it will be a fake and a failed ruling class. Moreover, it will not only be held in contempt, looked down upon and seen as inferior by the ruling classes in other societies; it will be easy prey for exploitation and domination for these other ruling classes. It will, more or less, be a slave to the ruling classes in other societies. In addition, it will lose legitimacy with the subordinated classes in its own society. In short, it will be ripe for removal and liquidation.
The ruling class in Nigeria
One of the central arguments of this presentation is that the Nigerian ruling class is, properly speaking, not a ruling class, within the framework of the features that we have ascribed to the ruling class; even if it claims to be one, or is described as one, it is a fake and a failed ruling class. Another central argument is that the class is responsible and must be held accountable for the spectacular and scandalous failure of development in Nigeria. The class does not have a vision of Nigerian society that is unique to and takes account of our context; it produces nothing significant; it is involved only in consumption and minimally in production. It has no active interest in increasing its power and control through expanding the material, political and social base of Nigerian society; rather, it undermines this base. It does not claim the Nigerian context as its own in the sense of being prepared to swear and die in the name of the country. It has no discipline and acts with total impunity.
Indeed, borrowing from Aristotelian analysis, Prof Eskor recently described the Nigerian ruling class as 'slaves by birth and by nature'; on the other hand, political economy has also suggested that it can be described as a comprador class; meaning from the Chinese origins of the word, which is that of native servants who go to the market to barter their employers' wares, that it is a class of native servants to foreign masters. I believe however, that it is more to the mark to call the Nigerian ruling class, a class of 'slaves by birth and by nature'. After all, servants who barter their masters' wares in the market may dream of becoming masters themselves some day. By the same token the 'slave by circumstances' may fight for freedom at every opportunity. However, the 'slave by birth and by nature' is happy being a slave and will fight to the death anyone who tries to remove him from his condition of slavery. Like a mad dog that deserves to be destroyed, the Nigerian ruling class fights with a passion to remain as a slave in spite of the overwhelming evidence at its disposal that freedom is superior to slavery.
If this judgment is seen as harsh, it is necessary to remember that the evidence that confirms it as well as the consequences of the evidence are, even more, harsh and overwhelming. To illustrate this, let me take just two or three examples. The first will be in the area of visioning; the second will be in the area of production; the third and final example will be taken from the area of politics.
To start with the example of visioning, the ruling class in Nigeria has no vision for meeting the development challenges of the country. To highlight this fact, we can refer to the cases of countries that were at the same level of development as Nigeria in the late 1950s: Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, and India. Quoting a World Bank Report, Claude Ake (2001:156) has noted that the transformation of these countries was made possible because there 'was a de facto social compact made among the (ruling) elites and between the elites and the people. First, (political) leaders had to convince economic elites to support pro-growth policies. Then they had to persuade the (economic) elites to share the benefits of growth with the middle class and the poor, the (political) leaders had to show them that they would indeed benefit from future growth.' This social compact was constructed on the canvass of a vision to which the East Asian elites collectively subscribed. The elements of the vision included such values as accountability, transparency, the rule of law and negotiated consensus. The context of the new vision and the supporting value system constituted a radical departure from the old East Asian society.
Today, in Nigeria, the political wing of the 'ruling class' has no compact with the economic wing of the class about a development agenda that would assure any kind of growth. Vision 20:2020, a rehash of the failed Vision 20:2010 was at the initiative of Goldman Sachs, a firm of foreign consultants. Against the background of the slave trade, colonialism, neo-colonialism and the constant reference to the black man as the 'white man's burden' or as being genetically programmed to be less in value than people from other races on earth, it does not and cannot speak to the historical challenges of Nigeria as the most populous and, perhaps, most richly endowed black nation on earth. It speaks of foreign investment, millennium development goals, and neo-liberalism. It cannot and does not access nor penetrate the deep traumas of our past and the chaos and terror of our present conditions. It challenges no one, and certainly not the country, to rise from the present ashes. Even members of the ruling class who, sometimes accidentally, stammer in its name do not understand it. It is not their vision because it did not arise from an inner passion to raise the country above the level of their personal greed. The failure by members of Nigeria's ruling class to articulate and share a compelling and authentic vision of development for the country is largely responsible for the widely acknowledged fact that at 50, Nigeria lags far behind countries that were more or less at the same level of development with us in the mid 1970s and which are also far less endowed.
Let us take a second example: that of involvement in production. In 1983, the Nigeria Labour Congress alerted the country to the fact that the oil industry, the mainstay of the economy, was totally dominated by foreign oil companies. Today, the situation has not changed. Although members of the indigenous ruling class applied for and were granted licences to establish private refineries from 2003 onwards, not a single private refinery has been built by private enterprise. The manufacturing sector is also dominated by foreign companies as is the telecommunications sector. In all sectors of the economy, whether service or manufacturing, the basic technologies are imported as are even management systems and ideas that support and drive the technologies. Today, many of the firms in Nigeria, usually foreign, that were involved in one form of manufacturing or another are relocating to Ghana and other places. The financial sector has not only collapsed; there are no efforts being made by the class to solve glaring problems.
It is thus that the ruling class imports even the tooth picks that it uses to pick its teeth at its dining tables. At the same time, a class that cannot manufacture tooth picks, that imports refined petroleum products, bicycles, motor cycles, and textiles rides around in private jets. By the last count, about 50 or more members of the class already owned private jets. The Nigerian ruling class thus has no connection with production and industry; it exports raw materials for cash in much the same way that our past generations of rulers exported slaves for beads and mirrors. Although it claims capital as its god, it cannot bring capital into existence through its own efforts. It is dependent, servile, lazy, and unimaginative. It is frightened of hard work, has a short term orientation and seeks immediate gratification.
I have constantly drawn attention to the fact that, from a psychological standpoint, the Nigerian ruling class is hedonistic. It revels in consumption, self-gratification and pleasure seeking. It rewards itself even when it has no record of achievement. General Danjuma confessed to being 'dashed' an oil block which he sold for USD 1 billion. It is not that he bidded and paid for it and that he earned a profit on an investment. It was donated to him because he just happened to occupy a position in government. We can imagine how many oil blocks and other national assets were simply shared out between members of the class before, during and after the Danjuma case. The history of the privatisation of public assets falls into this category.
Earlier this week in Kaduna, specifically on Tuesday 28th September, 2010 at the Education Conference of the Textiles Workers' Union, no other person than Dimeji Bankole, Speaker of the House of Representatives, confessed, in a rare example of Freudian slips and guilt reactions, the crimes of the Executive Branch of government. He asked, 'Why have things deteriorated so much in Nigeria over the last 30 years?' He answered his own question: 'Because we have allowed the most unserious characters take charge of the most important aspects of government. And we allow this to happen. … There are 13,000 electable offices in Nigeria. 12,000 of these are legislators. 37 are Governors and the President of the country. The answer to the question that I asked earlier is clear: at each election, only 19% of legislators are returned whereas about 95% of members of the Executive are returned. That means that those who ask questions about the conduct of government do not return after each election…
'The Ministry of Works submitted a budget of N100 billion in 2008. When we investigated, we found that N40 billion of the budget was for roads already constructed.
In 2008, the President asked that N21 billion be returned to the Treasury as unspent funds from the previous budget. We investigated, we asked questions. We pointed out that budget performance in Nigeria is between 30 – 40%. The budget was for over N600 billion. Now, if you say only N21 billion was unspent, you are claiming that the budget recorded over 90% performance. Now between 40% and 90%, the difference is about 50%. We insisted. And then what happened? The Executive returned N450 billion as unspent funds from the 2007 budget. This is money that would never have been found. In 2009, the Executive returned another N350 billion. That's a total of N800 billion.
In four years before we came, USD 16 billion had been appropriated for power. Yet there was less power in the country. It turned out that the contract for the supply of gas to the facility was not awarded which was strange. How could that have happened? After that, more billions of dollars were appropriated for the power sector. But nothing has happened.
There is no true record of how much money the country makes on a daily basis from oil. NNPC has its own figures. DPR has a different set of figures. The CBN or the Ministry of Finance has another different set of figures. Can anything be more mind boggling than that?
There is a record of USD 1 billion paid every year to the Customs Department which is not remitted to government or accounted for.
Between N700 billion to N1 trillion a year is paid to different government agencies that are not remitted to government or accounted for.
And then one comedian wanted to build a runway which is nothing but a concrete road for N64 billion. When we asked questions, they reduced it to N40 billion. It's just a runway, a concrete road. When we asked further questions, we understand that they have now withdrawn it. They are going to start afresh.
The roads awarded from the Airport junction to inside Abuja was for N250 billion. When we started investigating, they reduced it by N37 billion. We said how? Just like that? They said they found N2 billion in it that was a typographical error.
This year, N2.3 trillion will be spent on the Local Governments. Now, do you know these Local Governments? Is there anything to show for that money?'
In a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black, Dimeji sought to make the country forget about the equally scandalous situation in the National Assembly. For example, the recent debates in the House of Representatives have been about how to increase the already stupendously scandalous allowances of members still further. Until recently, each member of the House of Representatives was paid N27.9 million every quarter or N110 million a year as constituency allowance. Recently they voted to increase the amount to N45 million per quarter or N180 million a year. Until recently too, each Senator was paid N45.5m every quarter or N182 million a year as constituency allowance. Senators also voted to be paid N90m per quarter or N360 million per annum as constituency allowance. The constituency allowance of President of the Senate is N400 million every three months or N1.6 billion a year. This currently translates to N4.44 million a day. When increased by the same rate as that of Senators, the Senate President will be receiving N3.2 billion annually or N8.8 million per day as constituency allowance. The Speaker of the House of Representatives currently receives N3.84 million per day or N350 million every three months or N1.4 billion per annum as constituency allowance. When increased by the same margin as that of members of the House of Representatives, the Speaker will be pocketing N2.3 billion annually as constituency allowance.
Yet, as many have observed, the number of bills passed by the National Assembly has not only been small in relation to the number submitted, most of the bills passed such as the recent amendments to the constitution, the recently amended electoral act and the annual appropriation acts have largely been self-serving.
Let us take a third and final example: the field of politics. In politics, the ruling class in Nigeria is suicidal. In the flag independence years, it has not simply practiced politics as warfare; it has largely been indifferent to the consequences of such politics for the stability and survival of the country. Thus members of the class have rigged each succeeding election with increasing violence. More recently, it has become characterised by political opportunism of the worst kind in human history. It rationalises and practices opportunism as political ideology. Members of the political wing of the class who get elected or selected on the platform of one political party frequently dump the party that elected or selected them for another party; usually the party that they ran against in the election.
Only recently, former Abia State governor, Chief Orji Kalu, defected to the PDP from the Progressive Peoples Alliance, PPA, where he was chairman of the Board of Trustees. He returned to the PDP with all the key officials of the PPA. Orji Kalu who joined the PDP 1999, left the PDP for the Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) in 2006. On June 28, 2010, he quit the PPA for the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). By August 2010, he had returned to the PDP. Saminu Turaki of Jigawa State also defected to the PDP after his election.
Similarly, Governor Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State was elected on the PPA platform in 2007. However, like Orji he is now in the PDP. Isa Yuguda, Governor of Bauchi state and his Zamfara state counterpart, Aliyu Mahmud Shinkafi who were both elected on the platform of the ANPP in 2007 defected to the PDP after their election. The defection of Isa Yuguda was even more scandalous: when his deputy, Garba Gadi refused to join in the treachery by defecting to the PDP Yuguda had him impeached by the members of the state House of Assembly who also defected en mass to the PDP.
Also, in a move reminiscent of all the trappings of a farce, Atiku Abubakar abandoned the AC which he helped found in 2007 and defected to the PDP in the second half of 2010. In the National Assembly, many legislators immediately followed his example. Although they were elected on the platform of other political parties, such as All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), Action Congress (AC) and Accord Party (AP), they defected to the PDP, the legislators played the game of political opportunism and ran to the PDP. The defectors included Patricia Akwasike, (ANPP Nasarawa), Sa'di Yauo (ANPP Zamfara, Patrick Osakwe (AC, Delta), and Sati Gogwin (AC Plateau) who defeated former Deputy Senate President, Senator Ibrahim Mantu in the 2007 Plateau Central Senatorial election and Senator Ben Obi who was Atiku Abubarkar's running mate in the 2007 presidential election. Also, Senator Uche Chukwumerije recently defected to the APGA, a few days after jumping off the sinking PPA ship.
As if the situation was not scandalous enough, their National Assembly of defectors recently made the point that those who swindle the electorate deserve to be given 21 gun salutes and decorated, besides, with the Order of Grand Commander of the Republic when it voted to legalise political opportunism by dropping Sections 68 (1) and 109 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. Sections 68 (1) and 109 (1) of the 1999 constitution had provided under the "Tenure for seat of members" that:
"A member of the Senate or House of Representatives (House of Assembly) shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if-(g) Being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected, provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored."
The ruling class and electoral reforms
A political class that makes this kind of opportunistic political maneuvers cannot be counted upon to undertake electoral reforms that are meaningful to the country. Because it is short sighted and lives on the pleasure principle, it will not, even when the danger signals are clear and loud, take those actions that may save it. It knows that meaningful electoral reforms will liquidate it in its present form because it understands that such reforms will address the following issues among others:
· Political opportunism
· Godfatherism in politics
· Lack of choice for electorate through illiteracy, etc
· Big money in politics
· Zoning in politics
· Conduct of elections as warfare (rigging, etc)
· Absence of penalties for political crimes
· Absence of ideology in politics and political parties
· Geo-political endorsements
· Lack of internal democracy in political parties
· Lack of independence for and interference in INEC by the Executive
· Delayed announcement of results
· Deliberate delay in resolving election petitions
· Citizenship and indigeneity
The Uwais Committee on Electoral Reforms attempted to deal with some of these problems but as we are aware, both the Executive and the Legislature have virtually passed a death sentence on the recommendations of the Committee. Against this background, it is clear that the Campaign for 'One Man, One Vote; One Woman, One Vote' cannot be realised without addressing the above problems. I also believe that many members of the political wing of the ruling class who claim to support the campaign of 'One Man, One Vote; One Woman, One Vote' are doing so because they not only understand this connection; they fully recognise that the problems cannot and will not be resolved within the framework of the current structure of society. They are thus prepared to shout the slogans of 'One Man, One Vote; One Woman, One Vote' along with those of us who, out of naivety, see in it a way out of the current chaos. In effect, electoral reforms of the kind that are on the table will not be implemented by the Nigerian ruling class; even if they were to be implemented, they would shortly be undermined by members of the class. It is therefore clear that the task of electoral reforms cannot be left in the hands of this class. Major force would be required for the class to change or for the needed reforms to be undertaken.
The responsibility of subordinated classes
I want to suggest that the subordinated classes in Nigerian society are the only forces capable of forcing any changes on the Nigerian ruling class and carrying out as well as guaranteeing genuine electoral reforms in Nigerian. In forcing the class to change, the current ruling class elements would need to be removed and replaced. As Levins and Lewontin (2005:280, 89) have succinctly observed in The Dialectical Biologist:
'Things change because of the actions of opposing forces on them, and things are the way they are because of the temporary balance of opposing forces" (280)…. An organism does not compute itself from its DNA. The organism is the consequence of a historical process that goes on from the moment of conception until the moment of death; at every moment, gene, environment, chance, and the organism as a whole are all participating....Natural selection is not a consequence of how well the organism solves a set of fixed problems posed by the environment; on the contrary, the environment and the organism actively codetermine each other'. (89)
It is interesting to note that even conservative intellectuals who are the natural allies of the ruling class and who, more often than not, supply the class with the analytical tools for framing its responses to the challenges posed by subordinated classes have begun to call for a 'bloody revolution' as a solution to the shame that the ruling class has imposed on the country. Ben Nwabueze, former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, is an example in this regard. Also, some key international sponsors and masters of the class have cautioned the class that the country may well implode by 2015. The CIA of the USA is also an example in this regard.
In the face of these open admissions that the class is ripe for liquidation, the question has often been asked as to how the class continues to remain in power. Put another way, the question has been why it is that the subordinated classes in Nigerian society have allowed the situation to continue. This question gains in prominence and frequency especially on those occasions when we see huge demonstrations in other contexts: in the Ukraine, Kenya or Zimbabwe. The question gets asked when we see hundreds of thousands of people not only taking to the streets but forming human walls against advancing tanks and armoured vehicles in countries in South East Asia. On these and other occasions, the answer provided to this question is usually that it is because, as in one of Fela's songs, Nigerians are cowards.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the nature and character of subordinated classes are shaped in the main by the nature and character of the educated elite in its ranks in general and the progressive elements among the educated elites in particular. Protests do not appear by magic on the streets; they are summoned, they are organised, they are led and they are given a purpose by certain interests in society. More specifically, the progressive elements have responsibility not only for developing the self understanding of the subordinated classes but for translating that self-understanding into forms of action with the subordinate classes to challenge and overturn the rule of the ruling class in society. This, for example, was and has remained the essence as well as relevance of Marxism – Leninism from the 19th century, until now. It is also the example of India with Indira Gandhi, and now Venezuela under Chavez. Dozens of other examples can also be cited.
The major problem in Nigeria has been that the progressive forces, rather than all members of the subordinated classes have failed to rise to the challenge. Thus from 1960 until now, the progressive elements in Nigeria have lacked ideological and hence organisational unity. Rather than concentrate on building the structures for channeling the struggle of the people for the liquidation of the current ruling class, the progressive elements in our society have constantly and consistently divided their forces. Today, many are organised in small groups; others have gone to sleep in Non – Governmental Organisations; also quite a number are sleeping with the enemy in the political parties established by members of the ruling class; while yet some others have established their own political parties.
For example, we have today perhaps over one hundred small groups of progressive elements in the country, each proclaiming the destruction of the old society as its goal but all fiercely critical of each other and therefore refusing to engage in forms of collaborative work that would advance the common goal of liquidating the current ruling class. While mutual suspicion may have historical origins, it means in the short and long terms that focusing upon differences becomes more important than the task of forging the links that are required for the real work that has to be done. It also means that guarding these differences becomes more important than focusing upon the destruction of the ruling class.
The progressive forces sleeping in the various NGOs in the country also unwittingly adopt the reform agenda of the international organisations, usually with strong links to international capital that funds them. As we have argued, the ruling class and the situation that it has created in Nigeria are beyond reform. Thus while NGO work produces incremental change, it ultimately undermines efforts that are required to bring about transformative change in the situation. Indeed, incremental change makes the case for dramatic change less urgent than it should be: the ruling class can point to some examples of progress that show that at some point in a future that is open, the situation will become different and better.
The progressive forces sleeping with the enemy in the various ruling class parties produce the same consequences. Today, many of these elements occupy various positions in the ruling class parties at the local government, state and national levels. In the run up to the 2011 elections, some are now chairpersons of major Campaign Committees of ruling class parties. In these and other positions, they provide the ruling class parties with insights and points of view that enable the parties pretend to be better than what they truly are. They enable the parties solve problems that would have drawn the wrath of the people.
It must be admitted that while work in the political parties that some elements among the progressive forces have established by themselves can be effective, the effectiveness is also limited by the small size and number of such parties. In the end, the political parties are no more effective than the hundreds of small groups of progressive elements that are scattered all over the country. Of course, the only exception to this rule would have been the Labour Party. Unfortunately, the Labour Party currently suffers from a number of substantial problems that also limit not just its effectiveness but more importantly, its claim to speak for the subordinated classes in Nigerian society.
Conclusions
On the basis of what has been said so far, we can come to at least, three important conclusions. The first is that the Nigerian ruling class is a deformed and failed ruling class that has to be destroyed. It cannot be patched over, reformed or persuaded to change. Its greed is such that it cannot act even in its own enlightened self interest of self preservation in the long run. The second conclusion is that if this deformed ruling class remains in power, it is not because it is strong but because the subordinated classes in Nigeria are weak. In this regard however, the failure to challenge and liquidate the ruling class in Nigeria has been the failure of the progressive and patriotic forces in Nigeria, rather than that of all subordinated groups in Nigerian society. The third conclusion is that this failure and the factors responsible for it also indicate very clearly the most urgent and important work that has to be done.
This is sieving from their various ongoing involvements a sufficient number of progressive and patriotic elements that can create the structure that subordinated classes need for waging the struggle against the insolent and insulting rule of the current ruling class. Important questions in this regard are: who will do the sieving? How will the sieving be done? While answering these questions properly has been and remains the greatest challenge that has confronted the subordinated classes throughout Nigeria's entire history, I want to insist that until the questions are correctly answered, the Nigerian ruling class will remain like the rotten fruit that attaches itself stubbornly to a tree and that will, therefore, not fall on its own. I also want to insist that until the questions are adequately answered, the Nigerian ruling class even when it is a slave by birth and a failed class will, like a mad dog, continue with its rampage and looting of the country: vital national assets and resources like oil blocks will continue to be given out like birthday gifts, tooth picks will continue to be imported into the country for members of the class to pick its teeth, elections will also continue to be massively rigged in spite of our loudest chanting of our new anthem of, 'One Man, One Vote; One Woman, One Vote.
After fifty years of a tragedy that has seen us being daily diminished, the situation cannot be allowed to remain or continue the way it is. The responsibility of those who claim to be progressives or patriotic elements or both in Nigeria is to provide the needed organisational framework that will enable this mad dog to be put down. If they do not, they will find that there can be no bystanders inside a house that is on the verge of collapse and that when the house comes crashing down over the heads of those who undermined its foundations, they too will be buried in the rubble.
That is a fate that we must do everything to avoid.
Thank you.
Ake, C. (2001) Democracy and Development in Africa, Ibadan: Spectrum Books
Brett Clark and Richard York (2005) 'Dialectical Nature: Reflections in Honor of the Twentieth Anniversary of Levins and Lewontin's The Dialectical Biologist' Monthly Review, Vol 5, no.1
www.worldpeacenewsletter.com 'The Holocaust commemoration center, the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem (2010)
Jonathan and his wife in New York
'And while her husband flew into New York on Thursday morning with 32 bodyguards and security aides, Mrs. Jonathan flew in her own security cocoon. There were her aide-de-camp, Jacob Tamunoibuomi; her orderly, Abigail Jonah; and Francis Ibiene, her chief security officer.
The president's wife also shocked presidency officials, who coordinated the 36-hour trip, when she included her personal physician, Elizabeth Austin-Amadi, although the president's chief physician, F. iberesima, was on also the trip.
Mrs. Jonathan also travelled with her director of protocol, Mfama Abam; her principal protocol officer, Nuhu Kwache; her special assistant, domestic matters, Martha Onwuzurumba; her special assistant, media, Aliagan Zubair; and her media officer, Ayo Adewuyi.
The first lady also took her private posse on the journey. The inner chamber included four of her friends who were marked "private" on the presidential entourage. They were Bola Shagaya, Joyce Bozimo, Pelebo Banigo and Musa Ujah. Also on her delegation were Helen Mark, wife of the President of the Senate; Mariam Imoke, wife of Cross River State governor; Fatima Shema, wife of the Katsina State governor; Oluwakemi Alao-Akala, wife of the Oyo State governor; and Clara Chime, wife of the Enugu State chief executive.
Mrs. Mark, in turn, brought along two of her aides - Ogwuiji Clement and Omeche Omudu , while the vice president's wife, Amina Sambo, made the journey with her aide-de-camp, Abubakar Dauda, as well as her principal protocol officer, Zayyad Abdulsalam, and her personal assistant, Dabo Suleiman.
Meanwhile, SaharaReporters has learned that that Nigeria lost $25,000 to a con contractor who hired limousines for Mr. Jonathan's delegation.
The US government provided three vehicles and escorts for the presidential delegation. But because of the bloated size of the team, about 500 people in total, additional vehicles had to be hired. However, instead of approaching the limousine company directly, the president's team went through a third party who simply inflated the contract by $25,000.
Jonathan's profligacy will continue in Abuja tomorrow where his controversial wife will begin a series of state-sponsored celebrations of her 50th birthday celebration tagged "50-at-50". The publicly-owned Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) has begun a series of adverts of the event which includes awards to questionable characters like the chair of the EFCC, Farida Waziri, and the disgraced former speaker of the House of Representatives, Patricia Etteh. The highlight of the celebrations of Mrs. Jonathan's birthday will involve Mrs. Jonathan traveling back to the US with 50 women to party and shop'.
Report of Sahara on the visit of Goodluck Jonathan and his wife to New York in September, 2010
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment