NATION BUILDING AND DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
CHINYERE E. EGBE, PH.D, DEAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS & PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
MEDGAR EVERS COLLEGE
(CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK)
Published in Profiles International Magazine (August 1998)
With the death of Abiola and Abacha, the dynamics of our current national crisis changed. For many Nigerians, it appeared to be an act of God in response to the prayers of a helpless mass of people: intellectuals and all.
Before Abacha died, it appeared that there was a struggle between Abiola and Abacha. Both of them appeared to have been representatives of a complex struggle: One being a tussle for power between the popular masses and the army. The other struggle appeared to be between some invisible and apparently invincible oligarchy in the Hausa-Fulani political superstructure and the disenfranchised though fragmented ethnic groups in the southern region of Nigeria or even Nigeria south of the Niger-Benue confluence. Abiola was fighting for his mandate to become president of Nigeria, based on the election, which he apparently won on June 12, 1993. It appeared that Abacha was trying to muscle himself into power either for his own personal aggrandizement, to protect the interests of the army, or to protect the interests of the Hausa-Fulani establishment. Abiola’s struggle appeared to have embodied the struggles of the Yoruba people of Nigeria. It could easily have embodied the yearnings of the people of all the other Nigerians south of the Niger-Benue confluence.
Since the apparently propitious death of the two contenders for power, there have been high expectations among Nigerians. All over the world, Nigerians have called for a new beginning. When Abacha died, Abiola was still the issue. We all had to determine what we had to do with “June 12”. When Abiola died, it appeared that “June 12” was dead with him.
What we should all expect from the recent developments depends almost entirely on whether Abacha was acting alone, or whether he was actually the representative of an institution in which he himself was an equally helpless agent. He could have been the beneficiary of the institution himself: taking advantage of the social and political cleavages to advance his personal objectives. If Abacha was acting alone, then our problem could have been easy the day he died. If he was not acting alone, then we are misleading ourselves and we will eventually find ourselves in the same quandary that we have always been.
Herein lies our problem as a people, whether we are Nigerians or just other Africans. For the problem that we have in Nigeria is endemic in Africa. “June 12” is not about Abiola. “June 12” was never and never should have been about Abiola and the Yoruba people. “June 12” should have been about principle. What is unfortunate about us is that even seemingly educated people and others who should have been ordinarily enlightened, are still naturally ensnared in the superficial ethnic and religious differences that have divided our people since antiquity. Indeed even in scientific matters, modern education has not changed our people a lot.
Where do we go from here? The absence of Abacha and Abiola may turn out to be an opportunity to build real foundations for lasting democracy in Nigeria. It all depends on how we address the problems. We must first cease deluding ourselves into believing that Abacha was acting alone. Secondly, we must understand that the military has, over time, become part of the problem in Nigerian politics. Third, we must decide whether we want to be one Nigeria or separate Nations. If we want to be one united Nigeria, what will be the modus vivendi? Finally, we must all understand how democracy works and commit ourselves to respecting the processes that we establish and the rules that we make.
The problems that we have had in building our nation and the institutional structures that will enable it to grow and to prosper have resulted from a lack of will on our part. We have never lacked appropriate institutional structures. We have never lacked appropriate processes. We have only lacked the will to operate them properly. Our difficulties have nothing to do with being allowed to develop democratic processes that are conceptually and operationally unique to Africa. Our leaders, due to their greed have had tremendous difficulties abiding by the principles of democratic processes. Even if we did develop institutions that in appearance or in reality reflect our unique historical or cultural experiences, we must abide by the rules that they imply or we will never have stability.
After independence, we inherited the British Westminster model of democracy. If we found it unsuitable for us, we could have, within the processes built into that institution, modified it while the business of government is not interrupted. We did not have to plan coups and counter coups. History has shown that even since we discarded the British model, we have had a lot difficulty in respecting our own agreements. “June 12” is a good example. There was an election. Abiola won the election. At least we were not given the opportunity to determine otherwise. Abiola should have been allowed to assume the presidency. If Abiola had become president in 1993, by today, in 1998, Nigerians would have had the opportunity to determine whether to renew Abiola’s mandate or to revoke it. Yet we have gone through a destabilizing crisis, with bitter confrontations, anguish, death, delayed economic progress and undue suffering for the vast majority of our people. At the worst, if we had reservations for the way in which Abiola won his election, we could made arrangements to ensure that the instruments of the electoral process are removed from his control. This would have ensured or at least minimized the possibility that he and the ruling party would manipulate the results of the next election.
It does not appear that Abacha was acting alone. He was simply the instrument of the establishment. It is also plausible to see that he was taking advantage of the situation to further his personal objectives. Furthermore, Abubakar was part of this process. Since he was promoted above his superiors, and sworn in as head of state, he has been referred to as a dark horse. Objectively speaking, there is nothing dark about this horse called Abubakar. He has always been part of the establishment. He rose within that establishment in his own style. He was never under any illusions about the direction in which the establishment was going. Abacha probably played himself out within this establishment and it was now Abubakar’s turn. Abacha could also have overplayed his hands and the establishment thought that it was time to remove him. He could have died a natural death and the establishment was relieved.
If Abacha was acting alone, why then was Abubakar still negotiating with Abiola to give up his claim to the presidency? Why, indeed, did he not release all political prisoners, including the trade union leaders and those people who were apparently falsely accused of plotting coups? For now, I am afraid that Abubakar will attempt to perpetuate himself and the military establishment in power. If we can influence events in spite of Abubakar, then he (Abubakar) should relinquish the government to an interim popular institution. I suggest the following:
- Abubakar should release the constitution that provides for zonal power sharing between six regions.
- A national assembly based on this constitution should be elected.
- This national assembly should immediately elect an interim President, Vice President, and Prime Minister. The assembly should also distribute the other three offices as provided in and according to the new constitution.
- National elections should then be held within four years.
- The instruments of the electoral process should be far removed from the control and influences of the interim government and from all other governments in the future.
- If the nation must succeed, then the army (Its rank and file, and its officers corps), the police and the foreign service must be restructured to adequately represent all segments of the Nigerian society.
“Odysseus” Sengbe and The Amistad
A Review of the Movie, Amistad in African Profiles International Magazine
The Amistad, Stephen Spielberg’s latest movie on the human experience is evoking powerful responses. It has been called “sheer power”. Spielberg has been accused of begging the question. No references were made to American slavery. Hence, it appears that the movie was intended to reinforce the agenda of the American establishment. To make it look like everyone else was the bad guy, with exception of the Americans whose enslavement of the Africans was as abominable as any human activity associated with the Transatlantic slave trade. Was the Amistad made to instigate African Americans to despise their African brethren, by telling them that they were sold into slavery by their fellow Africans. Perhaps, Sengbe Pieh (The real name of the hero, Joseph Cinque) should have considered himself lucky and stayed back in America, as a slave? Had he stayed? Spielberg’s movie could have been a little of each. It is probably more of some than others, depending on who is viewing it. It could not satisfy everyone’s expectations for art and art agenda.
Spielberg’s Amistad is sheer power because it is a movie about the most powerful instincts of the human person. It’s about the desire of human beings to seek their freedom. It is also about the irresistible desire of humans, throughout history, to exploit others for their own comfort: The contradictions of the sacred American constitution and the ten commandments not withstanding. The humane human being, with the Bible in one hand, and the codes of earthly justice, doctrines of enlightenment, on the other, inflicts vicious cruelty to other humans in the process of seeking personal comfort. American slavery was crude capitalism: Pure and simple. The instinct to acquire the surpluses generated by another person’s toil and sweat is irresistible. Therefore, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, gens Europeanus finds justification to conclude, and act accordingly, that Homo Sapiens Africanus is livestock.
In the face of grave danger, against massive odds, (the superior technology of their captors, guns, shackles, and all), Sengbe, one of the African captives on a slave ship, attacked and killed all but two essential crew members in their slave ship. Then the drama and the tragedy begin. The captors, who were formerly captives attempt to force “white” people to take the ship back to Africa. But the “white” crew men take their ship to America. If there is one thing that should be clear to all Africans, then and today, it should be that knowledge is power. If the captives on the slave ship had been Arabs, Chinese or Jews, who overpowered their captors, chances are that they would have found their way home. But luck seemed to be on their side. The slave ship drifted to America, smack in the middle of the abolitionist movement, instead of some Spanish controlled territory. If the ship had strayed into Spanish controlled territory, Sengbe and his fellow captives would have smelled the gates of hell, given that the Spanish American war was not that many years behind. It is not inconceivable that the sentiments of the jury and the judges were swayed by the bellicose relationship between Spain and the USA. Hence, the contemporary president of the USA commented, contemptuously that he would not succumb to the feelings of a pre-pubescent Spanish queen.
In the end, the African slaves won their freedom. However, the case was as much a triumph of the American judiciary process, as it was an indictment of it. After all, the president tried to muscle the case by changing the judge, dismissing the jury that was inclining to free the captives and as a last resort, dragged the case all the way to the supreme court. This was all an attempt to please the anti abolitionists in order to avoid a civil war. The movie tried to create the impression that the Africans themselves may have been sold into slavery by their fellow Africans. This approach has been used to incite Africans at home against Africans in the Diaspora. For this point was raised during the case, and in the end: What happened?
The tragedy? After all the harrow and the struggle, Sengbe and the other slaves are freed. They are taken back to Sierra Leone, where they originally came from. There, Sengbe discovers that his people are in civil war, his village burned down, and his people sold into slavery. This story, a real-life story, is eerily similar to the story of Odysseus, king of Ithaca during the Trojan war of the Bronze age, 1,200 years before Christ. After 10 years of war, and 10 years of journeys that took him through all manner of danger, he successfully returned home only to find out that his household and his nation were in disarray.
In the end, the Amistad was a good movie. It should be a lesson in history for all who care to see it. We should all care. Whoever is responsible for the plight of the Africans of the Diaspora, African Americans like Richburg should not let anyone off the hook. But African Americans should not focus their attention on Africans at home. For their own victimized ancestors were part of a society in which they themselves may have been perpetrators of the very ill that is still consuming all of us, 400 years after it began. Everyone should go and see this movie. Homo Sapiens gens Europeanus should see how his Christian heritage is tempered by the desire for material accumulation.
SELF DENIAL AND RETRIBUTION: RICHBURG AND HIS AFRICAN PAST
A Review of Richburg’s book (Out of America) Published in Profiles International Magazine
Whether or not it appears so to him, Richburg’s recent book on the Africa represents one more attempt by an African American to play into the laps of racism and justify centuries of fallacious indoctrination. The whole foundation of slavery and the subhuman subjugation of the African American has been that their African homeland held no promise for them. Black Americans were told that even slavery, while it was in its crudest, most cruel, most brutal, and most inhumane form, was a far better condition than living in Africa as half savage beasts. Kunta Kinta knew back then that this was a lie. Some other contemporaries of Kunta Kinte felt that slavery was better than living in Africa. These people who experienced slavery may have had good reasons for their choice. But Richburg after, God knows, how many centuries or decades, feels like it was all worth it. To some extent Richburg looks and sounds like a man that is governed entirely by his stomach. There is probably more to it than that.
Richburg was stationed in Nairobi Kenya as the correspondent of the Washington Post newspaper. He visited a few countries, mostly in the war torn areas of East Africa: Burundi, Rwanda, Zaire, and Somalia. He also visited Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and a few other countries. Based on his experiences, he concludes that the brutal enslavement of his ancestors was well worth it afterall. He was always an American and would have no part of Africa and its peoples. Richburg does not feel any kinship with these strange people, who are related to him only because they happen, to look like him. Some random biochemical accident. Perhaps? According to Richburg, Africa is a hopeless case, and the best thing for him to do is simply make himself a better American and struggle for full equality in an integrated color blind America. Wow!!! He goes on then to ridicule those African-Americans who he claims romanticize Africa as their motherland. Richburg does not understand why some African Americans want to wear African clothing, try to appreciate African music, wear Kente cloth, and celebrate kwanza. Our dear lost brother did not see anyone in Africa who knows anything about kwanza, let alone celebrate it. Before we forget, Richburg also tried to communicate with some Nigerians soldiers, who according to him could hardly speak English. Worst still, they began to speak a language that he could simply never understand. Incredible!!! Well, many Europeans do not know about Halloween. There are also lots of Italian Americans who cannot speak Italian. So does a white journalist of Italian descent deny and deprecate his Italian ancestry because he goes to Italy and cannot understand Italian?
What Richburg sees on the continent of his so called ancestors is brutality with an African face. A level of brutality and other types of ills that had nothing to do with the sins of colonialism. He sees backwardness, lack of economic development, incompetence, corruption, widespread disease, easy women, drugs, prostitution, and the list goes on ad nauseam. Surprised?. No one ought to be surprised. Somehow, though, Richburg appears to have been surprised that these things exist in Africa. If brutality had an Asian face, a European face, and all other faces and does not have an African face, then the Angels that will announce the second coming of Christ must be living in Africa. What Mr. Richburg needs to realize is that Africa is a continent of peoples with their own problems, including conflict. That African conflicts today appear to be intractable is the result of a dynamic that began with slavery, then colonialism, and post colonialism. This does not have to lead to apologies for the Africans and their backwardness, the incompetence of their political leaders, their abominable brand of corruption, or the senseless slaughter that is going on in the continent. At the core of it all is the condition in which the Africans were caught when they encountered Europeans. If Richburg is smart enough to recognize this, he probably would not have the courage to analyze and present its ramifications. If he does, he will lose his job. For he would no longer be a good Negro, and a good stool pigeon.
It would appear that Richburg attempts to echo, audibly, a deep seated, and subliminal resentment of a man who felt betrayed by his mother. He might still want to love her, but he is not sure whether to do so. What Richburg has done is to find a reason to rationalize his contempt for Africa, and his alienation from the land of his ancestors. Fair enough for Richburg to be alienated from his apparent kin in Africa. There are many white Americans, white Australians, and Japanese Americans who do not feel a special kinship with the people who still live in their ancestral homelands. But they do not have to deprecate Europe and Japan to justify their attitudes. Neither does Richburg. To put it simply, Richburg is simply being a hypocrite. At best he is just shallow minded.
Richburg makes it clear, at the beginning, that before he began to take courses in African history, he frankly did no care about Africa. His views about Africa had been formed largely from Tarzan movies. Everyone knows that Tarzan movies depict Africans in painted faces, running around forests with spears and crude knives, and making sounds that are not far removed from the beasts that share the jungles with them. These types of movies are made to reinforce centuries of indoctrination designed to convince the African American that he is better off subjugated to the white man than to live in Africa as a beast just a cut above the baboons and chimpanzees. Further down in Richburg’s psyche is the resentment that some African chieftain may have tied his nameless ancestors in leg chains and iron cuffs and sold him and her to the slave traders from Europe. Now it’s payback time and Richburg is celebrating. Good for you Africans. You sold my grand parents. Now you are the ones really suffering. I am home free in America eating some fat and meaty crumbs from the white man’s table. Richburg needs to read some African history. He should also read the Bible. Joseph did not hate other Jews because he was sold by his brothers. It appears that that time has come to raise a cogent question between Africans and their brethren in the Diaspora. The question is “WHO SOLD WHO?” Time has come for us all to take collective responsibility for what happened to us at a time when we did not better. Even if we knew better, we probably could not do much to defend ourselves.
Richburg’s analysis is shallow because he introduces a lot of irrelevancies and cannot see the contradictions and fallacies in his own conclusions. Somehow Richburg talks about prostitution and risky sexual behavior in Africa as if he had never heard of such things before. Most Africans who visit the United States for the first time are appalled by the decadent behavior of prostitutes on 42nd street in New York City. In a country with so much medical information, free contraceptives of all kinds, teenage pregnancy and lascivious sexual behavior have become endemic problems in America’s inner cities. Yet no one makes any of these things a major point on which to judge all America. The type of prostitution that Richburg saw in Nairobi or any other part of Africa is not more repugnant than the ones he could have seen in Caracas, Manila, Bangkok, or Hong Kong. Yet Richburg does not have the same contempt for these people that he has for Africans.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the abominations of the trail of tears, the Armenian genocide, the Jewish holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, etc. were perpetrated by fully evolved human beings. These human beings were not always Africans. No apologies are made for any of these atrocities. However, Richburg saw the good that came out of the holocaust, but he did not see hope that any good could come out of the turmoil in Africa. It was definitely not essential to the creation of the state of Israel that 6 million Jews be slaughtered. Richburg’s argument could, however, lead us all to the idea that the Germans had a formula for nation building in which the abomination of the holocaust was an inevitable ingredient. Well, that’s not true.
How can there be hope for an Africa that produces dictators like Mobutu, Strasser, and an endless list of crack pot, shallow minded, army officers who engage in endless cycles of coup planning. Richburg conveniently forgets that Mobutu was the creation of America. A good lesson in African history could have informed him that the people of the Congo elected Lumumba in 1960, but the democracies of the West did not like him, and so he was toppled. The Western democracies indeed also murdered their own man, Dag Hammershold, in the process. With a little profound thinking, one could easily raise the question: How come the West fought communism with truly democratic governments in Western Europe?. However, when it comes to the African continent, they always found it more convenient to groom and install the most incompetent and the most corrupt people in office.
Richburg should understand that the problem that plagues Africa after colonialism, has also plagued black America since after slavery and the civili rights movement. The ruling white establishment rewards mediocrity among black peoples. Hence the emergence of people like Mobutu, and Kamuzu Banda. Good black leaders like Nyerere are respected but also frustrated and strangulated. Nkuruma and Azikiwe are quickly overthrown in senseless military coups by misguided army officers. In the same way Martin Luther King was assassinated. Smart and competent Black Americans cannot get jobs easily, but the rap artists who portray violence are made to look very successful.
After many decades of separation, it is understandable that and African American can feel no sense of kinship with Africans. But a white American cannot visit Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, or Albania, and then say, “… Are these my people? …” Nonsense. African Americans cannot run back to Africa in search of Valhalla in their ancestral homeland. It will be desecration of the souls of their enslaved ancestors to abandon the blood and sweat of their grandfathers buried in the American dream. The point that many black American leaders are making, and which Richburg is not facing up to is that the justification for slavery and the subjugation of the black man is a bunch of lies. No one ever wants to make apologies for the ills of modern Africa. Most Africans are probably just as critical of African leaders or even more so than Richburg. It is evident, though, that Richburg had his mind made up before he even set foot on Africa. He simply went there to see and reinforce what he already had in mind. He was able to get his position because his employers knew exactly his dispositions. In effect, he commits the same sin that some African chieftain committed, God knows when: To sell everyone else so he can get ahead.
The Transatlantic Slave Trade, 1997
Book Review Of Hugh Thomas On The Transatlantic Slave Trade
Published in Profiles International Magazine
As Americans, and perhaps the world, recently intensified their debate or discussion on whether to apologize to African Americans for the slavery, and the masses of ordinary people go to see Amistad in the movie houses, there could have been no better time for Hugh Thomas to publish his book on the Transatlantic slave trade. The book, aptly titled, makes clear that the feeding frenzy to buy and sell African human beings between the 1450s and the end of the 19th century was an event in a class of its own. This horrible, spiritual cannibalism of human beings is an activity that goes back to the very origins of “civilization”. Obviously, Africans were not the first to be enslaved, or sold into slavery in all of human history. They were not even the first to be identified and targeted for slave trading by other different races. There is no doubt, though, that the trading of Africans in the Transatlantic slave trade gave rise to the most brutal, the most dehumanizing, and the most humiliating form of this universal institution. The enslavement of Africans, the frenzy to buy and sell them, their transition from freedom to slavery, or from one form of slavery in their homeland to their enslavement in the American appeared to have been purposely designed and planned to inflict the most contempt on its victims and their peoples. Hence, it is understandable why the author could refer to it as “The Slave Trade”, as if no such thing has taken place before.
Hugh Thomas’s book will probably stand out as one of the best on this topic, that is if it is not the best so far written. The book engages the reader in a very intense way. It is as fundamental as it is complex. While the author focuses on the trade alone, he goes into details to describe the event in all its complexity. This horrible event does not call for laughing, but the author could even make you laugh about some aspects of it. We should all actually be crying.
The complexity in Thomas’s rendition lies in the fact that the author reveals the intricacies of human relationships: contradictions, interdependency, even where one person has absolute power over the other. The shrewd ambivalence of the church, then its hypocrisy. First debating whether Africans should be enslaved because they are not Christian and then concluding that Christianity is no longer protection from slavery. And then encouraging the baptism of the Africans before they are carried off into slavery. Better a saved enslaved soul than a slave without the hope of salvation. Simply stated, slavery was about a crude form of capitalism. It was about the irresistible urge of human beings to seek comfort even at the expense of another.
The hypocrisy of racial superiority, and the reality of technological superiority. The hypocrisy of Africans who today are demanding compensation when they were as much responsible for facilitating the trade as Europeans were for imposing it on the Africans. In spite of the brutality, some slaves lived to tell the tale. While Africans were overwhelmed by European technology, some slaves managed to revolt successfully, even in the course of the voyage to the new world. All these are discussed with rare clarity.
This book is a must read for all involved. It should be an eye opener for everyone. Who gained and who were the victims. Sometimes victims were from among the perpetrators. Who is to say that some African Americans who lament that their African brethren sold them were not the descendants of princes and kings who had actually made obscene profits from the trade: The very victims of their own greed. Yes this is true. For there were some African princes in Sierra Leone who were negotiating the terms of selling other Africans and the ship sailed off, and so they ended up being the merchandise themselves. The mother of the notorious King Ghezo, who felt it would be shameful to send his wives and women to plant cotton instead of selling slaves, ended up as a slave in Jamaica. It is instructive that while Europeans fought to end the slave trade in Europe, the Africans who stood to gain fought not to end it.
Africans should take special note. This book can explain the contempt towards Africans today. It should explain to us all the foundation in which the frame of mind of our contemporary African leaders evolved. A class of people whose only understanding of their place lies in mortgaging their people for personal gain, and nothing much more than that.
SYNOPSIS ON THE ECONOMICS OF THE CARNIVAL
Dr. Chinyere Emmanuel Egbe
January 17, 2022
This is preliminary synopsis and highlights of the Economics of the West Indian Carnival. In general, the West Indian Carnival falls into the general category of festivities. The difference is that the Caribbean or West Indian carnival, also celebrated in Brazil, has created a class of its own. The Caribbean carnival, over time, has become a unique cultural event and festivity that established itself as distinct and attracts special attention. As a cultural event and festivity, it ‘engulfs’ the entire community and the nation. It is a national event in most, if not all, countries of the West Indies and Brazil. In other countries, like New York (USA) and Ontario (Canada), it is a city-wide event. For this reason, governments have become involved.
For many years, it has been acknowledged that the worldwide celebration of the West Indian Carnival generates a lot of economic benefits to the host communities, especially the countries of origin. But this also applies to the cities and localities outside of the West Indies. While cultural festivities, in general, generate economic benefits in the form of employment, only the West Indian Carnival, though a local event, attracts visitors from around the world and creates its own unique industry. Festivities generate tax revenues for localities and creates employment in hospitality. The West Indian Carnival, like other festivities, generates revenues and economic spillover effects in hotel accommodations, car rentals and other transportations, food services and travel agencies. In addition, the West Indian Carnival has created an industry all in its own right for special costumes and the Steel Band and other special or unique paraphernalia such as unique floats and band systems.
Due to its long reach in attracting tourism, in the extant literature, there is almost universal recognition that the economic costs and benefits of the West Indian Carnival event need to be analyzed. For example, the West Indian Festival has become a cultural export celebrated in London and Notting Hill (England), Tokyo (Far East – Asia), New York and San Francisco (USA) and Ontario (Canada). As far back as 2003, in England, the London Development Agency commissioned a review of the economic contribution of the Notting Hill Carnival to the local and regional economy. In April 2010, the economic impact of Caribana (The Carnival of Ontario Canada) was estimated to be worth about $438 million to the government and economy of Ontario1 . Other economic studies have shown that carnivals around the world enhance economic development of their host locations2 . Therefore, carnival induced festival tourism has created its own unique and identifiable source of tourist revenue. The financial gain of hosting a carnival is well illustrated data from Trinidad and Brazil as illustrated below in charts and tables. The economic significance of the Carnival is further illustrated by the lamentation of job losses due to COVID induced cancellations and loss of travel tourism. For example, in Brazil, tt has been estimated that about 25,000 temporary Carnival-related jobs would no longer be created in the first two months of 2021 due to cancellation of the Carnival in Brazil. In 2020 alone, tourism lost 437,900 formal jobs, with a 12.5% reduction in the workforce when compared to 2019.
[1] Ajamu Nangwaya, Caribana, exploitation and disrespect of cultural resource, The Share Newspaper, (http://www.sharenews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/caribana-exploitation-and-di.
[2] See for example London Research Development Agency (2003) “The Economic Impact of the Notting Hill Carnival”; Nurse, Keith (2001) “Festival Tourism in the Caribbean” Report for Inter-American Development Bank; McLain, J. (2000) “Mardi Gras 2000: Its Economic Impact” in Louisianna Business Survey Vol. 31, no. 2, Fall. See also Jo-anne Tull, Money Matters – Trinidad and Tobago Carnival 2005”Carnival Studies Coordinator , Centre for Creative and Festival Arts, UWI, Presented @ Reflections on Carnival 2005, Carnival Institute of Trinidad and Tobago, April 22nd 2005
CHINYERE E. EGBE, JULY 1999
Joe Garba’s Fractured History: An Extended Commentary
On May 13, 1995, General Joe Garba published and launched yet another book: his fourth book. This time, he attempts to put it all together: Garba looks backwards to retrace events, reviews current disquieting, even, sad state of affairs as they unfold, and then makes propositions for the future. A synthesis of sorts. Garba appears to be dejected, but he is hopeful. The tragedy of Nigeria is that it is one of the most richly endowed countries on the continent of Africa, and in the world. Yet the country is faltering economically and politically. Her resources are being laid to waste by the very leadership (The elite) whose responsibility it is to propel the nation to high accomplishments. But Nigeria is a country that can be salvaged. It is not altogether hopeless, and probably never was, and never could be. But a conscious effort has to be made to redirect the nation. This appears to be the crux of Garba’s thesis.
This book is different because it is not so much about Garba’s personal activities, as in DIPLOMATIC SOLDIERING or a counter point like in his DIFFERENT VIEW OF NIGERIAN REVOLUTIONS. This is one unemotional, and objective attempt to re-examine Nigeria for what it is, what it was, and what it could be or even what it should be. The author demonstrates a remarkably profound understanding of the sources of Nigeria’s problems. Coupled with his understanding of the problems, he demonstrates a sharp, incisive, and precise analysis that naturally leads to his propositions for solutions. It is hard to argue with Garba’s analysis, or his propositions. As his views meet the eye, they appear very credible, very laudable, etc.
Given that Garba was a major actor and factor in Nigerian affairs since 1975, harsh criticism is to be expected from a frustrated Nigerian public. Garba himself was to anticipate such skepticism, healthy or otherwise, and hence he stated, at the beginning of his book that “… Many will consider this work … even hypocritical …” Garba is not discouraged by the foreseeable hostility to his work, or the possibility that his sincerity will be in doubt. He offers no apologies for what he sets out to do: A criticism of the elite, of which he is still a part, and their contribution to the degenerate state of affairs in Nigeria for more than 30 years. Garba considers the book a soul searching of himself, and by extension of all Nigerians. The work is a self criticism because Garba is part of the elite, and by implication any criticism of the elite includes himself.
In reading and appreciating this book, anyway, it may be irrelevant for the reader to believe or disbelieve Garba. It is more important to agree or disagree or believe or disbelieve the contents of the book: That is to say, the factual accuracy of his references, and the logical consistency of the analysis and propositions of the author.
To put it in perspective, it will be wrong to consider Garba’s effort hypocritical. There is nothing inherently or otherwise hypocritical about a retrospective soul searching of the type that Garba undertakes in this book. Such a conclusion is not inevitable just because Garba was a major participant in the process and systems which he criticizes so strongly. All human beings have a right to look backwards and reconsider what they have done in the past. Ordinarily, people participate in social processes according to the situation in which they find themselves. Sometimes it is inevitable and imperative that they play certain roles. If they later decide to look back, and from hindsight express different opinions about what happened, it is perfectly legitimate.
Whether or not Garba is a hypocrite, the soul searcher may be taken to the task of proving or demonstrating his or her sincerity in a number of practical ways. This is equally legitimate. For the soul searcher may be speaking from that side of his mouth that serves his own personal purpose the most. For Garba effected a coup, and now he is criticizing coups and coup planning. Meanwhile, in this book he finds justification for the coup which he announced, or plotted. Furthermore, following Buhari’s coup on December 31, 1983, Garba accepted an appointment from the military government that overthrew the elected government which he helped to establish.
On the other hand, Garba was a soldier who had a job to do. Nigerians must remember the circumstances in which Garba and his group toppled Gowon’s government. Gowon had promised to return the country to civilian rule in 1972, two years after the civil war. He (Gowon) postponed the handing over to 1976. He was later to postpone this too. It was clear from events during this period that Gowon was either taking the country for a ride, or he was losing control. For example, Audu Bako, the Kano State Governor had the temerity to say that “… Even Gowon could not say when they (The governors and Gowon himself) would go…”
Following the coup that toppled Gowon, Muritala announced a time table for return to civilian rule. This program was announced in Muritala’s first speech. It did not take two years or even six months, as in other military coups. Apparently, or even evidently, this coup was carried out to force the army to keep a promise that was made to the people. Under the circumstances (Gowon’s loss of control, or treachery), there were two alternatives. There could have been an upheaval of the popular masses. For all that Nigerians have shown of themselves, this was very remote indeed. Alternatively, there could have been a bloody military coup by, possibly, some group of self serving army officers. What rather happened was that Garba and his group carried out a coup, and kept to their promised time table to the very last minute. Meanwhile, Garba relinquished his political appointment, like a gentleman officer and returned to the barracks before the return to civilian rule. He was later to be retired treacherously by the government that he helped to establish. What must be left to speculation, though, is whether Garba was glad to see this government overthrown. Hence in revenge, he gladly accepted office from the army group that removed Shagari and his duly elected ministers and the people’s representatives.
When one calls Garba a hypocrite, it should be remembered that the vast majority of Garba’s Nigerian critiques, are adulterers who are casting a hail of stones. From the first coup in 1966 to the coup of November 1993, Nigerians have come out in throngs to hail each coup planner as a redeemer. If Gideon Orka had succeeded, he would have been hailed. Even Dimka would have been hailed. This point is important because Garba’s sincerity is questioned because he has been a coup ‘maker’ and he accepted positions in governments created by coups. There is no attempt in this commentary, to take sides with Garba. The issue that is being made is that Garba’s critiques do not the moral locus standi on which to criticize him. If other Nigerians can look back and see the folly of giving support to the coups, then Garba has the same right.
Garba presents an engaging, systematic, and tightly packed argument. He is forthright, and bold, without mincing words. More than most Nigerians, Garba can afford to be bold. Thus he broaches sensitive issues like the deleterious role of the military in Nigeria’s political and economic development, the civil war, personalities in successive military governments, and even Abacha and Babangida. This is important because there are other Nigerians who are in a similar position to be bold, who have not had the courage to speak out.
The theme of the book is established in the first chapter, which is titled “The Road Not Taken”. In this chapter the main foundations for the problems of Nigeria are addressed: Colonialism, the national psyche, effective and efficient government, the civil war and the role of the military. Each of these topics is addressed with insight and an analytical precision that characterizes almost the entire book. In sum, it becomes difficult to argue with Garba’s major conclusions or contentions.
Garba’s valor is tempered by discretion. Being human, he finds it difficult to completely detach himself and be totally even handed. Occasionally, he loses his poise or [his nerves], and it is not very clear what point he is attempting to make. His new found demeanor of unemotional confrontation of the issues falters at some points. It is possible that in order to maintain the density and brevity of his argumentation, he leaves out or overlooks important clarifying details. It is also possible that for the sake of prudence, he chooses his issues or makes his points judiciously. The better part of valor, they say, is discretion. But it is difficult to resist Garba’s instigation. If he really intends to address the issues, then, so be it.
On the coup of January 1966, Garba points out that the killings by the coup planners were one sided. However, he failed to confront the possibilities boldly. If his intention is to be an unemotional commentator on the events, he should have felt duty bound to discuss the events in the same way that he discussed the civil war. He faced the civil war very squarely. As Garba put it “… The war was unquestionably avoidable …. an ignominious mistake…” If any side was wrong, “… We were all wrong… we all right…”. In effect, he acknowledged the contributions that the viciously motivated elite made on both sides to precipitate a war that could have been avoided. If Garba is to be believed, he would not deny that his views on the war implied that each side had legitimate complaints, and grievances at some stage in the preceding set of events.
Back to the coups. Garba could have come out forcefully to acknowledge that it was possible that Nzeogwu and his associates were not motivated by schemes for tribal domination and hegemony. However, the outcome of a mismanaged coup could have given a different impression. Indeed, as will be shown later, he takes this approach when he looks at the Northern crisis in which thousands of Igbos were targeted and killed. From his analysis of coups in general, Garba demonstrates that he has the insight into the right answers, but he fails to make the linkage. In his analysis and condemnation of military coups, Garba makes clear that it is almost impossible to accurately predict the outcome of a coup, or all intervening variables that can botch it.
It is probably useful to help Garba speculate on the events of January to August 1966 (The first coup through the Northern crisis). Nzeogwu (Who was born in Kaduna, and spoke little Igbo) could have been a fair minded revolutionary. His associates may have been tribalists. Did Dr. M.I. Okpara get a wind of the coups, and bribed those that were supposed to kill him. What is even more disturbing is what appears to be Garba’s attempt to look for answers where they do not belong. That Ojukwu and Ironsi (Two Igbos) helped to abort Nzeogwu’s coup can never explain the one sided killings of the January coup. To begin with, Lt. Col. Unegbe (Igbo) resisted the coup and died for it. Ironsi was on the hit list of the coup plotters and rallied loyal troops to foil the coup. Ojukwu frustrated Nzeogwu to the point where the coup effort became hopeless. These at least show that the coup was not a broad based conspiracy of Igbo officers.
On the other hand, it cannot be said for certain tOn the other hand, it cannot be said for certain that Ironsi foiled the coup because he did not approve of it. Afterall why did he not enforce the constitution by returning power to the elected leaders of the country, after a foiled coup. As for Ojukwu, he and Nzeogwu were not ideological soul mates. Ojukwu may have had his own selfish designs. Under the circumstances he could easily have seen an opportunity to achieve a long held ambition. Finally, it is alleged that a powerful chief or Emir was in Ojukwu’s house on the night of the coup. As a prudent man, Ojukwu would not want to be seen as the man who gave support to a group that could potentially be accused of treason. These are the sorts of answers that we can get from the actions of Ojukwu and Ironsi. The reason for the one sided killings must be found elswhere: In the minds of Nzeogwu and his associates, or in the logistics of the process. One thing is clear, the appearance of one sidedness, and Ironsi’s incompetent management of the events after the coup made things worse.
On July 29, 1966 a group of Northern Army officers struck in a counter coup. During this coup, Ironsi and many Southern, but mostly Igbo, army officers were killed. Garba denies that the coup was retaliatory. He states that “… the extent and punitive nature of the reprisals … could only have been triggered by a crucial lack of understanding of the average Northerner and the Northern Psyche …” It is not clear who he is referring to here: The officers who carried out the coup? Or the rest of Nigerians and the world, who felt that the counter coup and the extensive overcorrection achieved with killings was to be expected?
Garba does not deny that most of the victims of the Northern riots that followed the July coup were Igbo’s. He rather takes the position that “… no one has provided concrete evidence that there was a planned pogrom against the Igbos…” It may well be true that there was no plan to make the Igbos the main target of the massacres. But as the riots developed, somehow, it looks like it became increasingly or immediately obvious to the participants, who the enemy was. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that somewhere, somehow, somebody’s little angry scheme to bloody the nose of the Igbos a little more could have blazed out of control. Given the magnitude of the fallout that followed the riots, no one should expect the planners to come out and admit their mistake. Indeed, every effort would be made to cover up the truth or to silence any tracks leading to the truth. To deny that the riots were planned would spike the soul searcher’s ‘wine’ with a little too much ‘water’. We can all accept our mistakes (On both sides of the conflict), pick up the pieces as a nation and move on to greater collective achievements as one people.
These occasions when Garba tiptoes around the issues do not and could not constitute fatal flaws or gross inconsistencies in his rendition. In these limited instances of aberration, a reader may be tempted to engage the author in challenging argumentation or debate. In the end it cannot but be acknowledged that Garba’s book makes a profound intellectual contribution to any discussion of and an understanding of contemporary Nigeria.
To understand the present, Garba traces the history of Nigeria to its origin in the British amalgamation of the North and Southern Protectorates. This creation, we all know, was an artificial creation that suited the political and manipulative grand designs of the British. It not only ignored the funtionality of the political entity, but it could have been a foresighted and sinister scheme, the outcome of which was clear to the British themselves.
Besides the amalgamation of the north and the south, there is also the amalgamation of a potpourri of cultures, most of which had never dealt with each other diplomatically, or economically in the near or distant past. In comparison with European history, Europeans had interacted with each other closely and intimately, in close proximity or from a distance, culturally and politically, for thousands of years, from India, across the Middle East, all the way to England, and Ireland. On the other hand, African peoples woke up one morning and were introduced to a host of friends, and kith and kin that Europeans discovered for them. For the African, one of the consequences of this sudden and unheralded brotherhood is the senseless struggle between the major tribes to dominate the ad hoc political entities created by the colonialists: Nigerians included.
Within the various communities in Nigeria there is a lingering attitude, in a subliminal way, to subconsciously treat the central government as a colonial entity which they should exploit for the most advantageous benefit of their local constituency. Hence we find it difficult to identify our common interests and effectively separate them from local constituency interests. Garba provides such an example when he describes the army, and even the comments of the late (Sultan) Ahmadu Bello.
During the colonial period, it was possible for the British to hold this artificial entity together. Shortly after independence, the problem of building a nation surfaced. Garba recognizes a problem which everyone knows: We thought we were a nation, or knew that we were not, but pretended that we were. It is not therefore difficult to understand why the political edifice trembled and almost crumbled within six years.
Garba recognizes the significance of the colonial legacy in every aspect of national problems (P.35), including economic and technological development. However, he raises the obvious question: “.. Can we as Nigerians, in all honesty blame the colonialist for all our national failures?…” Of course not. We cannot. We need to look inwards into ourselves and ponder our own contributions to our present problems. Garba argues that we should not dwell on this legacy. One could add that we should have recognized the dangers of the colonial creation, and prepared ourselves for the task of nation building. But looking back at the foundation of our history, and the realities of human behavior, Garba concludes that subsequent events may be understandable. In a way he could be right. It does not require extraordinary capabilities to recognize throughout the human historical experience that institutions adapt through experience over time. They go through a period of turbulence, define themselves in the process, and for better or for worse become stronger. The process is not unlike building an edifice, during which we break rocks, and recombine them into a more enduring facility. The question that arises in Nigeria today is whether we are consciously building an edifice, or we are collectively deluding ourselves. It is even conceivable that some of us are taking the rest of the nation for a ride, for the purposes of self aggrandizement.
Garba’s prescription is that we should learn from our experiences. He claims that he feels “…an obligation to speak out …” because ” … past mistakes are being repeated…” From this point on, the author makes his departure. The natural question that is raised is how we have to go about building a nation. How do we go forward from here?
The subtle and the obvious are recognized: The national psyche, for example. This concept may seem nebulous to some people. But it is very important. It addresses the fact that the various ethnic groups may not still see Nigeria as a country that cannot be dominated by any one group. Garba includes among others, the systematic and unemotional documentation of our history: Our shared and common experiences, happy as well as unhappy. This point is very cogent. As Garba puts it, “… We have a warped view of our national history …” Garba suggests that what we need is “… An accurate and unsparing documentation to establish a basis by which we could evaluate our past experiences…” As even Garba himself would observe among other approaches taken, is that some people have chosen to sing their own songs, and “… to pick endlessly at the wounds… An affront to the spirits of those who died, whether they were Nigerians or Biafrans…” This approach is self serving. Bur Garba could not be too far from the truth when he says that we should see the war as “… a foundation of blood, sweat, tears, anguish and hope on which our nation was built…” For it is only when we look ourselves inwards, and see our own mistakes, that we can truly learn to live with each other with mutual respect.
Garba leaves this question to professional historians. But some examples could be given here. It is suggested that “… there is no reference to those who made blood money on both sides of the war … and those who should be court marshaled for unprofessional military conduct…” Yes! Who are these people? We need some details here. Humor aside, there has been no candid discussion of the military doctrines that informed various key battles during the war. These kinds of discussions will be of tremendous benefit to students in our military academies. Up to this day the allied powers still acknowledge the ingenuity of Erwin Romell (The German). The Red Baron (The German ace pilot of the first World War) was buried with full military honors for being a “worthy foe”. After the first World War, the allied powers returned his remains to the Germans for proper burial.
It is alleged that during the war, some people collected money on behalf of Biafran relief efforts, and invested the money for personal gain in Chicago real estate. How about high level commanders that fled the field of battle after three blunders that cost the lives of thousands of Nigerian Army soldiers? Obasanjo recounts one such series of blunders that ended in the disastrous battle of Aba-agana for the Nigerian Army. The story of that battle has been distorted. Obasanjo would have us believe that it was a chance mortar bomb that hit the rear guard of the ill advised tight phalanx of the Nigerian offensive formation on the road from Aba-agana to Onitsha. What ought to be known is that Colonel Achuzia, who effected the ambush had donned the uniform before Obasanjo, and was a much older and more experienced soldier than Obasanjo. He probably saw his opportunity and knew what to do. Meanwhile, from the battle of Kadesh (1347 BC) to Isandlwahna (1879), the blunder of the type that Aba-agana was, has usually led to disastrous consequences. Hence after its Phyrric victory, the Nigerian Army straggled into Onitsha, much like Napoleon into Moscow after the battle of Borodino.
Now that the war is over, the Biafran invasion of the Midwest should be seen for what it was: A calculated and reasoned military choice by Ojukwu. If the Biafran army had reached Lagos, Ojukwu might have ended the war quickly by beheading the Nigerian government. The allegation that the invasion demonstrated Ojukwu’s ambition to rule Nigeria can hardly stand up to any logical scrutiny beyond its propaganda value.
Garba also addresses the problem of corruption, and moral decadence. Most Nigerians are aware of the cynicism in the mind of the average Nigerian. This cynicism has bred lethargy, due in large part to a feeling of hopelessness, and helplessness. This state of mind in Nigeria can be attributed almost entirely to the systematic debauchery and looting of the national treasury and the nation by the elites. Over time therefore, the elite has created a culture of moral decadence, corruption and an alienated and apathetic populace. As Garba notes, “… It would be easy to ignore…” the damage done by the corrupt and decadent inclinations of the elite if “… their effects were delimited by individuals or personalities…”. What we observe is that outrageous behavior goes unpunished. And so Garba notes, “… Such events are unresolved and their lack of resolution promotes their own kind a hundred fold …” In a way we have grown a culture of sanctioning improprieties, hence the culture of ubiquitous chiefs, even among the Igbos, for anyone who has money, and without questions as to how the resources for claiming these titles are earned.
To these characterizations, it must be added that the alienation of Nigerians from their own nation is manifested in a tragic manner. It would appear that most Nigerians, taking a cue from the ruling elite, have concluded that the future of the country is hopeless. Hence most people in Nigeria are attempting to loot as much as possible from the system before it breaks down finally. When the nation finally falls apart, each person will feel satisfied that he or she grabbed a good share of the “national cake”. Operation 419, the endemic scams, the industry of fraud, and intractable official and private armed robbery, can all be traced to the culture of looting which was wrought by the elite –The top civil servants, the business class, the military and the political leadership.
Another aspect of the national psyche is that Nigerians may not truly see themselves as Nigerians. While we talk about a united Nigeria, almost everything that we do is anathema to the achievement of that objective. Garba puts it very clearly by saying that “…As a nation we pay lip service…” to the desirability of sustaining the country as a corporate entity, and “…There seems to be in fact a pervasive inclination in the opposite direction ….” of building a united Nigeria. It could not be put better. But the point could be elaborated further.
Part of this identity crisis is manifested in the endless agitation for creation of states. Every small constituency wants to be granted statehood. Unfortunately, these states have been created, as is noted in the book, for political expediency. Therefore most of the states are not economically viable. The state creation frenzy has had disastrous results, which we may not readily admit.
The incessant demand for states is the result of mutual mistrust, the absence of honest leadership, and sometimes sheer greed. The absurdity of these demands is exemplified in the question raised by Garba, where he wonders “…The ethnic, linguistic and cultural difference between the people of Katsina and Kaduna states, the people of Imo and Abia states, or the people of Cross River and Akwa Ibom states. For someone who does not speak Ibibio or Efik, it is impossible to discern the difference between two dialects of what is arguably the same language. Of course, there are always sub-cultural variations within any larger culture. On the basis of these variations, then Abia state could conceivably be sub-divided into at least five states. These minor variations should never be the basis for the fragmentation and balkanization of the country into disastrously and embarrassingly unviable enclaves called states.
There is a some kind of schizoid manifestation in Nigerian political behavior. We all claim to be Nigerians, but there is a senseless struggle to dominate each other. Somehow, we delude ourselves, in a our separate constituencies that each one we can devise a strategy to achieve domination over the others. On the contrary, every historical experience reveals to us that this is not feasible for any individual or group. What we have achieved is perpetual instability and a pervasive mistrust among ourselves. What we need in Nigeria is to rise above our self delusion and devise ways of reaching what Garba calls or cites as a “…common consensus….”.
This common consensus can only be achieved through the establishment of credible institutions: A credible civil service, a credible judiciary that can enforce the rules, a credible legislative system, and a credible political processes. These institutional arms of our government must be seen as the collective creation of all Nigerians, which every Nigerian regardless of origin can rely upon. The problem in Nigeria today is that our institutions have broken down in large part because we have violated them. It is the elite (The leadership superstructure) that has led the country to this path of disorder. An elite that has ceaselessly violated the rules. An elite that has steadfastly resisted accountability. An elite that has refused to be disciplined. The dubious and corrupt elite debauched and raped the nation, looted the treasury …etc, ad nauseam. In the end, the elite has putrefied the moral fabric of the nation. Today Nigeria is in a dangerous tailspin, all because of the misconduct of the elite.
Garba cites the constitution as a good example of the inability and or unwillingness of the elite to play by the rules. Our political crises, from the first republic to the present have been the result of the duplicity of the elite. Since 1945, we have written several constitutions. Since independence we have written at least three constitutions. When Babangida nullified the election of 1992, Abacha began once more to write another constitution. During the civil crisis in 1966, a constitutional conference was proposed. After writing our constitutions, we repudiate them. Garba laments this, and it is difficult not to see why. As Garba himself aptly stated, the American constitution has been amended several times, but it has never been repudiated. Why do we, for goodness sake repudiate our own covenants?
The problem in Nigeria is not that we have bad constitutions. Our problem is simply that we do not have the will to enforce our own rules. Whenever the rules do not favor us, we seek to flout them. Once we flout our rules, and we cannot collectively call to question those that are responsible, because we want to play favorites, the system breaks down, and what we have is chaos, and lawlessness. The genesis of the civil crises and the civil war lay in the inability of the President to enforce the constitution. The inability of the senate to enforce the constitution. The inability of the army to play by the rules. The leaders of each of these institutions pretended that they did not know what they were doing. There is no explanation for the Senate under, Nwafor Orizu, to hand over power to the Army, under the pretence that the executive council voted to hand over power to the military. If the soldiers believed in the constitution, they could have refused to take offices as governors, and administrators. All they needed to do was be on the alert, and watch the Senate follow the established procedures to elect a new Prime Minister, and probably a new President. Meanwhile if the existing constitution was flawed, we could all agree on rewriting it, while the business of government goes on. For the military and civilian elite in Nigeria, the business of endless constitution writing has been used as a subterfuge to hold on to power and to the privileges of looting the country for their own aggrandizement.
Arguably, the military establishment has demonstrated that it cannot govern Nigeria better than the popular politicians. Hence Garba recommends that all future government should be based on the popular process. There is nothing new in this point. But in retrospect, Garba reviews the coups and counter coups since 1966, and comes to the conclusion that coup making is simply an awful way of changing governments. In the first place, the outcome of a coup is not always what is planned. The coups of Nzeogwu and Muritala/DanJuma are good examples. Each of these coups failed, and the outcomes were totally different from what the original planners had in mind. The consequences, as history amply records, were disastrous.
Secondly, the only way to change an incompetent military government is through another coup. The fact of the matter is that a wily manipulator could effectively perpetuate his military junta in office regardless of how incompetent he is. What if some frivolous soldier like “…Orka or Dimka …” carries out a successful coup? How in the world could they govern a nation. But if Dimka or Orka had succeeded, they could have been writing Garba’s type of book, and they would be calling Garba frivolous. If treason succeeds who dares call it treason? The Nigerian public would have hailed Orka and Dimka as saviors. In the final analysis, all coups are treason: Nzeogwu, Danjuma, Garba, Dimka, Buhari, Vatsa, Babangida, Orka, and Abacha.
Garba still recommends that the army must have a role in national affairs. No one can disagree with this, as long as they do not arrogate to themselves the role of final arbitration in the political process. There is no better reason why soldiers should take over the government than that doctors, teachers, carpenters, or lawyers should not do the same. If the maintenance of peace and stability is the justification, then the police, whose main role is that of maintaining internal security should be the ones to cease the government. If there is disenchantment with an oppressive government, the people should rise against their leaders.
Nigerians could learn a lesson from Iran, The Philippines, and The Soviet Union. In the political turmoil in each of these countries the army never ceased the government. They rather ensured that the borders were kept secure and allowed the popular masses to settle their differences. But they stayed carefully away from the political fray. In Nigeria and other African countries, military intervention in politics has been a colossal failure. What began in some cases as a sincere, but naive intervention, has ended in all cases with outright betrayal and debauchery of the people. Garba may or may not agree with this, but he notes that “… the army has overstayed its welcome … and there is no denying that soldiers have taken advantage of their position to impose themselves on the people …. “
Having analyzed the origins of Nigerian national problems, and the development of events from 1900, to independence and since independence, Garba makes a series of recommendations for good government and politics. In the end, Garba makes a simple point: Nigeria is nation with tremendous potential. For its inhabitants, there is more to gain by being united as a people. Nigerians should no longer dwell on the circumstance that brought them together. Providence has given us the opportunity to be together. We have the resources necessary to build a nation, and we should make the best of it. We have suffered together, and we have paid a steep price for our opportunity to learn the lessons of nation building and to take another chance.
Whatever the flaws of Garba’s book, they are outweighed by the inescapable truths that he has told. In all fairness, it will be useful, though, for the reader to momentarily detach Garba from the book and ask whether the author has a valid point. Garba’s task now is to make himself appear credible to a justifiably skeptical Nigerian population.
I WENT TO JAMAICA CHINYERE E. EGBE
ASSOCIATE EDITOR – Profiles International Magazine
This was a trip that I always had in mind: A visit to the Caribbean Islands. A pilgrimage, so to speak. For twenty years and some, since I came to the Americas, I had always had the perspective that it would be sacrilegious, for me at least, not to visit the Caribbean islands before returning to mother Africa. And so beginning with the Bahamas in 1996, I began to visit the islands. My next stop was in Jamaica in the summer of 1997.
It is in the Caribbean islands that black Africans eventually, after centuries of slavery, established themselves as a self-governing majority. History can actually take some fascinating turns. Apparently, somehow, the Africans in the Caribbean islands outnumbered and outmaneuvered their captors. Pictures that I see on television about the Caribbean peoples however, often captivated me. I saw pictures of large numbers of fellow Africans going about their business in a manner that was tremendously familiar.
And I went to Jamaica. I did not go to Jamaica exactly to have fun. I actually went to visit the Museum of African History, and see some historical sights. Inevitably I stumbled into some fun activities. Honestly, I was very busy. But as hard as I tried, I could not escape having some fun. I spent one whole night at the Reggae Sunfest in Montego Bay. It was really very good. I am glad that I was there. I also saw a crab race at the Seawind beach resort. That was good too. At the crab race, I saw a Jamaican man with an incredible sense of humor. Yes: A crab race! But when I was about 20 yards to the race, I could hear the commentator calling out the crabs from their circles. I mean their crab stables, and you would think that it a real horse race. There was a bookie, and bets and a little money for kids. My only regret was that I should have been there with an audio or video tape recorder.
In Jamaica, I saw a hospitable people, an industrious people and a people with a sense of humor. Wherever I went, I had nothing but a warm reception by friendly people. There was orderly conduct as the ordinary people labored under the hot sun that was as familiar to me as the remnants of British colonialism. I emphasize friendly and orderly conduct because I nearly cancelled my trip. A few weeks before I was to go, I was given the impression that Jamaica was dangerous. The streets of Kingston were such that if there was any indication that I was a tourist, then I could be mugged and my possession grabbed from me. Honestly, I walked the streets of Kingston when I was looking for the Museum of African History. There was no sign of insecurity that I should have been concerned. Certainly there must have been some exaggeration.
Yes, Jamaica had all the elements of familiarity to me: The structures of the buildings, the vegetation, the roads, and the language. I mean the way they spoke English, when they were not speaking Patua. Believe me, if I had stayed a little longer, I would have begun to speak some that stuff: I mean Patua. I also tasted Jamaican food. The most interesting of all their foods were Ackii and slatfish. The ackii was everywhere. Sometimes I wondered if there was any need for formal cultivation of this interesting delicacy. Now, ackii is really a plant. But it looked and tasted like scrambled eggs. It was really delicious. Then I ate jerk chicken. Honestly, jerk chicken reminded me of my grandfathers’ half nephew that died in 1958. He was called Little Egbe. He was no longer little at the time that I knew him. He was the last one from my historical ancestors that still practiced idol worship. I remember when he made his usual sacrifices. Very often he used chickens. I mean grown roosters. He cooked or, like Americans would say, fixed the chicken to have some smoked flavor, with seasonings. Once I ate jerk chicken, my mind flashed right back to my childhood. Was this coincidence? Probably not.
That was not the end of things familiar in Jamaica. I visited the rest of Jamaica from a base in Montego Bay. From thence I went Dunn’s River Falls, Kingston, Spanish town, Ocho Rios and the Blue Mountains. As we drove in our van along the northern shores of the mountain ranges (Jamaica is a mountainous island), I was reminded of the road from Lagos to Benin in Nigeria. The layouts of the roadside communities were incredibly familiar. I looked down the valleys to peruse the houses buried in the forests along the road, and it reminded me of my village back home. If I had my way, I would have stopped to visit them. I wanted to see the people in their ordinary settings outside the metropolis.
Dunn’s Riverfalls, is a tourist attraction: A waterfall that drains into the nearby bay. There again I ate jerk chicken. There, the people displayed their marvelous talent for arts and crafts. Men and women of all ages hustled. They were friendly, and tried to make a living with an admirable sense of humor. On our way to the Blue Mountains, I did something very funny. The bus drivers were really good at their thing. They careened up the paved mountain trails with a lot of confidence. But, my God, I was scared stiff. At a point, I asked how long this would continue. The other passengers promptly told me that I could not go back now. Well and good. We went on until we arrived at an old liquor factory and then the coffee plantations at the summit of the mountain. This mountain is really sometimes blue. Late in the afternoon, as the sun begins to set, the distant misty valleys take on a blue color.
My real mission in Jamaica was to visit the Museum of African History. I wanted to see the artifacts from the days of the slave trade and enslavement: The reminders and legacies of the struggle of the people: The most telling testimony of the resilience of Jamaicans and all African peoples. What I saw was heart rending. The more you see, the more you feel. The more I feel a connection to the people: My people. I also came closer to a feeling of remorse. I saw the guns, the traps, the cuffs, and the shackles. It was easy to imagine the atrocities and the suffering of the people. I also saw the arts and crafts of our peoples at that time. These artifacts were a loud testimony that our people were a cultured people far from the brutes that our ancestors were made to look like.
I felt remorse because we also inflicted some of what happened on ourselves. I did not get angry. Who do you really get angry with? We cannot dwell on the anger. However, we must seek reconciliation with each other. Mother Africa should have protected her children better. But I felt a greater sense of mission to seek liberation from the shackles of oppression. I could understand the maroons and their struggle. Regrettably, I was not able to visit the Maroon’s town. Next time I visit Jamaica, I will certainly make an effort to see the Maroons.
I had only one disappointment. When I was looking for the Museum of African History, it appeared that all fingers were pointing to the Bob Marley Museum. My candid opinion, though, is that there was Jamaica before Bob Marley. Indeed, it took more than 15 phone calls to tourist organizations, government offices and institutions to find someone who knew anything about the Museum of African History. When I eventually went to the Museum, it was not as active as I would have expected. As a matter of fact, there was an exhibition going on in the Museum. Halt! I must thank the curators at the Museum. I was not aware that I had to make a reservation to see the artifacts in the basement of the Museum. However, they made a special provision to open the basement for me to see the massive collection that they had.
My story in Jamaica could be as long as I could make it. I cannot say it all here. I can only say that if I had to do it again, I would stay longer in Jamaica. Certainly, I will visit Jamaica again. If you have time, please I will encourage you to visit the place. It was great.
MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO ZIK OF AFRICA IN
NEW YORK CITY
NOVEMBER 30, 1996
Following the official funeral given to Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe in Nigeria, the African community in New York paid a memorial tribute to the father of modern Nigeria and modern Pan Africanism. The event was not for moment misplaced.
On may 11, 1996, Dr. Azikiwe passed away. The euphemism of passing could not be construed as such for man who died at the age of 92 years, spanning pre colonial Nigeria, colonial Nigeria, post colonial Nigeria, and a Nigeria before and after the upheavals that led to the civil war. Dr. Azikiwe, fondly remembered as Zik of Africa was a grand survivor. He outlived all his contemporaries and more. His passing marked the end of era: An era that included the likes of Kwame Nkuruma, and Leopold Senghor.
A man of immense stature, Zik was a giant among his contemporaries and was respected in Nigeria, the African continent and around the world. Given Zik’s global stature, his death was announced in major media around. Obituaries were placed in New York Times, Financial Times, The Economist, Washington Post, etc.
In death as in life, Zik brought people together. His funeral in Nigeria was a national event. For a moment, Nigerians were united. Everyone wanted to get a piece of Azikiwe. Following Zik’s burial in Nigeria, Nigerian communities in the USA paid memorial tribute to the father of the nation. In the United States of America, Nigerians rallied around. Adversities were forgotten for a while, and Nigerians put aside their differences.
Zik was no less a national hero than he was a hero of the African Diaspora. The Committee that was formed to organize the tribute events included Nigerians, other Africans from the Continent, and African Americans. As soon as the Committee issued press releases to announce the plans for a tribute to Azikiwe, old friends remembered the giant of Pan Africanism. Mr. Persaud, the Editor of the Guyanese immigrant newspaper in New York City, promptly called to remember that he met Dr. Azikiwe in London in 1954. Mr. Elombe Brath the radical TV host recalled Azikiwe’s activities and granted a half hour radio interview to representatives of the Nnamdi Azikiwe Memorial Foundation. The late Dr. Betty Shabazz, widow of Malcolm-X remembered that he met Dr. Azikiwe at Lincoln University, and recalled Dr. Azikiwe’s activities in the 1950s. Others that answered the call to pay tribute to Zik of Africa included the American born Dr. Mary Umolu, who was the wife of Dr. Azikiwe’s parliamentary secretary. The public television station, WYNE Channel 25 in New York City, had an hour long Tv show on Azikiwe. This show was part of their program Education and Perspectives. During the memorial service, choirs offered their choral services free of charge. The 100 strong Sister Bowman Mass Choir graced the occasion. So did the Nigerian Catholic Choir of New York. Indeed there was no shortage of offers to participate.
The tribute events were held on November 30, 1996, beginning with church service. The church service was followed by cultural displays, and celebrations. For Azikiwe’s passing called for a celebration of his life, rather than a mourning of his death. If there was a reason to mourn, then it was because the nation had lost a hero, who was almost becoming a fixture in the national scene. A man who was revered by all generations of Nigerians.
During the ceremonies, of course, there was no shortage of dignitaries. The huge Cathedral of St. John the Divine was packed with people from around the world. Dr. Azikiwe was Eulogized by Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani, Zik’s own Doctor and confidante. There was also Dr. Niara Sudarkasa, the President of Lincoln Univesity, Zik’s Alma Marter. Zik was above remembered by The Phi Beta Sigma, his beloved fraternal brothers when he was a student at Linclon University. The Sigma’s came in mass to pay their last respects to Azikiwe. Speeches were given by His Excellency, Charles Awani, Consulate General of Nigeria, Dr. Mary Umolu, Dr. Niara Sudarkasa, and many others.