Two experiences in my life, or rather, one experience gleaned from two incidents a year apart , made a profound impact on my mind and altered drastically my perception of Nigerian politics. Both incidents occurred about two decades ago in my early years at Ahmadu Bello University and my first real contact with national politics.
The first was in the 1977/78 session during the “Ali must go” riots. The Obasanjo government had announced its intention to partially withdraw subsidies from higher education, which would increase the cost to students of feeding and accommodation. Feeding cost in the dining halls would increase from 50k per day (for three square meals) to N1.50k per day. I do not recall the figures for hostel accommodation.
Southern universities led the call for resignation of Colonel Ali, the Education Minister. Northern universities were still looking up to A.B.U for leadership as all others were young and some had just metamorphosed from A.B.U Satellite Campuses to separate universities. Thus the Universities of Maiduguri, Sokoto, Jos and B.U.K were waiting for us to take the lead.
The dilemma for the students’ leadership was this: northern universities had a predominantly northern student body practically all of whom were on state government scholarships and would not be in any way affected by the policy. Southern universities, on the other hand were predominantly populated by students from the South who were paying their own bills and this increase would stretch parents' resources and force some of them out of the universities. The National Union of Nigerian Students (NUNS) led then by Segun Okeowo had the task of carrying ABU Students’ Union on a national protest over an issue that was of little direct consequence to the majority of its members.
I was then the youngest member of the Students’ Representative Assembly (SRA) or students’ parliament. The debate went on and on into the morning hours with the parliament divided. Okeowo and his PRO, Nick Fadugba, had come to Zaria to lobby. I strongly endorsed the boycott of the lectures and forcefully spoke on the need for ABU to rise above ethnic sentiments and fight the cause of Nigerian Students. Fresh from the nation’s premier Unity School (King’s College) I was convinced that one Nigerian was not different from the other and that ethnic considerations were backward and reactionary.
We won the debate, northern students joined the boycott, a number of A.B.U. students were shot, wounded and killed, and the rest is now history. But we were up to that point proud of ourselves and what we had done, even though it was condemned by Northern elders.
The second and final component of the experience happened one year later, during the JAMB crisis. The genesis was the publication on the front page of the New Nigerian Newspaper of a histogram showing the distribution of the students admitted into Nigerian Universities for the first time by JAMB. There were 19 States in the Federation then, 9 of them in the South. Eight of the Southern States took the top eight positions in the ranking followed by Kwara and then Cross River, the final southern state. The States of the north other than Kwara took the last nine positions. Bendel State alone had more students admitted than the ten northern states combined. Northern students were alarmed.
The understanding was that part of JAMB’s mandate was to help bridge the educational gap in the country and promote national integration. It was clear that the skewed admission would only widen the gap. Moreover, northern students were not taken into southern universities who refused to recognise the IJMB, while southern students filled northern universities. We tried to have a national protest.
Delegates sent from A B U to the universities in the South were evaded and the only courteous response came from the University of Calabar. The problem divided the students’ body and southern universities made it clear it was a northern problem. The boycotts took on a regional character as northern universities ended up closed. To add insult to injury, the Students’ Unions at UNILAG and UNIFE actually issued statements supporting the military junta and condemning the protests. The exercise was to be seen as the enthronement of merit over mediocrity and the government was urged to make sure that half-baked school-leavers should not fill our universities.
For many of us who just one year earlier had championed a southern cause, the experience was traumatic. It confirmed the warnings of all those who considered us naïve in our struggle for national unity. But worse, this experience has not remained on isolated item but an example of incidents and attitudes with which our political history is replete.
It seems that the failure of the Nigeria opposition can in the main be traced to this inordinate fear, contempt and resentment for the ‘north’, feelings that are borne primarily out of ignorance and misunderstanding. An issue that concerns the north is seen as purely parochial while one that affects the south is a national question. The Nigerian opposition, by failing to rise beyond their desire for an ethnocracy has denied the people of this country of an opportunity to forge a truly democratic opposition.
When in 1992 the electoral process seemed certain to produce two northern presidential candidates, the opposition press raised alarm at what it called northern designs to present the country with a faits accomplis. Politicians snowballed the process and played straight into the hands of Babangida. The illegal cancellation of the primaries and the banning of the politicians in violation of existing electoral law were not condemned by most of those now calling themselves democrats. It was only the annulment of June 12, 1993 which involved a southern politician that was viewed as a travesty of democracy.
Let me state for the avoidance of doubt that I condemn the annulment of the June 12 election. But I also condemn the annulment of the primaries in 1992. And I also condemn the coups d’etat which overthrew Shagari’s democratically elected government. The difference between the democrats and the ethnocrats does not lie in whether or not June 12 should have been anulled, but in whether June 12 was an issue at par with all travesties of democracy, or a special case because of the ethnic pedigrees of the victim.
M.K.O. Abiola was elected by all Nigerians. He won the election in Kano and Jigawa, defeating Tofa, the so–called son of the soil. The dissolution of that election was a violation of the rights of all Nigerians who voted to freely choose their leader. The action was that of an individual who wanted to remain in power at all cost.
Why did Abiola accuse the “ north” of stopping him? Why does the opposition attack the same “north” that voted for Abiola? Why has Abiola, a man seen by all Nigerians as one of them, suddenly been transformed into a “southerner” on the landscape of political action? How much justice do we do ourselves if we expect the north to lead the fight for June 12 in the face of what it sees as a betrayal?
The result of defining June 12 in tribal terms was the transformation of previous allies of Abiola into allies of the military or at best, passive by-standers. Key supporters joined the Military Junta. Many of these could claim, in good conscience, that hey did not betray MKO or democracy. They had simply abandoned a cause which had been hijacked and derailed. Abiola before and up to June 12 was the leader of a broad-based nationalistic front about to take over from a military dictatorship. After June 12, the cause had been hijacked by “ethnocrats” who had always seen Abiola not in terms of what he may have had to offer the nation but in terms of where he was from and what he, in their view, represented: A chance to get rid of northern leaders. In this, Abiola’s greatest enemies are those who claim to be his friends, people who contributed nothing to his campaign and had always mistrusted him because of his detribalised outlook.
Sadly, the lesson has not been learnt. Tunji Braithwaite recently joined the race for the nation’s presidency and lost the election on the first day by defining his agenda in anti-northern terms. It was a sad day for us, northerners who welcomed his declaration for politics and hoped to rally behind him or M D Yusuf or any other serious candidate with the capacity to make self-succession for the military a difficult, if not impossible task. A few days after Braithwaite’s press conference, Arthur Nwankwo, a prolific writer, dismissed M D Yusuf’s candidacy on the pages of This Day Newspaper. Nwankwo was not the first to do this but his primary reason seems to be that M. D. Yusuf is from the North, and that a northern candidate is unacceptable to Nigerians.
The likes of Braithwaite and Nwankwo will again play directly into the hands of Abacha. The opposition will always fail unless it transcends the fight for ethnic ascendancy and fights for enthronement of the people’s rights and defence of their liberties. The greatest shortcoming of the political philosophy of the opposition lies in the redefinition of democracy to mean the emergence of a southern president. In this, the philosophy is no different from that of the northern bigots who believe only northerners should rule the country.
For northerners who want democracy, the fight is a two–pronged one: Against so-called elders who out of selfish interests subvert the will of the people and falsely claim to speak for us, and against those who would make all northerners carry a cross that is not their own and answer for the deeds which they condemn and leaders whom they reject.
Ethnocracy as an ideology pitches the northerner against the southerner
Democracy pitches us all against dictatorship and violation of human rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment