I think it is too elementary to attempt any formal definition of democracy.
It will serve our purpose to say that it is participatory governance in the sense that we all have a say, whether we vote or not.
It is also useful to remind ourselves that participation is largely by
representation; in other words, those who are old enough to vote and
those who are not, are represented by people elected to speak, think and
act for us.
This part is very important because we all cannot
be in Government, especially the Executive and Legislative arm, so we
must elect or otherwise choose people to go there on our behalf.
The problem is compounded by size.
Can you imagine what a Senate or House of Representatives where all 160 million of us can sit will look like?
From this point we can see the inherent challenges that lie in a process of collective decision making.
In order to further highlight some of the challenges that lie in
democratic governance, I will share with you a report of developments
across the World published by Newsweek Magazine on August 23 & 30,
2010 edition titled “the Best Countries in the World”, Newsweek Top 100.
An article by Rana Foroohar posed the following question before delivering the report of a survey of 100 nations:-
”If you were born today, which country would provide you the very best
opportunity to live a healthy, safe, reasonably prosperous and upwardly
mobile life?”
In the answer, Finland was number 1, Nigeria was
number 99, Ghana was number 86, South Africa was number 82, Brazil was
number 48, Singapore was number 20, USA was number 11, United Kingdom
was number 14. Greece, with its recent economic and debt crises was
number 26, Russia was number 51.
The United Arab Emirates,
Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that are not democracies in the
contemporary sense of the western conception were rated 43, 53, 54 and
64 respectively.
Out of the 53 African countries on the
continent, only 18 made the ranking, the highest being Tunisia 65,
Morocco 67 and Egypt 74.
South Africa, which is reputed to be
arguably the best democracy in Africa and at the time, the largest
economy ranked lower than these “undemocratic” North African countries
at 82.
As if this was not bad enough, earlier this year on a
business trip to Abu Dhabi, I was forced to enter into conversation with
a middle aged man of Arab extraction.
It was in the evening in
our hotel. He had come out to the restaurant to dine and unwind. I
ended up on the same table with him and he was insistent on making
conversation while he drank a glass of red alcoholic wine.
In
the event he sought to know where I came from and when I said Nigeria,
he accused our Government of pauperizing our country when we have oil
like his own country, Saudi Arabia.
When I told him that he was not supposed to drink alcohol he asked me if I was going to report to his country.
When I reminded him that his country was not democratic, he hit me where it hurts most.
He asked what the value of democracy is to my own countrymen when his
own countrymen can build hospitals that we bring our own ailing
presidents to.
As if this was not enough, he rounded off by
saying to me that in his country they see what their leaders are doing
with their money, building roads, bridges, new airports, schools,
hospitals, rail, shopping malls and generally driving development, and
he at least did not care about democracy.
Although I felt hurt
that he thought very little of my country, the idea of freedoms, to
think, to speak, to act and to ask questions is too valuable for me to
exchange for development under an autocratic or undemocratic government.
So I worry as we must all worry, when I hear some people say that it is
part of their achievement that they allow us to express ourselves.
Utter Rubbish!
They seek to re-define the relationship in the
social contract. They are to serve us and not the other way round. It is
not a privilege for us to complain when they do not deliver.
If the only options left to choose from were between freedom and
development, I for one will rather surrender development than freedom.
However, I am however convinced beyond doubt that democracy can deliver
development and this is the central theme of my presentation.
Political Parties
In order for this to happen, the vehicle of politics, the political parties must be developed as first class institutions.
The first thing to seek is the “idea” behind governance (this is often contained in the program of a political party).
This is very important because the extremes of left and right ideologies have now converged around the centre.
If China and Russia are democratizing, no matter how imperfectly, it is
clear that the communist or socialist ideologies of economic exchange
have proven to become unsustainable.
Conversely, capitalism in
its purest sense has also had to reinvent itself to remain viable.
Therefore it moved from cash to credit and credit almost killed it.
The question of ideology is important because it lies at the heart of
choice making for the people who participate in election to choose their
representatives.
At all times, the welfare of the people is
the central theme for the canvassing of votes. It is the ideology, often
on economic outlook, sometimes on social outlook that helps to
crystallize the difference between the political party machines.
Before concluding on party ideology (because it can be the subject of a
full lecture itself) let me say that while some people still delude
themselves that there is no difference between our political parties,
especially the ruling party and the main opposition, the differences are
emerging daily for those who are discerning enough to notice.
If on major policy issues such as power, security, agriculture,
corruption and unemployment the main opposition has disagreed with the
party in Government and has criticized its choices, I wonder what else
the party needs to do to prove that there is a difference.
If
you look at the level of progress and development (World Bank poverty
index) in the States governed by old and new opposition Governors, there
is clear daylight in terms of development.
For example, it is
no coincidence that only 2 (two) States, Lagos and Rivers, governed by
APC Governors are executing rail projects on their own as a mass transit
solution.
The party in government has lied about when there
will be stable electricity for 16 years, and an APC state, Lagos led the
way in showing what is possible with its power initiatives in Egbin,
Akute, Lagos Island and Alausa. Ikeja and Lekki will be commissioned
this year.
Other APC Controlled states are clearly Pack Leaders in service delivery across the religious landscape.
The party in power prefers to continue to import fuel with the
attendant disruptions, and monumental corruption. It cancelled its own
concession of moribund refineries.
Lagos believes that in a
strategic partnership where it provides land for a refinery, Nigeria can
produce enough petroleum products for consumption and still have some
to export in 4 (four) years.
The ruling party is now sending a clear message to the people. This is what they are saying:-
“We care about you, but you do not need development so we will not do
any developmental work in 3 (three) years. In the 4th (fourth) year we
will give you money, kerosene, and rice. Please vote for us, and use the
money we give you to provide your own roads, schools, hospitals and
security, until we see you again in 4 (four) years”.
In the
last election in Osun, the APC candidate sought the peoples vote on a
campaign anchored on first his record of 4 years, and a clear
developmental and economic agenda to empower the people if elected.
For the candidate of the other main party, the election was going to be
a war. So said no less a person than the Vice-President of our country.
A leading member of that party. The candidate therefore anchored his
campaign on an intention to CAPTURE Ekiti. For me there is clear
daylight between these two approaches.
Anyone who still
pretends not to see this major economic ideological difference will not
see the tallest building in the world even if he stands in front of it.
People and members
I will start here with the quote of Bertolt Brecht who said:-
“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate. He hears nothing,
sees nothing, takes no part in political life. He doesn’t seem to know
that the cost of living, the price of beans, of flour, of rent, of
medicines, all depend on political decisions. He even prides himself on
his political ignorance, sticks out his chest and says he hates
politics. He doesn’t know, the imbecile, that from his political
non-participation comes the prostitute, the abandoned child, the robber
and, worst of all, corrupt officials, the lackeys of exploitative
multinational corporations”.
It seems that when opposition does its job will the Governmet panic and resort to a propaganda of lies.
It is part of the lies they have told us about the mismanagement of our National Security.
Their first story was that those behind it were within the Government.
When the opposition pushed them to identify those people they have
turned around to say it is the opposition.
Distinguished ladies and
gentlemen, it is still regrettable that the majority of the members of
our political parties and politicians do not yet include the critical
elite of our society.
They still see politics as something too dirty.
Whether we like it or not, history has shown that the elite of any
society, especially its professional cadre, and the very best of them
decide the direction of the nation when they come to a consensus about
the pathway for their nation, even if they belong to different political
parties.
Where are all the people who have built things with their hands in our society?
What are they doing outside of Government?
Where are the founders of the big banks, businesses, telecoms in our body politic?
Are they just content to finance and yet remain unwilling to take the plunge?
There is unverifiable talk that they are willing to identify with the
ruling party when they are in Abuja, and with the party in Government in
their states when they get to their bases for fear of reprisals?
What do our elite believe?
It is only by their belief, that contributions can come in to fund
parties, where members pay dues, where strong values restrain people
from decamping whenever the grass in not green on their side again.
Truth be told, opposition politics is tough and only the committed and true believers see it through.
Opposition politics carries its own pain everywhere and has been the
subject of a book called “How to be in Opposition. Life in the Political
Shadows”, where Nigel Fletcher provides useful insight into the
challenges of being in opposition and also profers useful tips.
The one I will share with you is sub-titled “choose your weapons wisely”, and this is what he says:-
“An opposition cannot compete with the Government on resources, so you
must be inventive. In what is a David and Goliath contest, you can use
the advantages of greater agility to aim your slingshot where it can do
the most damage. Parliamentary ambushes, media attacks and effective
research will wear down Ministers and help expose their mistakes”
As you may have also heard in this part of the World, the party in
power will accuse you of trying to bring down the Government.
This is certainly not the same thing as bringing down the Country
because the Government can be removed by LEGITIMATE and CONSTITUTIONAL
means at the ballot box.
According to Nigel Fletcher:-
“…bringing down the Government was a peculiar day job and it is. But
that is really only the negative side of the job description. With
equally lofty ambition, the positive side of opposition could be summed
up as ‘trying to change the World’. This is surely something worth
doing…”
Perhaps when all these issues have been put in proper
place, can we then begin to talk of the people of the party and what
defines it.
This is different from a manifesto, which can change (discuss) easily.
It is the ideology of the party (what the Americans call the platform
statement )and what I call the DNA of the party that is very difficult
to change. The nearest to it since the Action Group was formed in 1951
is the All Progressive Congress Code of Ethics unveiled at its inaugural
summit on the 6th of March 2014.
It is important to repeat the codes here:-
“1. Our party considers the Nigerian people as our nation’s greatest
asset, and will do everything to protect and preserve human life and
dignity.
2. Our party upholds a Nigeria bound by the principles of freedom, justice, peace, unity and the rule of law.
3. Our party upholds and respects every individual’s choice of faith under God.
4. Our party has no tolerance for corruption and will manage Nigerian
resources responsibly, with a commitment to accountability and the
pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
5. Our party is committed to a strong system of government at the
federal, state and local levels as the most effective vehicle for
harnessing the diversity and preserving the unity of Nigeria.
6. Our party rests on the foundation of democracy, fairness and the
pursuit of opportunity for all citizens, predicated on economic
productivity, fair competition and the bridging of inequalities.
7. Our party pursues its objective of increasing economic opportunity,
social welfare and progress through a government-led and private sector
driven economy.
8. Our party upholds the principle of one person, one vote grounded in free and fair elections at all levels.
9. Our Party upholds and respects the interests of Nigeria’s diverse ethnic groups that constitute our Nation.
10. Our party recognizes Nigeria’s strategic role on the African
continent and commits to the pursuit of a foreign policy that promotes
peace, security and our national interest.”
The existence of these codes leads inexorably to how the parties are managed.
Who leads them? What type of experience do they have? When and where
are meetings held and how are decisions taken? (Night meetings).
Finally, what is the process of choosing representative of the party (officials) and its flagbearers?
What role do debates play?
What is the efficiency of primaries?
Where do we draw the difference between “godfatherism” and “endorsements”?
I have taken the trouble, even if in summary form, to highlight some of the bridges we must cross in order to deepen democracy.
These are only some of the challenges that democratic governance faces.
It seems to me that the countries that have managed to deliver
development with democracy got one thing right – they built strong
political parties (Not one in four years parties).
The makings were appearing in SDP and NRC until the annulment of June 12.
Thankfully, the APC provides the opportunity for a rebirth, with the broad base from which its coalition is formed.
That in itself is a challenge, which, if overcome and harnessed,
provides very deep diversity from which to project strength and national
unity.
Leadership of Government
Until recently, we
all used to think that our national development was inhibited by the
fact that we never had a university graduate as leader of any national
government in an executive capacity.
This perhaps alludes only faintly to the issue of the elite consensus, but it is not the same.
Thankfully, the myth of graduate leadership as desirable as it is, has been exploded now.
We have two graduates (a zoologist and an architect) at the helm of our
National affairs and I think the majority of Nigerians will tell you
today that their lives are worse off today than they were 4 (four) years
ago.
Clearly there must be more to leadership than a university degree and educational qualification.
There is character, vision, courage, empathy, compassion and many more
attributes that you simply will not find in a classroom or school.
They are in homes, in communities and also in the value system of society.
Recently, our leadership has re-defined empathy by inviting parents of
abducted Chibok girls, bereaved people, to the presidential villa for
commiseration.
I find this truly strange. Truly unAfrican.
How does this sound? “I heard you lost your child to abductors. Please come and see me at home so I can sympathize with you”.
This is my paraphrasing of what has so far transpired.
As if this was not bad enough, there is a tissue of lies around whether
or not they tried to give the bereaved parents money. It is a low point
for leadership. It suggests the lack of empathy.
This is not the first lie that surrounds the unfortunate abduction of young girls in Chibok.
The first statement was to say that they had rescued the girls.
When pressed to show us the girls they issued a statement casting doubt on whether the girls were actually abducted.
The new story, is that they now know where the girls are.
This is the same way they lied about the unaccounted for $48 Billion;
when they say it was only $20 Billion as if it was good not to account
for $1.00.
They have turned around to say no money was missing,
but add that they have appointed “forensic auditors” to find out of the
money was missing. It seems strange and illogical to be searching for
what is not missing.
Where is courage? The character to proceed even in spite of fear.
I think we will all do well to remember that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King led from the front in the civil rights movement, so did Mandela, so
did Lee Kuan Yew in the agitation for Singapore‘s independence.
Barack Obama has been to the war fronts in countries where American
troops (young men and women) are put in harm’s way, to inspire them.
As racially divided as America was in the days of Martin Luther King,
he did not seek to divide the country and impose black rule over white.
He dreamt and worked hard to unify divided people.
Mandela sacrificed personal liberty for the emancipation of his people
and surrendered presidential power for a higher power – a moral
authority – that made him the father of a continent and a global
leadership reference, when by clinging to power he could not have been
more than a president of one of the world’s 196 (One Hundred and Ninety
Six) countries.
Instead of dividing the ethnic Chinese, Malay
and Indians in Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew united them by his housing and
education policies, built a nation, and took them on a journey of
dizzying adventure and development.
What we are witnessing now is a daily dishonor and discredit of the service of previous Governments.
They tell us now that since Nigeria was created, no Government has done for us what they have done for us.
What would the nationalists who fought for our independence say to these inheritors?
I wonder how the 7 surviving formers Heads of State and Presidents who
attend the National Council of States feel, when they hear this kind of
talk.
Yet their unmatched achievements has not delivered stable
power whose delivery date has not escaped their lies. The date has
shifted from month-to-month to year-to-year since 2011. The lie was even
told to an International News Agency.
Instead of boasting that
no previous leader of Government has done more for the country as our
Government does, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the leader of Dubai
whose achievements far surpass ours (at least for now) not only
acknowledges the service of those before him, he sets new challenges for
his Government and dreams new dreams for his people.
This is what he said in the book “MY VISION: Challenges in the Race for Excellence” at pages 44, 45, 46, 213 and 214.
“Although Arab and world history abound with numerous examples of such
leaders, if I were to review the history that I stood witness to, the
leader I constantly think about is Sheikh Zayed”
“Sheikh Zayed
earned the love of all those around him, out of their great respect for
his hard work and achievements. He was also frank and expected people to
be frank with him. This is something he taught me and this is how I
came to respect him”
“How can I prove this? Well many people,
from the United Arab Emirates and overseas, criticized Sheikh Zayed for
drilling artesian wells in the desert and using the water for farming.
They said this would deplete a non-renewable source, inflict heavy
damage on the environment and disturb its natural balance. Although none
of those critics ever knew the actual size of the underground water
reservoirs, they continually criticized the idea.
As time
passed, water remained abundant and none of the fears of critics
materialized, while Sheikh Zayed was proven right. In the not-so-distant
past, people travelling between Abu Dhabi and Al Ain would die of
thirst if they did not have enough water for the long journey. Sheikh
Zayed transformed the same journey into a fascinating drive on an
ultramodern highway flanked by farms, palm gardens and endless greenery.
In fact, Sheikh Zayed transformed a large area of the Emirate of Abu
Dhabi into the world’s largest oasis in one of the world’s harshest
deserts. All this was made possible by the huge water reserves he put to
good use and which are now expected to last many decades.
“I
will never abandon one opportunity and wait for another. We have not
reached the goal we are striving for. What you see now is nothing
compared to our vision…just tiny parts of what lies ahead”
“I
know the road to development and modernization is difficult; I know that
it is long and I also know that the next stages will be even tougher
and longer. But I have faith in God, I believe in my people, in the
wisdom of our leadership and the future of our nation. I am confident we
will realize our goals. Our vision is clear, our road is paved and the
clock is ticking. There is no more time for hesitation or half-baked
goals or solutions. Development is an ongoing process and the race for
excellence has no finish line”
So until we find that kind of
leader that believes in God and country, who truly loves the people, the
leader who recognizes ‘service” not awards, self-adulation and national
honours as the highest honour, until then will our democracy remain
undeveloping.
Certainly, without subscribing to any
recklessness, I would think that if the leadership of any country is
worth living for, it must be worth dying for.
Regrettably, such sterling leadership as we now so desperately need is not given to nations, frequently or in abundant supply.
In 236 years of the USA, she has produced 44 presidents (of which one
was elected for 4 terms) and in about 500 years of British democracy,
she has produced about 75 Prime Ministers.
How many of those Presidents or Prime Ministers do you remember off hand? Why?
Many were either not outstanding or simply did not meet the developmental aspirations of their people.
In just about a decade, Britain has produced 3 (three) Prime Ministers,
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Who knows what will happen
in next year’s election?
This March 2014 in India, the ruling
party, the Congress Party was defeated with the winning party, BJP
having 31.4% of the votes against the then ruling party’s 19.5% of
votes.
The instructive message of this musical chair of leaders
is that their people have always acted to vote out leaders who were
inefficient, not trusted or simply unable to inspire their people.
A number of American presidents served only one term, some voluntarily
stepped down (e.g. Nixon) others were voted out after one term (eg.
Carter, Bush Snr.).
Recently, Gordon Brown only finished the term of Tony Blair and was voted out in the first election he called.
Conclusion
So apart from building great parties, finding good people, and so on
and so forth, the Nigerian people must find the courage to vote out an
un-performing Government after its first term.
This must be the
mood when a Government lies about power, about security an about the
economy which are the problems it was mandated to solve.
This
is the strongest message of a desire for development that the Nigerian
people can send to the incoming government as well, that we will vote
you out if you also do not develop our lives.
It remains or me
to wish Governor Timipre Sylva, at whose behest this paper was written
to commemorate his birthday anniversary, a very Happy Birthday and many
happy returns.
I thank you for listening.
Babatunde Fashola, SAN
Governor of Lagos State.
![Photo: Boko Haram General Ihejirika: A Loony Biafra Fanatic Or Just Deadly Corrupt?
Dr. Peregrino Brimah
The Federal Government of Nigeria has not come out to reject the incriminating statements made by its employed Chief Boko Haram negotiator, Dr. Stephen Davis, from Australia, who three days ago named former Chief of army staff, General Azubuike Ihejirika and a former governor of Borno state, Senator Ali Modu Sheriff, both ruling party members, as the top sponsors of the Boko Haram deadly sect that has killed more than a hundred thousand Nigerians and displaced over four million, mostly farmers in the nation’s north.
For some reason I bet the Jonathan government will never discredit him because they know he knows much more he is not yet saying and they will not want to risk him getting bitter and telling Nigerians much more of the truth they are dying, literally dying to know.
It can be concluded that the ex-military chief is a top sponsor of Boko Haram. The inefficiency and gross sabotage of the military and military operations over the past four years of his reign are living and dead testimony of his membership role in the organization. Well noted military abandonments of post prior to Boko Haram attacks, the facilitated transfer of Nigeria’s best weapons, armored tanks and APC’s (taken up north to “combat the terrorists) by the military to Boko Haram throughout his tenure and continuing today are further evidence of his support of the group.
The question Nigerians now ask is, why? Why will a Christian army general from the southeast sponsor a group that is promoted as being radical “islamist?”
The answer must lie between or be a combination of the following:
Retired general Azubuike Ihejirika is likely a loony Biafra Zionist fanatic. His interests lie in the destruction of the north of the nation which he blames for the defeat of Ojukwu’s Biafra secessionist attempt. This will explain why the Nigerian military men drafted to protect a well respected former general, who fought valiantly on the Nigerian side against Biafra, late General Muhammed Shuwa, were described to have withdrawn and looked on as the general was assassinated at his home. Of course General Ihejirika not court-martialing these men proves his involvement.
General Azubuike Ihejirika would have been enjoying the havoc caused by Boko Haram on the north along with the handful of fellow loony fanatics like himself that always celebrate the deaths and destruction to the north and call it “pay-back,” not mindful of the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent people who were not even born during the civil war; and millions who did not participate in any way are the majority of victims.
There are hundreds of cases worldwide where people and States act in like fashion with conspiracies to undermine others they hate. In many of these events, these mischief makers even sacrifice their own in false-flags to achieve their ulterior goal.
It is evident that General Ihejirika did not mind as Boko Haram continued to murder Nigerians in the north. He vehemently opposed the request for additional troops made by the then Chief of defense, Ola Sa’ad Ibrahim to curb Boko Haram’s onslaught. It can be recollected that by May last year, Boko Haram had taken over 2/3rds of Borno and the General still rejected the demands for the needed troops and was seen driving in convoy’s in Abuja building his multi-billion hotel.
It was later that May, after we released a high level intelligence report, alerting the world about the permitted occupation of the north by ragtag terrorists, that Nigeria’s President and the General were finally forced, reluctantly, to declare a State of emergency and finally draft the needed troops.
It can also be recollected that as soon as victory was in sight and the first “Shekau” was killed by the then Joint Task Force – in August of 2013 – that the Nigerian president and General Ihejirika stopped the successful coordinated JTF-CivilianJTF assault on Boko Haram and re-deployed all troops with knowhow of the war; and created a docile 7 division army that was now “banned” from cooperating with the CivilianJTF and would leave Boko Haram to recover and re-establish their assault on the farmers of the north.
The ex-general was fulfilling the dream of the handful of fanatics who believe self-determination can only be gotten through murder. Many of us will fight for the liberation of not only the Igbo States if the people so desire, but also every Nigerian zone that wants sovereignty and self-determination; but one must not and need not shed a drop of innocent blood to achieve this and any other goals.
Corruption is also a motive for his actions sponsoring Boko Haram. The alleged war against terror is a great source of wealth for the army chiefs. A quarter of Nigeria’s budget goes to financing this war and yet several reports, some by ENDS and others by SaharaReporters have exposed how the Nigerian army has been severely underfunded. Soldiers sleep and eat in shameful condition. They wear substandard gear and sometimes two army divisions are combined to one unit to half the cost of operations. The billions allocated to the war on terror have been swallowed by Nigeria’s executive government and the top army chiefs. Soldiers complained to us that they are given only two rounds of ammunition to defend barracks’ with instead of 10 times that, the minimum required allocation. Soldiers complained that they had to beg the armory for rounds. The former General was stuffing his mouth with money for the army beyond belief.
He has been reportedly constructing mansions and ultra-modern hotels on the money for Nigeria’s defense. Clearly the preservation and continuation of the war was in his interest and is still in the interest of Nigeria’s army chiefs as it gives them stupendous wealth under in the “democratic” era where they are out of government.
The ex-General made an inadvertent confession of the sabotaging of the needed development of the Nigerian army in his rascally diversionary attack on the person of El-Rufai when these accusations were first published. He admitted and alleged in that statement published in the Vanguard that “it was because money was not spent on the army that Boko Haram was successful.” So #WhereIsOurMoney? Is it money for the Nigerian army that he spends on Boko Haram? What wicked treachery!
If I may add a third reason- the former army Chief is a known as a PDP ruling party potential gubernatorial candidate for Abia State. The ruling PDP party has always utilized Boko Haram as a means of tarnishing the image of their opposition. It can be recollected that the former Party chairman and a best friend of the President, Bamanga Tukur, still on public salary, said, “Boko Haram is fighting for justice, Boko Haram is another name for justice.” General Ihejrika on this basis would have been doing the party’s bidding by destroying the north, most especially opposition States.
We must thank the Chibok grls for their prayers which the Lord is answering by revealing the identities of those doing this to them and their people. Nigerians can bet on more revelations in the coming days and months. Meanwhile the nation waits as it expects these sponsors to be arrested in the coming days; else the Jonathan government will be again more seriously implicated in Boko Haram sponsorship.
Dr. Peregrino Brimah; http://ENDS.ng [Every Nigerian Do Something] Email: drbrimah@ends.ng Twitter: @EveryNigerian](https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/s403x403/10600443_827490270617737_2775285311840057432_n.jpg?oh=12e09803708fede5ef674fae12dc06ba&oe=5479BBA3)
