Sunday 29 December 2013

Pope Francis Denounces Capitalism, But is He Right?


pope, francis, denounces, capitalism,, but, is, he, right?,
Pope Francis Denounces Capitalism, But is He Right?
Image Credit: AP
Well, the pope made headline news again.
As PolicyMic's Nina Ippolito noted, Pope Francis had harsh words for free market capitalism and the economic inequality it produces — going so far as to claim it is "the root of all social ills," "the cause of violence," and a "tyranny."
He went on to say, "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
As is typical with many leftist critics of capitalism, the pope is looking at the end result and losing the forest for the trees. What he and many others don't realize is that not only is capitalism a better system of producing a higher standard of living and prosperity than any other economic model, it's also the most fair system that produces the most happiness for the most people. He is flat out wrong about his facts.
First, capitalism allows us to earn our success. Study after study shows that earned success leads to happiness far more so than being handed material wealth. Keep in mind that success is not only defined by money. Depending on what your interests are, success could translate into the satisfaction of running a charity, raising a family, or making a difference in a cause you support.
Second, capitalism is the most fair system. If we're talking about equal distribution of wealth, capitalism produces decidedly unequal results. Even communism — that alleged equalizer — failed miserably at providing equal outcomes. The Soviet Politburo, as despotic regimes typically do, was happy to preach equality while at the same time providing generous exceptions for themselves and their allies.
If we're speaking about keeping what you earn, capitalism delivers. If a person is asked whether someone has a right to what they did not earn, the answer is almost always a resounding no. Therefore, the free market leads to more fairness if less redistributive "equality." Redistribution is totalitarian and oppressive. You simply cannot build a group of people up by tearing another group down. Misery loves company, which leads to happiness for no one.
In fact, Winston Churchill said it best, as he often did, when he remarked, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Third, capitalism leads to greater generosity. Four of the world's five most charitable nations (the United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) also rank among the 10 most economically free, according to a pair of studies. When free people and beneficiaries of free enterprise choose to support the causes they love, they are far more generous, whereas when the government purports to "take care of everyone," no one feels the need to give. Be that as it may, a prosperous society will donate to charity, not only for the benefit of the recipient, but for the rewards to the giver. Economically free countries tend to be wealthier, meaning citizens generally have more to give. More importantly, nations without free economies tend to see the state displace civil society as the source of any support.
"The welfare system," as Milton Friedman once explained, "has destroyed private charitable arrangements that are far more effective, far more compassionate, far more person-to-person in helping people who are really, for no fault of their own, in a disadvantaged situation." Freer economies, on the other hand, both leave citizens with more money to give to the charities of their choosing, and foster a sense of individual responsibility towards the less fortunate — as opposed to a sense that it is the state's responsibility to care for the poor and downtrodden.
Finally, capitalism leads to a higher standard of living for everyone. As former President John F. Kennedy once quipped, "A rising tide lifts all boats." One has only to consider the example of North and South Korea. Here, two very similar cultures went down two very different paths. Obviously, the path of the freedom of markets led to a better standard of living for all the citizens of South Korea, and the path of government enforced "equality" made everyone equally miserable in North Korea. Consider that even the very poorest Americans are wealthier than 60% of the world's population, according to a World Bank study. Anotheranalysis of U.S. Census Bureau data proves that even the poorest Americans have seen their average real income rise by more than 10% between 1970 and 2010, proving that the poor do not keep getting poorer in America.
The bottom line is that not only do the numbers support capitalism, morality supports capitalism. Communism has been tried and repeatedly failed to deliver both happiness as well as protection of civil liberties. Capitalism also produces far more wealth per capita than does Socialism. As even the New York Times' and NPR's Adam Davidson illustrates, "GDP per capita in the U.S. is nearly 50% higher than it is in Europe. Even Europe's best-performing large country, Germany, is about 20% poorer than the U.S. on a per-person basis (and both countries have roughly 15% of their populations living below the poverty line). While Norway and Sweden are richer than the U.S., on average, they are more comparable to wealthy American microeconomies like Washington, D.C., or parts of Connecticut — both of which are actually considerably wealthier. A reporter in Greece once complained after I compared her country to Mississippi, America's poorest state. She's right: the comparison isn't fair. The average Mississippian is richer than the average Greek."
Is capitalism really the enemy here? Perhaps Pope Francis should take a lesson from Churchill and focus less on the inherent vice of freedom and more on the inherent virtue of redistribution.
PolicyMic

Popenomics Debunks Everything the GOP Told Us


popenomics, debunks, everything, the, gop, told, us, about, capitalism,
Popenomics Debunks Everything the GOP Told Us About Capitalism
Image Credit: AP
It's been a banner year for Pope Francis. In just his first nine months, Francis has been namedTIME's "Person of the Year," snagged a cover of the New Yorker, and single-handedly recast the narrative of the Vatican. No longer is the Church focused on hot-button social issues like condemning gays and gay marriage, staunchly opposing abortion, and spending all of its time hating on contraception. Instead, Francis has led the Church back on a path of caring for the less fortunate and helping those in need by, in part, promoting his own brand of "Popenomics."
In recent speeches and statements, Francis has been swift and firm in condemning the free-market economics of unchecked capitalism as "a new tyranny," arguing against "trickle-down" economics as an "opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, [that] expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power." He has said, "We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market." Francis has instead been pushing a more populist message that violantes manycore principles of anti-spending and anti-big government that define the Republican Party.
Because of this, the GOP may be losing an ally in the Catholic Church that is had depended on for so long, and some on the right are beginning to worry. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called the pope's comments "pure Marxism," while other have labelled Francis as the Catholic Church's Obama (and not in a good way). Going a different route, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) implied that Francis, being from Argentina, has only seen "crony capitalism" and not "real capitalism," and therefore can't possibly understand its true potential.
But as much as conservatives complain, they're going to be hard pressed to get Francis (the pope, the Bishop of Rome, and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church) to change his mind. So what is the GOP to do? As long as the Republican Party continues to spread its anti-government, pro-free market capitalism ideals, and Pope Francis continues to preach his anti-"trickle down" Popenomics, the two will be at odds, and the party could be in danger of losing the support of the Church and its many, many supporters (read: votes). The GOP is no stranger to playing a game of chicken with his values, but this might be one game they can't risk losing. 
PolicyMic

The last thing a 3-year-old Syrian said before he died: “I’m gonna tell God everything”


i'm gonna tell God everything
This picture is haunting and it’s been floating around the internet with the sentence:
The last sentence a 3-year-old Syrian said before he died: “I’m gonna tell God everything”
And that’s equally haunting.  It’s impossible to verify but the picture tells a story about the pain and suffering that exists in Syria right now.  There are many in the media who would like to say this is because president Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless killer.  And that’s half true.  Like other government leaders – he has engaged in war and with that war has come the death of tens of thousands and the displacement of over 1 million Syrians now living in refugee camps.
But this hasn’t always been the case.  This is the inevitable result of a covert war being waged by the U.S., Israel and other Sunni countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  Our interests in taking down the Syrian dictator al-Assad are all about geo-politics.  If we take out Syria – we neuter Iranian influence in the region.  It has gotten so bad that al-Qaeda is now fighting on the same side as the United States government and Bashar al-Assad and his government are fighting al-Qaeda (source).  And Syrians are all the victim of this massive global covert proxy war.
It has gotten to the point where we don’t even know if the chemical weapons that were used in Syria were the result of al-Qaeda or the Syrian government (source).  When it comes to matters of intelligence and propaganda – it’s very hard to discern truth from fiction.  But no one can deny that Syria was a very stable country until we decided to go in all guns blazing.  We’re not bringing democracy to the world – that’s the sound of imperialism baby.
And this is what that looks like in pictures … this is what American imperialism brings the world:IAcknowledge

A Recent History Of Your Sagamu-Benin Road By Sonala Olumhense


Columnist: 
 Sonala Olumhense
If you are a Nigerian, chances are you know someone who has spent an entire day, at least once, traveling the 140-mile Sagamu-Benin City road, or been killed trying to do so.
Sagamu-Benin, sometimes referred to herein as “The Road,” is the only direct link between the eastern and western parts of Nigeria, and between her political and economic capitals, Abuja and Lagos.
It is a thirsty road, guzzling the blood of innocent Nigerians.  In one accident, a friend of mine was able to find only her brother’s head, but no other part of him.  In a well-publicized crash a few years ago, a vehicle ran over tens of people who had been forced to lie on The Road by armed robbers while being robbed.
It is also a hungry road: almost every week, vast sums of money are “spent” on it by federal authorities who pretend not to know that federal authorities are “spending” vast sums of money on it.
On 23 September 2003, the Minister of Works, Adeseye Ogunlewe, announced that the government was losing an estimated N185 billion annually to bad roads, and had awarded 156 road contracts since 1999 at a cost of N302 billion, and describing the situation as “shameful.”
At different times, desperate governments of Ondo and Ogun States have intervened to rehabilitate damaged portions of The Road in their areas, only to come under the attack of federal officials.
Sagamu-Benin is part of the Lagos-Mombasa, as well as Algiers-Lagos sections of theTrans-Africa Highway, and of Nigeria’s East-West Road.   It is probably Nigeria’s most vital road.  That is why it is in many ways a good way to study and analyze Nigeria.  
In the 1970s when it was built by Dumez, travelers needed only a comfortable three hours between Benin City and Lagos.  But that joy of easy travel lasted only a few years.  Collapsing sections yielded the phenomenon of full-time, year-round budgeting for endless repair.  Traveling back, in terms of hot air and hot funds, here is some of what we know:
On January 21, 2013, Minister of Works, Mike Onolememen, told a visiting Kogi State delegation led by Senator Smart Adeyemi that The Road, along with three others, would be completed before the end of the Goodluck Jonathan administration, using funds of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P).
In April 2013, SURE-P was said to have invested N16.5 billion on The Road.  Vanguard newspaper said the agency had (also) budgeted N21.7 billion to cover the dualisation of the East-West road.
In December 2012 , Gabriel Amuchi, the Managing Director of FERMA, said that the "zero potholes" target set for the festive period on critical Federal Highways, naming one of them as the Sagamu-Benin Road.
In October 2012, Solel Boneh won a three-year $390 million contract to widen and pave the Sagamu-Benin road, and rebuild drainage and water channels.
In September 2012, the government awarded a three-year contract for the reconstruction of sections of The Road, worth over N65b.
In September 2011, during a courtesy visit to Edo State Governor Adams Oshiomhole, Minister Mike Onolememen explained that the real problem with the Benin-Ore part of The Road was the water table being very high, and that every construction methodology had been defeated because in the raining season the road would be washed away.   The governor expressed shock that neither contractors nor the Minister’s predecessors had identified and corrected this issue. The N16 billion reconstruction/asphalt overlay of the Benin-Ofosu section, by RCC, continued.
In August 2011, the Federal Government approved an additional funding of N106 billion for the East-West Road, to bring the total sum to N245 billion, up from N138 billion, Minister of Information Maku citing a failed portion of the Sagamu-Benin Road.
In July 2011, Mr. Onolememen announced that Nigeria had decided to concession the Sagamu-Benin Road to capable private investors, using a Public-Private Partnership model.
In December 2010, the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on FERMA asked the government to inject over N500billion as an intervention fund to rescue the country’s roads from collapse, adding that FERMA needed about N100billion annually.
In November 2009, the Federal Government awarded contracts worth N12. 2 billion to RCC and Borini Prono for repairs on the road.
In October 2009, President UmaruYar'Adua directed that unspent allocations to the Ministry of Works, be channeled into road rehabilitation and construction.
 In September 2009, Minister Dora Akunyili announced government contracts worth N29.5billion, including an additional N16.67 billion for the reconstruction of The Road, raising the cost of reconstruction to N24.27billion.
In May 2009, N9.7 billion contract for rehabilitation of the Ofosu-Ore portion of The Road was awarded.
In April 2009, the government approved N376.4 billion for 30 road contracts nationwide, including two sections of Sagamu-Benin, part of 26 road projects worth N116.57 billion.
In August 2007, the new Minister of Transportation, Diezani Allison-Madueke, reportedly broke down when she visited and saw the deplorable condition of The Road. Soon after that, she disclosed that the Obasanjo government had spent over N450 billion on roads in its eight years.
About two weeks after her crying act on The Road, something of a reconstruction began.  A top Ministry official, John Ibe, told reporters the first phase of the contract, for N7.5 billion, had been awarded.
In Feb 2007, Solel Boneh International received a $52 million contract for renovating the “Lagos-Benin” expressway.
At the end of 2006, Solel Boneh won a contract to pave a road in Nigeria for $270 million; that road was unspecified.
On 21 December 2006, the government gave RCC a N7.5 billion contract for rehabilitation work on The Road.
In November 2006, President Obasanjo stated that N36 billion had been made available for the construction of the East-West Road, among others.
On October 16, 2006, Olubunmi Peters, the Managing Director of FERMA, announced the government had approved N6 billion for repairs on The Road.
In July 2006, the government said N438.8billion had been made available for three major highways, including the East-West.
In November 2005, the Senate, citing "the deteriorating state of our federal highways and the increase in the spate of road accidents," specifically on the Lagos-Ibadan and Sagamu-Benin highways, asked its Committee on Works to investigate FERMA and the Ministry of Works.
"The Minister of Works ought to be invited because we can't explain where all this money is going,” Senator Victor Oyofo said.  “The Benin-Ore road is [the] worst.”
In March 2004, Adeseye Ogunlewe, the new Minister, said the government had approved N15 billion for road maintenance.
In February 2004 , the government announced "Operation 500 Roads," to rehabilitate a total of 26,400km of roads, including Benin-Sagamu; and in October, "Operation 1000 Roads" and 32,000 kilometres, at a cost of N5.8 billion.    
Following a November 2002 request by the Ministry for a virement of N10 billion to enable it make payment for contracts already executed, the House of Representatives agreed to probe how N300 billion disbursed to the Ministry in three years was spent.  In a resolution, the House noted that in the 2002 Appropriation Act alone, the National Assembly made monthly appropriations of over N70 billion to the Ministry.
In September 2000, Minister Anenih said that the Federal Government had set aside N19 billion for the rehabilitation of roads in the South-West.
On 21 August, Information and National Orientation minister Jerry Gana announced a N1.7 billion contract for emergency repairs of the Sagamu-Benin Road to Piccolo-Brunelli Engineering Ltd.
In May 2002, the Ministry announced that the government had already spent over N42 billion nationwide on completed road projects.
In May 2000, at the end of the first year of the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency, the government announced that it had up till that point awarded contracts for 45 road and bridge projects valued at N65 billion.  I presume that somewhere in there was Sagamu-Benin.
There, in shorthand, is partly where Nigeria has been.
Happy New Year, Nigeria!

Saharareporters

Obasanjo's Squad Will Derail Jonathan's Presidency If He Fails To Fight Back By Chido Nwangwu


By Chido Nwangwu
Based on Obasanjo’s military antecedents, power attitude and drawing from my reading of his history as a leader, he will Not — for lack of a better word — “forgive” Jonathan despite his references to God and Christ, and to the great Nelson Mandela the same week as a forgiving leader. To be sure, Obasanjo does not have the forgiving spirit of Mandela….
http://usafricaonline.com/2013/12/19/why-president-jonathan-should-fight...
—-

USAfrica, December 19, 2013: To fully make sense of Obasanjo’s December 2, 2013 letter to Jonathan, you should follow the key point of my analytical deduction which I refer to as Obasanjo’s unspoken historical burden; namely, for the 3 times where he exercised partisan power and influence in Nigeria’s presidential election history, he has faced unpleasant twists,  unexpected and unsatisfactory outcomes: 1979 (he supported Alhaji Shehu Shagari, NPN, removed in a military coup in 1983); 2007 (he personally picked an ill Alhaji Umar Yar’Adua, PDP, who died after 3 years of ineffective presidency as the 13th Head of State on May 5, 2010) and he also picked Yar’Adua’s VP, Goodluck Jonathan who became acting President on May 6.  On April 18, 2011, he was declared winner of the presidential election with the very active campaign support of Obasanjo.
But Obasanjo insists that Jonathan is not good enough and deserves the December 2 acidic, public denunciation of his presidency and worse, of this same man who has been, according to my key sources in the presidency in Abuja, very respectful and deferential toward Obasanjo.

Based on Obasanjo’s military antecedents, power attitude and drawing from my reading of his history as a leader, he will Not — for lack of a better word — “forgive” Jonathan  despite his references to God and Christ, and to the great Nelson Mandela the same week as a forgiving leader. To be sure, Obasanjo does not have the forgiving spirit of Mandela…. (I’m completing in February 2014, the book MANDELA: IMMORTAL ICON & The Power of Forgiveness. By Chido Nwangwu).
 

I’m not surprised at Obasanjo’s militaristic strategy of maximum assault and attack to severely damage his target.
No matter how finely presented the speeches he makes in the name of democracy, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool soldier for whom the opposition to his set goals no longer require philosophical exegesis and debates but the whiz-bang of ear-shattering confrontation fit for enemy combatants.  Hence,  I believe that Gen. Obasanjo’s caustic, open letter was calibrated to belittle the credibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria and severely advertise his lack of personal respect for the same Nigerian leader Dr. Jonathan. And, he makes it clear that he does not have to respect the man or his presidency!

As a student of politics Nigeriana and analyst of the various emanations and power plays by Obasanjo I’m not surprised that he’s going for Jonathan’s jugular. Obasanjo fights to the finish! The good thing about his fighting you in politics is that you will know.
But, somehow, Jonathan’s handlers and strategists are yet to show an effective, better grasp of the unfolding events and, realistically and without sentiments , “engage” Obasanjo & Co.

Otherwise, the man who has the most to lose, President Jonathan, should, operationally, awaken to the unfolding strategic goal of the letter from former President Obasanjo: a forced, embarrassing end to the Jonathan presidency!

There are, mainly, three sets of reactions to the harsh, condescending, caustic and in some cases brutally frank letter of December 2, 2013, to Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan from his “political godfather”, former President retired General Olusegun Obasanjo.

The first group of Nigerians dismisses everything said and written by Obasanjo as utter “nonsense”, total “bunkum”, possibly good advice coming from the “wrong source” and, lest we forget, from “a shameless hypocrite.” Worse things and poisonous adjectival arrows have been deployed by the trumpeters for Jonathan to aim at the medulla oblongata of the former army officer who, himself, categorizes politics in the language of war and martial brutality led by garrison commanders! Obasanjo has since the December 10, 2013, deliberate leak of the letter faced a media barrage and assault by Jonathan’s garrison commanders. To boot, since Obasanjo, they say, “loves to write open letters”, one letter with a truck load of insults was fluently “forged” with his famous daughter Iyabo’s name appended as the author of the most comprehensive and contextual letter of insults from a daughter to her father.

The second group are the Nigerians who insist that Obasanjo hit the name on the head; they add he has done President Jonathan a wake up favour by running a laundry list of Jonathan’s failings and alleged inadequacies.

These Nigerians add that Obasanjo deserves another level of respect for speaking up and sharing with Nigerians what he now, really, thinks about the man he hand-picked as Nigeria’s vice President and my key sources informed me he affirmed to be elevated as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria.

These Nigerians say that Obasanjo is accurate in assessing Jonathan’s presidency as a failure which should get out of the way for peace and security to emerge. And, for effect, Obasanjo “cautions” Jonathan that he personally copied some influential retired Generals  — especially the crafty power player Ibrahim Babangida.

The extreme elements and beneficiaries of the Obasanjo tenures (1976-1979) and (1999-2007) in this group shout, hoarily and foolishly, that “only Baba Obasanjo knows how to rule this Nigeria” and spread other psycho-political pathologies.

The third group of Nigerians — who might be the majority — point out there are some reasonable deductions from the two previous groups/positions. They argue that Jonathan is doing his best, yet he is complacent and should do more especially on corruption.

Consequently, I think that Jonathan should digest Obasanjo’s letter and harness the meaningful aspects of his message and discard the boatload of serial insults, unusual condescension to a sitting president and the slap on Ijaw peoples’ right to rally around their first son. Although, some of the spokespersons for Ijaw interests use the language of power politics in vernacular and without adequate discretion.

Jonathan should call a very small meeting of effective men and women (from within and outside government) with one request: how do I save my presidency to make Nigeria better for all?

He should demand optimal performance from all his ministers, set a firm deadline for verifiable results — in the same way Lagos Governor Fashola’s results are evident — or such minister(s) get sacked before May 2014.

Besides Obasanjo’s open warfare, the opposition is gaining major grounds against Jonathan. Especially, taking cognizance of their December 17, 2013, over-turning of Jonathan’s ruling PDP majority in Nigeria’s House of Representatives into the APC’s advantage via defections.

On balance, the trillion dollar question is simple: is it too late to rescue the Jonathan presidency from the combined onslaught of the Obasanjo squad and the assorted maneuvers of the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC)?
The answer is blowing in the wind….

  •Dr. Chido Nwangwu, Founder & Publisher of Houston-based USAfrica multimedia networks. Follow him on Twitter @Chido247

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters

2015: Oritsejafor Warns Of Impending Danger, Decries Marginalisation Of Christians


Oritsejafor
National President of the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, has warned of impending danger as 2015 draws nigh due to the way politicians are aligning along religious line.
Oritsejafor said this before the commencement of the 8th edition of Word of Life Bible Church/Eagle Flight Micro-Finance Bank poverty reduction programme where he gave out six brand new cars, 15 tricycles and 100 grinding machines.
Speaking at the event which took place on Boxing day, the CAN president spoke on the essence of Christmas saying it is, “a season of love and giving,” noting that, “the most powerful verse in the Holy Bible is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him will not perish but have everlasting life””.
Oritsejafor lamented that the essence of Christmas has been lost in many places.
“It’s very painful and pathetic for me to see what Christmas has become, but that must not stop us from celebrating. It’s sad, because it has become a commercial venture, where people sell this and that.
“The worst of it is not just even the selling, it’s the killing and the maiming and destruction. People get drunk and do all kinds of crazy stuff in the name of Christmas. Yesterday, Christmas day, some people died; they didn’t die because they were sick, they died because they were stupid,” Oritsejafor said.
“In the name of Christmas, people get drunk and have accidents that take their lives. In my own opinion, 99 per cent of people in this world, either they don’t understand what Christmas is, or they don’t want to understand what Christmas is, because when you see the way people do certain things, the extent which they go….People literally don’t go to church on Christmas day. It’s surprising to me that the person you are celebrating is the Church Himself, and yet you won’t go to Church on Christmas day, so what exactly are you celebrating?”
The seeming gang-up between the Muslim South-west and the North-west that is predominantly Muslims ahead of 2015, according to Oritsejafor portends danger.
“To be honest with you, I’m very troubled,” he confessed. “They don’t like people like us saying certain things. At the end of the day, they look at us and say ‘you are the one that is heating up the polity’, but it is strange because all we do is react to the reactions of other people.
“What you have just described is exactly what some of us are seeing that is very frightening. Are we aligning along religious line? Because if that is what is happening, it is very dangerous for Nigeria.
“Obviously, it is not all of the South-west, it is like the Muslim South-west, the far North Muslims. It is very frightening, it shouldn’t be, and they shouldn’t pretend about this, they should come out and tell the truth because that’s what we see here.
“I don’t want to comment on political parties because I’m not a politician, I’m not going to that extent, but we should not do that. We should please allow Nigeria be and allow the people to decide what they want.
“It’s a very dangerous direction if we go that way. The body language we see is not good for this nation, and I think the media must help us to get the message across that this is very dangerous for the unity of this nation and I pray that it shouldn’t go that way so that we can come today and not try to divide this nation.
“I’m being very selective in my words. I wish Nigeria well. I believe that 2013 was a year of discovery, 2014 for me is a year of recovery. I see Nigeria being able to recover. We have an incredible opportunity to recover and I hope and pray and believe God for recovery,” Oritsejafor said.
The CAN president also decried the way Christians are being marginalised in the country.
“For example, two weeks ago,” he said, “the Christian Association of Hausa, Fulani, Kanuri, led by Rtd Gen Piko, visited me in Abuja on a solidarity visit. I didn’t even know they existed, and in the spirit of Christmas, when they shared how pathetic their situation is today in Nigeria, I wept. I had to look for two million naira to give to them to start something like a revolving loan. Some things that certain people do appear on front pages, but 99 per cent of Nigerians don’t even know what happened.
“These people came from Jigawa, Sokoto, Kano, Kaduna, Zamfara. They are the real core northerners that we are talking about.
“They lamented that the Federal Government is spending huge sums establishing Almajiri schools across the North, asking what about our own children? ‘Our children can’t go to those schools. We are more marginalized than anybody else, we are seen as Fulanis, we are seen as Hausas, Kanuris, but we are not treated as such; even by our own people, just for the single reason that we are Christians’.
“And I asked a question, ‘where are the civil rights groups in this country?’ Where are all these groups in Nigeria? What is their mission? Because, sometimes, when I see them go after certain issues, forgive me but sometimes I feel like these are paid events that they do.”
Speaking further on marginalisation of Christians, Oritsejafor cited another example of such act.
“Five days ago, the Sarawa nation, an ethnic nationality from Bauchi State, in the Tafawa Balewa Bogoro local government area, also paid me a solidarity visit. They have chosen their paramount ruler, but the governor refused to give him a staff of office. Why? Because they are Christians.
“The headquarters of their local government was removed. That should not be because, according to the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, nobody except the National Assembly can alter local government headquarters. Bauchi State government did it. They moved it. The only girl secondary school in their area was closed down by the governor and Muslim girls were moved to other schools, but Christian girls were left to roam the streets,” he lamented.
“When I say things like this, people say ‘oh he hates Muslims’ , no! I don’t hate Muslims, but I hate this discrimination which started long before Boko Haram,” Oritsejafor said.
InformationNigeria

APC Chieftains Visit To Obasanjo, Atiku For Consultation, Not ‘Cultivation’, Says Aregbesola


APC-leaders-and-Obasanjo-480x300Governor of Osun State, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola has defended the recent visit by leaders of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to former President Olusegun Obasanjo and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, saying it was a necessary move calculated to save Nigeria.
Aregbesola, who made this known in an exclusive interview with Sunday Trust, stated that the move was aimed at drawing “reasonable advice and intervention” that could save the country from disintegration.
It would be recalled the leadership of APC, comprising its interim national chairman, Chief Bisi Akande; former Lagos State governor, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu; and some APC governors, were led to Abeokuta, Ogun State by Gen Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) on a visit to Obasanjo. This came after a similar visit to Atiku at his Asokoro residence in Abuja.
The separate meeting with the two PDP card-carrying members was interpreted as a move by the opposition party to further deplete the ranks of the ruling party following the APC’s success in wooing five PDP governors into its fold.
But Aregbesola dismissed the notion, saying APC was not trying to woo Obasanjo and Atiku into its fold as it was being widely speculated, adding that the party was only consulting them to seek advice on how to stop the nation from breaking up.
He explained the fact that the two leaders are in an opposition party did not mean they cannot be partners in progress and that his party was not claiming to be the only one occupying a moral high ground that would not require it to look outward for advice.
“At the state we are in presently, sorry to say, we cannot be too puritanical. The worrisome situation with this nation has degenerated so badly and there is no time to start being puritanical. In this situation, what is too much to sacrifice to ensure that many Nigerians who do not accept the depth of maladministration, poor leadership and bad governance are mobilized to overcome the problem?” he said.
Aregbesola said APC was reaching out to Obasanjo and other Nigerians of like mind in the opposition in order to guarantee a future for the country.
“When this kind of dangerous situation occurs, consultation is imperative. Must we wait for disintegration and collapse of Nigeria before we consult with those who can still render reasonable advice and intervention that will save the country? Consultation does not amount to cultivation”, he said.
He likened what his party was doing to the happenings in other political parties around the world, saying: “What is happening in Nigeria tells you that politics is a game of infinite possibilities. The major opposition to the Christian Democratic Party in Germany was the Social Democratic Party; yet, the two of them are now together in the coalition that is ruling Germany.
“Liberal politics is a system of infinite possibilities.  The fact that some people could not agree yesterday should not be the basis for foreclosing a relationship tomorrow. What is most important is principle. What were the reasons for our disagreement yesterday? Was it selfishness or our inability to agree on how best to manage affairs or conditions? Those that we are relating with today were not with us because our own understanding of society and the leadership was different. If they have now come to our own understanding of what leaders should be and do, then we must embrace them.
“That is what is happening. The nation is in fermenting. And fermentation is a process that we leave all the properties in the process to dissolve and form a new thing.  I want to believe that Nigeria will come out of this and the weaknesses and deformities in each and everyone in this process will be eliminated and our finest capacity will be brought out for Nigeria to utilise for its greatness. That should be the focus of all.
“Don’t let us assume that our weaknesses will survive while our strengths will disappear. Rather, let us believe that our weaknesses will disappear in this transition and our strengths will survive and push Nigeria through this dangerous stage”, he said.
InformationNigeria

What is ‘tribalism’ and why does is matter in South Sudan? – By Andreas Hirblinger and Sara de Simone


MacharKiir
The differing ethnicities of Riek Machar and Salva Kiir can too easily suggest that the current conflict in South Sudan is all about ‘tribes’.
References to ‘tribes’ and ‘tribalism’ form part of the standard repertoire of media reporting and expert analysis aiming to make sense of the resurgent armed violence in South Sudan. In their attempts to explain the recent rupture between South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir and other members of the SPLM leadership, commentators have universally noted that President Kiir belongs to the Dinka ethnic group, whereas Riek Machar is a Nuer. Hannah Bryce, writing for Chatham house – a foreign policy think tank – argues that the current struggle illustrates “the prevalence of political ‘tribalism’ at the highest office”. Thus, in the search for straightforward explanations, ‘tribalism’ is a concept which many commentators readily tap into. However, the key protagonists in South Sudan’s crisis also make use of a distinctly anti-tribalist rhetoric and warnings of ethnic conflict in order to justify their political agendas as well as the use of force.
Ethnic framings
There is no doubt that the dynamics of armed violence in Juba and across South Sudan have taken on an ethnic dimension. The violence has its origins in a stand-off between different factions of the presidential guard. This fault-line quickly spread within the armed forces, as the fighting over key strategic locations in Juba pitched members of the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups against each other. Reports of targeted killings and perpetrators selecting victims based on their association with specific ethnic groups suggest that distinctions between friends, enemies and respective combat strategies are now widely informed by the framework of etnic belonging.
The logic of violence now also informs the dynamics of violence in Jonglei state, where armed youth have targeted civilians specifically based on their ethnic identity (as recent incidents in Akobo and Bor make clear.) The defection of Peter Gadet, identified as an ethnic Nuer, as well as reports of mobilisation in Unity State suggest that South Sudan is on the brink of civil war.
Ethnicity provides a lens through which power struggles have been framed throughout most of Southern Sudan’s recent history. Not least have perceptions of exclusion and marginalization from power and resources often been accompanied by ethnic scape-goating. The close linkages between ethnic belonging, armed conflict and survival tightened during the decades of civil war, involving virtually all ethnic groups. This militarization of ethnic identity became particularly stark after the SPLA split in 1991 lead by Riek Machar and Lam Akol. In its aftermath, armed violence between the two SPLA factions became increasingly ethicized, leading to indiscriminate targeting of civilians on both sides. As a result, ethnic identities became more pronounced and exclusive, as well as more relevant for the ordinary South Sudanese, both inside and outside the armed forces.
Ethnicity matters in South Sudan not only through the direct or indirect dependency of armed forces and militias on their military and political leaders. It also matters in the provision of protection to the wider population. Given the formal state’s weakness outside of South Sudan’s urban centres, the majority of the rural population continues to understand the provision of protection and security as a communal matter.
Since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005, attempts to reform the security sector, to formalise and democratise the security apparatus and to detach the organised forces from political leadership have produced very limited outcomes. This is most visible in poor central control over the armed forces, as demonstrated by Peter Gadet’s defection. It also took Riek Machar only a couple of days (after the first eruption of violence) to claim control over the armed forces in Jonglei state. These centrifugal dynamics have been accompanied by a surge of ethnic violence against the Dinka populations in Bor, albeit it must be noted that many attacks are carried out by forces not formally associated with those who defected from the SPLA. These dynamics suggest a close link between struggles over political leadership, the personalised control over armed forces used in the latter, and ethnic belonging.
Ethnic fragmentation  
It is important to note that the use of ethnicity as a frame of reference in the resurgent armed conflict stands in contrast to the much more subtle and complex role of communal belonging in South Sudan’s everyday politics. Since the political transition of 2005, the strengthening of political institutions, as well as the presence of the state at the local levels of government, has created political dynamics in which ethnicity often plays a pivotal role. Attempts to create a decentralized system of governance based on democratic principles have in many places created tensions between different ethnic communities, which perceive access to government services as well as political representation at the local level of government more often than not through an ethnic lens.
These tendencies have been exacerbated by recent political reforms which have given a prominent role to ‘traditional’ authorities, which should provide the linkage between local governments and ethnic communities. These reform processes and the quest for strengthening the state in more distant locations have led to increased ethnic fragmentation across the country – a process through which territory became more strongly linked to notions of communal belonging.
However, the ethnic categories invoked in struggles over access to state resources hardly match the categories invoked in the current armed violence. Rather than in the broad terms such as Dinka versus Nuer, ethnicity matters most of the time in local politics. While these are often referred to through concepts of ‘clan’ and ‘section’, the meanings of such denominations vary across the country. What these smaller denominations have in common, is that they do not satisfactorily explain the current political crisis.
Politics of Accommodation
In the national power struggle, none of the prominent protagonists has openly played the ‘ethnic card’. The outbreak of armed violence on the night to Monday 16 December is closely linked to the political stand-off between President Salva Kiir and other leading members of the SPLM, including a number of former members of the government. The frictions between the SPLM leadership had become public through a press conference on 6 December 2013 in which senior members of the SPLM, including the former vice president Riek Machar, the former SPLM secretary Pagan Amum, as well as the widow of the SPLM’s deceased leader John Garang, accused President Kiir of “dictatorial tendencies.” They diagnosed “deep-seated divisions within the SPLM leadership” and demanded that party structures to be reformed in order to make possible “collective leadership.” These requests remained unaccounted for.
On 14 December, key members of the SPLM highest executive organ, the Political Bureau, walked out of the National Liberation Council (NLC) meeting, due to what they described as the lack of political dialogue. It is remarkable that the demands made by the political opposition make no mention of ethnicity or ‘tribalism’ in their condemnation of the recent political manoeuvres by the presidency. Instead, they criticized the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies, the lack of collective and democratic decision making and Salva Kiir’s growing influence on party processes.
The avoidance of ethnic framing in public discourse coincides with political dynamics in which the major protagonists have actively aimed to promote ethnic accommodation and reconciliation since the CPA. During his tenure as Vice President, Riek Machar strongly advocated the initiation of a national healing and reconciliation process, and apologized to the Dinka Bor community for the Bor massacre pursued by his faction in 1991. Salva Kiir’s strategy of rule has been remarkably similar, aiming at ethnic accommodation at the national level, as visible in the reshuffle of the national cabinet in August 2013.
As a native of greater Bahr el Ghazal, the President ensured the strong representation of the Nuer from Upper Nile and other ethnic groups from Equatoria regions through placement of regional representatives in the second and third most prestigious government positions, namely the Vice Presidency and the Speaker of the National Legislative Assembly. While some of the prominent political figures dismissed by the President were ethnic Dinka, such as the former governor of Lakes State Chol Thong Mayay, many of the new cabinet members belong to other ethnic groups. What seems to be most relevant in the choice of new members of the government is political loyalty to the President as well as the balancing between different regions and ethnic groups across the country, in order to achieve inter-ethnic accommodation.
The Irony of Non-tribalism
In their reaction to the recent incidents, the political leadership in both factions utilised an explicitly universal and anti-tribalist rhetoric. Members of the SPLM leadership loyal to Kiir have recently stressed that the armed violence unleashed in South Sudan is not tribal. More drastically, Kiir recently warned about a repetition of the 1991 Bor massacre, stating that his “government is not and will not allow the incidents of 1991 to repeat themselves again”. Drawing on the memories of past ethnic conflict, Kiir thus justified the military action taken against parts of the SPLA as well as the civilian population through an explicitly anti-tribal language. In a comparable vein Riek Machar has accused Salva Kiir of “inciting tribal and ethnic violence”.
The threat of ethnic conflict is used by both sides as a strategy to legitimise the crackdown on the alleged perpetrators of violence. In the public space, ethnic categories are not used to differentiate friends and enemies. Rather, by accusing the respective antagonists of inciting or committing ethnic violence, ethnicity informs current strategies of violence in a much more subtle manner. Through the construction of an existential threat identified in the antagonists malevolent ‘tribalism’, both factions aim not only to mobilise for conflict within their own constituencies, but to legitimise the use of force vis-a-vis an international audience, increasingly worried about the possible consequences of ethnic conflict in South Sudan.
Andreas Hirblinger is a PhD candidate at Cambridge University. Sara de Simone is a PhD candidate at L’Orientale University of Naples.
AfricanArguments