In the midst of agitations by different groups in the country, political analysts say the response of the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration has been devoid of the much-needed intellectualism, writes JESUSEGUN ALAGBE One of the major intellectual forces behind the women’s rights movement in the 19th century America, Ernestine Rose [1810-1892], once said, “Agitate! Agitate! [It] ought to be the motto of every reformer. Agitation is the opposite of stagnation — the one is life, the other death.”
The words of the Poland-born suffragist and anti-slavery activist, who spent her career combatting society’s inequities, had been interpreted to mean that a society that is devoid of agitations from disgruntled citizens would find it hard to grow.
Similarly, an African-American social reformer and writer, Frederick Douglass [1818-1895], famously said in 1857 that a society which professed to be pro-freedom, but anti-agitation, was a society which wanted to develop without working.
He said, “Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.
“The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
According to political scientists and social commentators, all over the world, agitations are a part of the citizens’ rights to express themselves, to make their demands known to the government.
However, the response of the government in power has been found to determine whether agitations will lead to a country’s development or destruction.
For several years, Nigeria has had its own fair share of agitations by different ethnic groups, with the most recent one by the Indigenous People of Biafra, led by Nnamdi Kanu.
On September 15, his group was designated as a terrorist organisation by the Federal Government, several days after the Nigerian Army launched a military exercise tagged, “Operation Python Dance,” in his Isiama Afara hometown, Abia State, and other parts of the South-East.
Before this development, several political observers were of the opinion that recent comments made by the Federal Government in response to IPOB’s agitation were devoid of intellectualism.
For instance, last Thursday, a former Minister of Education and Co-convener of the Bring Back Our Girls Movement, Mrs. Oby Ezekwesili, had in a series of posts on Twitter, urged President Muhammadu Buhari to stop being a sectional leader and act as a “true leader” by showing love to all.
The former minister, who was apparently reacting to the recent deployment of soldiers in the South-East, had stated, “It is tragic that you, our President, Muhammadu Buhari, has deliberately or inadvertently alienated a segment of the people you lead. It is tragic.
“The leader of a country cannot be friends only of those he/she likes. No. That is not leadership. The leader builds up groups, not divide. You cannot lead only those that worship and swear by you. You are the leader. You must carry the burden of even those who detest you.
“Worst is when a leader makes enemies of most because he abhors the action of one or a few. That is not leadership! That is ethnic prejudice. A real leader does not suffer from the destructive disease of ethnic prejudice. It endangers his/her people and real leaders cannot bear such.”
Few hours after Ezekwesili’s posts went viral; the Presidency defended the action, saying it was IPOB that was deliberately provoking soldiers to commit acts of violence in order to draw sympathy from the international community.
The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, had in a statement said, “A prominent influencer like Mrs. Ezekwesili has a moral and patriotic duty not to give ammunition to any violent group that seems determined to pursue its separatist agitation through reckless and destructive methods.”
Shehu later went on to defend Buhari by saying it wasn’t true that the Igbo were experiencing marginalisation, the very basis of IPOB’s agitations.
To prove his point, the presidential spokesperson had said that the “two most important economic entities” in the country, which according to him are the Ministry of Petroleum Resources and the Central Bank of Nigeria, were being run by Igbo, Ibe Kachikwu and Godwin Emefiele, respectively.
Then referring to the two agencies as money-spinning for whoever run them, Shehu had added, “A President who has put the nation’s cash cows, the Central Bank [of Nigeria] and the Ministry of Petroleum [Resources], in the hands of the Igbo…cannot be called a hater of the Igbo.”
It is important to note that Shehu’s comments are always seen as reflective of the President’s position on any situation, except otherwise stated by the presidential spokesperson.
Speaking of Shehu’s comments, a London-based political scientist and human rights activist, Ms Funmilola Williams, told Saturday PUNCH via LinkedIn that it was “unbelievable” that the presidential spokesperson didn’t know that both Kachikwu and Emefiele are Delta State indigenes and, therefore, not Igbo.
Also, Williams said it was time Shehu knew President Buhari was even the one heading the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, as Kachikwu was only the Minister of State.
Aside these, the political analyst said it was pathetic that Shehu would give an impression that the CBN and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources are money-spinners for persons heading them.
She said, “The Federal Government’s response to the cry of marginalisation by the Igbo showed that the people we have in government don’t even understand how to tackle agitations.
“For me, the display of intellectualism is so poor. How could Shehu have left the main issues and started differentiating between agencies that are cash cows and those that are not?
“Is any public agency meant to be a source of income for those heading it? This tells you how the people in the political system are thinking. I am very sure there are many Shehus surrounding the President. That’s why I’ve always said it is time the President reshuffled the cabinet.
“If there are people like Shehu who can’t differentiate the left from the right, why should the President retain them? The problem we’ve always had in Nigeria is that our political system is full of uncultured people. Let them be purged out of the system and we will develop.”
Talking of the Federal Government’s response to agitations, last Sunday, the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, said IPOB was being sponsored by certain disgruntled people who wanted to sabotage the Buhari-led administration.
The minister did not, however, give any names while making the allegation, which Williams regarded as vague.
“I don’t think as a minister, you should just come out with such an allegation without giving concrete evidence. Governance is more than just propaganda and making vague statements,” she said.
Speaking to Saturday PUNCH, a lawyer and social commentator, Mr. Olusola Jegede, said the Federal Government had not adequately responded to the issue of agitations from the different parts of the country, especially that of IPOB.
He said, “The lopsided appointments that seem to disenfranchise the Igbo created a fertile ground for Kanu to sow his extreme ideology. President Buhari could have done better by demonstrating to the Igbo that they would not suffer any retribution from his government simply because their region did not fully support his candidacy.
“The government’s response to IPOB did not address the lamentation of disenfranchisement of the Igbo in lieu of federal appointments. Additionally, agitations from the different parts of the country, even though they are not new in this administration, have not always been responded to intelligently.”
Jegede said that a major sign that would show that the Federal Government was responding intellectually to agitations in the country was to come up with restructuring [a phenomenon that has been persistently canvassed for by several Nigerians].
He added, “Agitations are unlikely going to stop anytime soon until there has been restructuring or federalism, as it is being demanded from many quarters. Too much power is concentrated at the centre at the moment.
“Everyone is looking forward to get to the centre of power and it is normal that people will always blame the Federal Government for everything that goes wrong in the country.
“There ought to be devolution of power; the country needs to be restructured to give more power to the states. If that can be achieved, more people would make more demands from their respective states rather than to be blaming the central government for everything.”
When asked for his thoughts on how well agitations in the country had been handled by the Federal Government, a fellow of the Centre for Democracy and Development and an expert in Nigerian affairs, Mr. Matthew Page, described government’s responses as “confusing.”
Page urged the Buhari administration to develop strategies that would help stem down agitations by the people rather than engage in war of words, as displayed recently by the President’s spokesperson [Shehu].
“The Buhari government’s response to recent events in the South-East has been somewhat confusing. Instead of rising above the fray and pursuing a deliberate strategy designed to deescalate tensions, the government is engaging in a verbal tug-of-war with anyone who questions its approach,” Page said via Twitter.
In his opinion, Lagos-based social commentator, Mr. Badmus Olanrewaju, said the Buhari-led administration should stop viewing agitations as evil, just as Rose and Douglass once said in the 19th century America that without agitations, there would be stagnation.
Olanrewaju also said the Buhari government should know that secession threats were not peculiar to Nigeria alone, but was a phenomenon all across the world.
True to the social commentator’s opinion, there are hundreds of separatist movements all over the world — from Africa, to Asia, to Europe, to North America and South America.
For instance, in Africa, the Diola ethnic group in Senegal has always wanted to form its own country called Casamance; the Orania Movement in South Africa is proposing to have Volkstaat.
Likewise in Europe, the Basque people in Spain and France are demanding for the Basque country, while the Catalans in Spain are also demanding to have Catalonia; in Finland, the people of Åland Swedes want their own country called Åland; and in Italy, the people of Friulians want to have Friuli-Venezia Giulia.
If not for a 55.3 per cent “No” vote on September 18, 2014, Scotland by now would have been an independent country from the United Kingdom.
A referendum on Scottish independence from the UK had taken place on the date, with the referendum question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
Meanwhile, the “No” side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3 per cent) of the people voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7 per cent) voting in favour.
Olanrewaju noted, “As it can be seen, any group can demand for secession; any group in the country has the right to agitate. However, the Federal Government’s response to agitations is what determines our future as one Nigeria.”
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: editor@punchng.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment