Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Understanding Nigeria and The New Imperialism

    Uploaded by

    Nigeria Marx Library
    201 views50 pages
    A collection of essays written by the Nigerian Marxist Eddie Madunagu. They were originally written as weekly columns for the Nigerian daily newspaper the Guardian between 2000 and 2006. This is volume one of two volumes of Eddie's essays.

    Original Title

    Understanding Nigeria and the New Imperialism

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A collection of essays written by the Nigerian Marxist Eddie Madunagu. They were originally written as weekly columns for the Nigerian daily newspaper the Guardian between 2000 and 2006. This is volume one of two volumes of Eddie's essays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    201 views50 pages

    Understanding Nigeria and The New Imperialism

    Uploaded by

    Nigeria Marx Library
    A collection of essays written by the Nigerian Marxist Eddie Madunagu. They were originally written as weekly columns for the Nigerian daily newspaper the Guardian between 2000 and 2006. This is volume one of two volumes of Eddie's essays.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 50
    Understanding Nigeria and the New Imperialism: Essays 2000-2006 died by Biodun Jeyifo, Bene Madunagu,, Kayode Komolafe and Chido Onumah Contents Editorial Note Foreword Introduction Part1 Nigeria 1, Hegemony through Elections. 2. Beyond Party Mutations 3. Studying the Abacha Years 13/6/2002 18/7/2002 18/1/2001 4. In Praise of the Oputa Panel 4/1/2001 5. Arguments Over the Middle Belt 1/6/2000 6. Sharia asa Power Bloc Weapon. 9/3/2000 7. In Defence of the Nigerian Nation 10/8/2000 8. Back to Fundamental Issues..... 4/8/2000 9. Contending Propositions Clarified 10. Nigeria’s Political Parties ..... 11. Settling Accounts with Biafra 12. The Case Against Privatisation... 13. Sovereign Conference or Civil War? 14. The Politics of the Senate Probe 15. Profession Among Professions 16. Impeachmentin Nigeria 17. Once Again, the National Question .. 18. Minimum Democracy in Crisis 19. Democrats of Doubtful Convictiot 20. Making a Victory Irreversible 21, Nigeria 2003: History Repeated 22, Fascism through the Third Tier 23. Labour in Nigerian Politics... 6/4/2000 25/5/2000 4/5/2000 14/12/2000 12/9/2002 19/9/2002 . 26/9/2002 1 14 17 20 23 26 29 32. 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 27/5/2004 19/5/2005 -26/5/2005 2/6/2005 .23/6/2005 18/8/2005 1/9/2005 24/10/2002 25. The Politics of Nigerian History 26. The Movement of Nigeria’s Presidenc: 27. Claimants to the Presidency 28. Nigeria and the American Prediction. 29. Notes on Geopolitical Alliances ..... 30. Further Notes on Resource Control. 31. What Really Happened in 19987. 32. Political Assassination 33. Classifying Presidential Candidates 34. Whereare They Taking the Country? 12/12/2002 35. Battle for the Soul of Education .. 29/8/2002 36. History and Political Intervention. 14/11/2002 37. Babangida -Abacha -Obasanjo 25/4/2002 38. Traditional Rulers ina Democracy. 21/3/2002 39. Aspects of our Own Terrorism 7/3/2002 40. Do We Deserve this Government?. 21/2/2002. 41. EthnicPolitics 7/2/2002 42. Ideology and Governance 14/2/2002 43. Transient Unity Inspired by Death. 44. Organising for Specific Struggles. 45. Frustrated Nationalist Expectations. 46. Emerging Political Associations . 47. Culture and Politics in Nigeria 48. Once Again, the Nigerian State . 49. The State of Political Realignments. 50. Arguments Over the Constitution. 51. More Complex than Politics. 52. The State of Our Nation 53. What Is a Free and Fair Electior 54, Governance and the Third Tier 55. Not By Slogans Alone 56. Antecedents of the Fourth Republic. 57. Further Reflections on the Future 58. In Search of Foundations 59. Disasters and the State 31/1/2002 21/9/2008 .26/7/20P 7/6/2004 14/6/2008 (5/2001 17/11/2005 6 6l. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 7 7 a 83. 84, 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. . Beyond Ethnic Presidency 72. . Obasanjo’s Re-election Chances... 74. dS 76. 77. 78. a5. 80. 81. 82. . Pacification and Resistance... 1/12/2005 Not By Violence Alone . 22/12/2005 The Sophism of Self-Perpetuation. Agenda 2007 and its Opponents... To BJ at 60, a Salute 1953 in Nigerian History Alternative Roads to 2007 Dictatorship and Military Coups .. Engaging’Corruption at the Roots. History and the Tragedy of 1989.. Vacation Notes . 25/9/2003 22/4/2004 ‘TheCollective Presidency Part2 Olusegun Obasanjo .- 8/2/2001 Defending Obasanjo in the Name of Democracy ...31/8/2000 Obasanjo and the Third Power Bloc. 23/11/2000 Obasanjo’s Degree of Freedom... Obasanjo’s Settlement with History. Obasanjo’s Post-Election Manifest Criticising Olusegun Obasanjo ... Obasanjo in Cross River State ... The Agreement that Produced Obasanjo. Obasanjo’s Election Manifesto ... see 30/5/2002 Part3 Africaand the World Resurgence of European Fascism....... 11/7/2002 . The Philippine Democracy... 1/3/2001 Africa and the International Community «21/9/2000 . The Warning from Uganda. 20/4/2000 Twenty Years of Zimbabwe: 30/3/2000 History and Women of Valour 5/9/2002 America and the United Nations. 10/4/2003 From Vietnam to Saddam’s Iraq. 24/4/2003 182 185 188 191 194 197 200 204 207 210 213 216 219 225 228 231 234 237 240 243 246 249 252 257 260 263 266 269 272 275 278 125. Yasser Arafat and The Economist. 2/12/2004 126. Remembering Antonio Gramsci 13/1/2005 127. Message from Bala Usman. 10/2/2005 128.ForAlbert Einstein 16/6/2005 129. The Story of Nikolai Bukharin. 25/8/2005 130; For Comrade John Garang 8/9/2005 131.As We Mourn Departed Comrades 132, Comrade Ita Ekeng Henshaw 133. Who Replaces Bade Onimode?. 6/10/2005 1/7/2004 7/12/2001 134. Malcolm X and Abdul Rahman Babi 6/6/2002 135.1 Love Francis Arthur Nzeribe ... 10/5/2001 136. Anthony Enahoro Speaks Again.. 14/3/2002 137. Marxists On Resource Control. 3/5/2001 138. AReadingof Bola lge 5/4/2001 139. Colonel Abubakar Umar 19/2/2004 140. Awolowo’s People’s Republic 28/11/2002 141. For Comrade Tony Engurube 3/11/2005 142. Remembrance and Re-dedication. 10/11/2005 143. Re-reading The Man Died 18/11/2004 144. Boro — Saro Wiwa — Dokubo .... .. 21/10/2004 PartS Theory/Roflections 145. Settling Accounts with SNC 19/4/2001 146. The Nigerian Constitution 8/3/2001 147. Back to First Principles? 22/3/2001 148. A Collective Assessment of the Present 149. Between Machiavelli and Political Hypocrites. 150. Between Poverty and State Robbery 151. Clarifications on Ethnic Politics. 21/12/2000 152. Confirming the Nature of the State. wveeeeeT/12/2000, 153. Notes on the Evolution of States. .- 24/2/2000 154. For Those In Search of Analogies. 155. Globalization and Human Progress. 156. May 29, History and the Law ....... 157. Ideology and the Ethnic Questio 158. Political Zones and Power Bloc: 16/11/2000 ....13/4/2000 8/6/2000 6/7/2000 . 27/4/2000 386 389 392 398 401 404 407 410 413 416 419 422 425 428 431 434 437 440 443 451 454 457 460 463 466 472 ATS 478 481 484 487 490 159. Reflections on the Women’s Question -20/7/2000 160, The Fall and Rise of Natives 13/7/2000 161. The Global Dictatorship 19/10/2000 162. Transition to Dictatorship 28/9/2000 163. Collegiality and Collectivity? 1/8/2002 164. Notes on the New Empire 19/12/2002 165. Humanist Resolution in Crisis 9/1/2003 166. Contradictions in the Empire 29/5/2003 167. Leftists and Communists 9/10/2003 168. The Ghosts of the Past 4/12/2003 169. History and ‘Fetish’ Democracy. 29/1/2004 170. Prefatory Notes on ‘New Road: 11/3/2004 171. Politics and Coups in Nigeria 6/5/2004 172. Speaking to Power 11/11/2004 173. Prefatory Notes on Auschwitz 3/3/2005 174, Reflections on Human Rights 7/4/2005 175. Theory of History Revisited 12/5/2005 176. Democracy: In Search of Determination. 30/6/2005 177. Socialism Reviewed and Renewed -27/10/2005 178. Notes and Reflections on Terrorism 179. Election Dilemmas for Radicals 180. Reviewing Socialism:Matters Arising . 181. Nigerian Geopolitics 182. Legislature and Govemance 183. Back to Barbarism 15/12/2005 sssveeee2/3/2006 - 27/11/2003 3/2/2005 493 496 499 502 505 508 sil 514 S17 521 524 527 530 533 536 539 542 545 548 551 554 S557 560 563 Editorial Note the years 2000-2006. Because they were all written for a weekly newspaper column, each essay stands entirely on its own and in this respect, the reader can start with virtually any essay in any section of the book without feeling that the particular essay isde-contextualized. As we all know, successful column writing involves mastery of the art of condensation, of the art and rhetoric, saying a lot with precision, economy and clarity. These are all hallmarks of Edwin Madunagu’s joumalistic prose. Nevertheless, writing aweekly column also entails a form of sustained dialogue with one’s readers, with oneself even. This means continuity between particular essays and it also means retuming again and again to particular issues, events and personalities. This is the basis of distribution of the essays in this book into five thematic parts or sections. A Sindicated in the title of this book, the 183 essays collected in this volume span As much as possible, the essays in each part have been arranged within a chronological sequence. However, this principle of organization has not been rigidly applied and thus occasionally, a succession or group of essays is chronologically out of sequence. Eddie Madunagu continues to write his weekly column and his readership continues to expand every week and every year. Undoubtedly, there will be future “omnibus” editions of these essays. For now, we ask our compatriots to join usin celebrating the rich harvest of revolutionary and humanistic thought and imagination presented in and through the essays collected in this present volume. Editors, Against the Dialogue of the Deaf and the Damned: Eddie Madunagu on Nigeria and the New Imperialism y friend and comrade, Edwin Madunagu (or Eddie as he is generally Mie was bom in 1946, the year of my own birth. For this reason, it came as a startling, but frankly pleasing discovery for meas I read some of the essays collected in this volume that for Eddie, the year of our birth also constitutes a very special founding moment for the nation-being of our country, Nigeria. In this short prefatory note, I shall not reveal which particular essays in the volumeadvance this thesis and with what arguments. I will simply urge the reader who is intrigued by this fact to try to identify the particular essays in question and come to an assessment of the validity of the thesis. Beyond that, I can state here that in none of the essays that advance this view of 1946 as a foundational moment for the coming-into-being of Nigeria does Eddie give the slightest indication that this view has anything to do with his own personal biography, that is with the fact that he was bom in that year. I believe that we should regard Eddie’s lack of self-consciousness on this matter as being generally reflective of his total selflessness as a revolutionary socialist. Nevertheless, it is also the case that throughout virtually all the essays collected in this book, Eddie is present as a distinctive voice, as an irreducibly unique consciousness. In my concluding paragraph at the end of this piece, I shall return to this matter of 1946 as the year of Eddie’s birth (and my own!) anda founding moment for the birth of Nigeria but for now, I wish to briefly explore the other matter of the Pervasive presence of Eddie’s unique personality or consciousness in the essays collected in this book. At the most apparent level, this operates in terms of the pervasiveness of the personal pronoun “I” in the vast majority of the essays collected in this volume. But the matter goes much deeper than this mere linguistic marker of personhood and speaking voice. This contention is perhaps best exemplified by xii the fact that nearly in all cases where this first person speaking voice is indicated, what Eddie is doing is subjecting his own experiences, his own opinions and intuitions, even his most well-considered. analyses, reflections and theories to rigorous scrutiny in the light of the experiences, views and analyses of others among his compatriots and the wider global community. As a matter of fact, on many occasions in these essays, Eddie cither begins or closes an essay with the assertion that a particular interlocutor or compatriot whose views or activities he, Eddie, is discussing critically is a “teacher” of his. And since the whole world knows Edwin Madunagu as a Marxist and socialist, it will come as a surprise to readers of this book that many of those so identified as his “teachers” are either not Marxists or socialists at all or are Marxists and socialists with whom Eddie has significant ideological and political differences. In presenting this book to its potential readers in Nigeria and beyond our national Boundaries, I wish to base my. observations and reflections in this short prefatory note on this particular point. If one had to descriptively identify the single most defining thing about the essays collected in this book, perhaps one would have to say itis the vastness of the topics, issues and personalities covered. But this is only slightly more obvious than another defining aspect of the book, this being the fact that, as a totality, the essays are addressed to a very large and diverse body of groups and individuals within the Nigerian national community and the broader community of all thinking and progressive people in the world. Specifically, and with regard to the Nigerian national community, the essays in the book are addressed as much to leftists and radicals as to democrats; humanists of the civil society organizations, human rights community; stalwarts and champions of ethnic minority rights and advocates and defenders of women’s rights; conservative to liberal “constitutionalists”; and just plain “Naija” patriots, What is even more remarkable about the apparently deliberate choice made by Eddie to widen the community of his addresses and interlocutors in these essays is the fact that he is quite meticulous in addressing every person, contention or community that he engages with scrupulous attention to what each person or interlocutor or community representative has to say. Indeed, this principle is so rigorously and uncompromisingly followed in all his cssays that it becomes clear that the principle has the status of a categorical moral and discursive imperative with Eddie as a revolutionary socialist: you do much harm to your cause if you don’t listen well to what others are saying, if you don’t give as much acknowledgement to what drives and impels others as you would want others to give to what drives and impels you. Please read any essay in this book to see if this is an xiii overstatement; read in particular essays on or about figures like Chief Anthony Enahoro, Yusuf Bala Usman, Sola Adeyeye, Tayo Akpata, Bola Ige, and Reuben Abatito see how very careful Eddie is in getting their views and positions right- to the utmost degree that this is possible - before or while subjecting them to scrutiny. Inthe light of the immediately preceding observation, I would argue that this book is as good as any presently available in terms of a book-length summation of virtually all the issues, the forces, and, let it be said, the perplexities, which together constitute what Nigeria in particular and, more generally Africa and the developing world, face for their survival at this historical moment. Let me “break this down”, as the African American brothers and sisters would putit. Eddie takes great, almost superlative care to seek out those among his compatriots and others in the world at large who are saying and doing things that will, for better or for worse, affect the lives of all of us and perhaps of future generations as well. And he equally takes great care to present their views and positions as faithfully as possible, almost with the exactitude of the mathematician that heis. For this reason, in many of the essays collected in this book, Eddie has more or less presented extremely useful, almost matchless summaries of the following subjects and issues: what the defenders of cthnic minority rights or indigenous peoples are saying and demanding, most cloquently in relation to the terrible human, environmental and economic devastation of our deeply troubled Niger Delta region; what the diverse proponents of the geopolitical restructuring of Nigeria are saying, especially with regard with arguments for and against a Sovereign National Conference (SNC); what the rise of ethnic militias portend for our country and the contemporary world: where education, the media, contemporary evangelical religion and, more generally, popular culture stand in telation to local and international struggles for global justice; and attempts to come to a better understanding of the operations ofa “new imperialism” which, though it bears the traces of the old imperialism, is still an unfolding phenomenon, still in a period of inception before the sort of effective ideclogical and Seopolitical consolidation which the old imperialism enjoyed for about four hundred years. If you wish to know the most up-to-date contending views and Positions on these and many other issues of great, searing relevance to Nigeria and the world at large, please read the essays in this book carefully and you will come away a much better informed person. It would of course be wrong to give the impression that the essays in this book merely give excellent summative discussions and nothing moreon the issues and topics listed above, if by “excellent” one means to imply neutrality. This is xiv far from the case, as even the most cursory and unreflecting of readers of the book will quickly discover. For Eddie is not only an activist, militant partisan for the realization of popular democracy and socialism for our country, our continent and the nations and regions of the world, he is indeed a desperate partisan, even a bitterly frustrated and disappointed partisan. This is indeed the point from which derives the title for my observations and reflections in this prefatory note: against the dialogue of the deaf and the damned. What this implies is the fact that at the emotional and ideological base of nearly all the essays in this book is Eddie’s anguished consciousness that both within the community of Nigerian radicals and leftists and the broader community of the national intelligentsia - of all shades of ideological opinion - no meaningful conversation exists; rather what we have isa dialogue of the deaf and the damned. A dialogue of the “deaf” because interlocutors and disputants in our national conversation don’t take the time to listen at all to one another, let alone hear one another as the same issues, the same ideas are repeated and recycled again and again. And a dialogue of the “damned” because we seem headed for acatastrophe that we might not survive this time around as we survived - after a fashion, at least — our Civil War of 1967-70. Ihave spoken of the desperation, the despair even, which marks many of the essays in this book as the author again and again comes up against the diverse manifestations and expressions of this dialogue of the deaf and the damned. | must now speak of the boundless hope and resilience that also mark the same despairing essays and may indeed be regarded as the dialectical obverse of the desperation, the despair. And on this particular point, I wish to place as much emphasis as possible on the word ‘understanding” in the title of this bock. Let me briefly explain what I mean by this point. Understanding Nigeria and the New Imperialism: Eddie’s revolutionary optimism here lies in a belief that things in our collective experience that may seem too daunting, too confounding can be effectively confronted and transformed if one makes the effort to understand them - in all the positive epistemological and political meanings of that word. Another way of putting this is to say that what you don’t understand you can’t engage successfully. Understanding may very well notaverta looming catastrophe, but itis at leasta pre-condition, a sine qua non of the possibility of victory. On this particular point, the most urgent message in this book is to leftists, radicals and all lovers of popular democracy in Nigeria and that message is as clear as it is bracing: if you would advance your cause and help to move our country and our continent out of the present rot, you must first come to an understanding of your own present utter disarray, your xv Introduction his book is a celebration of the life, works and struggles of a comrade and friend, Edwin Ikechukwu Madunagu. Madunagu was bom on May 15, 1946, Since the early 70s he has played prominent roles in revolutionary politics in Nigeria. Even though Eddie, as he is popularly known, has been a teacher, author, organizer of radical struggle and an activist for more than three decades, he is more widely known as anewspaper columnist. Madunagu joined The Guardian in February 1985 as a member of the Editorial Board. Though he was trained as a mathematician, his ideological clarity and his grasp of philosophy, history, economics, and politics has made his Thursday column essential reading for anyone trying to understand the social and economic turbulence that rules our world. This has tremendously endeared him to the younger generation of Nigerians. Madunagu’s passion and commitment to the Nigerian working class, to peasants, women and youths is tegendary. While paying tribute to a comrade and friend, Peter Ayodele Curtis Joseph (“To Remember and to Honour”, The Guardian ), he noted: “Ofall the contemporary social developments that currently sadden me, one of the most painfulis the disconnection of Nigerians, especially the younger ones, from their own history, including thehistory of their own immediate environments”, Over the years, Madunagu has sought, through his writing, to address this historical disconnection. For the past 20 years, Madunagu’s articles in The Guardian have provided a platform for progressive debate and struggle. He has sought to popularize socialist and Pan-Africanist altematives to the development-policy paradigm promoted by the political lite under the tutelage of the international financial institutions and, more generally, Westem imperialism, especially in the new forms which many of the essays collected in this book subject to enlightening critique. Madunagu believes Nigeria can still be rescued from the current rot. To this end, he has used his column to expose the bankruptcy of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) and other social and economic policies that seek to undermine our sovereignty and deepen capitalist domination of ll facets of our national life by these new forms of imperialist domination subsumed under the seemingly neutral moniker of “the international community”. Indeed, one of the great merits and the equally great urgency of many of the articles in Madunagu’s weekly column since the start of the new millennium pertains precisely to his lucid expose of thepolicies, worldviews and assumptions fueling the operations of this so-called “inteational community.” 1 Madunagu’s articles encompass every important national and intemational issue: supporting campaigns against domestic policies that are inimical to our peoples’ interests; showing working people and the masses the need to reject the status quo and pursue development solutions that are collectively self-reliant and equitable; and expressing solidarity with peoples on the front line of the global confrontation with imperialism such as Palestine, Cuba and Iraq. Ofthe social issues facing Nigeria today, one of the most challenging is renewing the radical and popular-democratic traditions of struggle in our society, The importance of this renewal cannot be overemphasized. As Nigeria continues to drift, itis imperative for the new generation to have alternative paradigms of discourse on society beyond the current globalized neoliberal discourse and analysis, Madunagu has been a champion of this alternative discourse and this book aims to further the debate on the way forward. It seeks to draw attention to and examine the reconstitution that Nigeria so badly needs from past and present struggles. Among other important things, the book isan attempt to mobilize an effort to prepare ourselves to playa role in the struggle against imperialist exploitation and oppression - in Nigeria and worldwide. These are daunting challenges and we hope this book will offer the oceasion to launch a project of renewal to confront these challenges. Part One: Nigeria 1 Hegemony Through Elections 13th June, 2002 Nigerianruling classes and the power blocs developed therefrom, as clearly as the current build-up to the 2002/2003 elections, especially the guidelines for the registration of new political parties recently published by, or rather through, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). I should hasten to add, however, that the guidelines, as reprehensive as they are, say nothing, one way or the other, about the personal integrity of the leaders and functionaries of the Commission, except possibly that they are not revolutionary democrats, Not even a saint put to serve the Nigerian ruling classes and their social system can do much better. In fact, if saint is inserted into the Nigerian social system to regulate the struggle for power he or she will emerge from the exercise painted devil- black. Several politicians and pro-democracy advocates have argued that the INEC guidelines are in contradiction with the 1999 Constitution in somecritical areas, and against the “spirit” of that basic document. The two-point assertion is very correct. But the matter goes beyond that. I submit that a true democrat must question both the Constitution and the Electoral Act, and then the INEC guidelines, their legitimate baby. The monstrosity of INEC guidelines isa direct product of the power structure in Nigeria, the Constitution and the Electoral Act. In short, in the final analysis, it does not matter whether the INEC people are acting out a script, prepared by someone or some authority, or acting out their own script, inspired by the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their own consciousness and understanding. The pointis that there is a very limited degree of freedom for any election umpire operating today in Nigeria. But] agree that the INEC guideliries can be battled on its own grounds. Nigerians have a lot'to learn from sucha battle. They will leam very quickly from such a battle - ifit is rigorously and uncompromisingly waged - that the existing political system is heavily weighted against true democrats, the poor, the marginalised, the exploited, the dispossessed and the internal colonial subjects. Letus therefore take a look at this particular child of the Nigerian system, the INEC guidelines and its parent, guardian and inspirer, the 1999 Constitution. INEC opened its Guidelines for the Registration of Political Parties (dated May 15, 2002) with the following definition: A political association for the purposes of these guidelines is defined as an organisation or persons: ‘seeking registration as a political party in orderto participate in an election by meeting all prescribed statutory requirements” (section 1). The 1999 Constitution defines an ‘‘association” and a “‘political party” (section 229). Itdoes not define a “political association”. This was done by INEC. Now, ifthe Constitution which is Nee inrecent times, has shown the true character of the Nigerian state, the 5 the nation’s basic law defines an association, then any other definitions of sub-sets of “association” made by any institution or organ derivingits existence, powers and functions from the Constitution, must not detract from the general definition offered by the Constitution. They can only signify and elaborate on what differentiates one type of association from the others. A sub-set does not detract from the qualities of the full set of which it is a part. For instance, if INEC wishes, it can sub-divide the set of associations into sub-sets: political, cultural, social, ethnic, religious, occupational, etc, as the 1999 Constitution recognises and permits in Section 229. So far, so good. Section 221 of the Constitution states: “No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidateat any clection or contribute to the funds of any political party orto the election expenses of any candidate at an election”. This is one of the most criminal provisions in the Constitution, a guarantee that, through elections, the present power structure, heavily weighted against the masses, will be maintained and perpetuated - until such a time that the “wretched of the Nigerian earth” will accept their fate as immutable! Going by the letter and spirit of the 1999 Constitution from which INEC has abstracted and then extended and interpreted, every association, defined by the Constitution as “any body of persons corporate or unincorporated who agree to act together for any common purpose, and includes an association formed for an ethnic, social, cultural, occupational orreligious purpose”, can apply toINEC to function (that is the word used by the Constitution) as a political party which the same basic document defines as including ies include canvassing for votes in support ofacandidate for election to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or membership ofa legislative house or of a local government council”. The import of this is that the various social-cultural organisations in the country, religious groups and ethnic gatherings and regional formations, especially those in Nigeria’s intemal colonies (the Niger Delta, etc) and even ethnic militias can seek to function as political parties. The question is whether they canbe registered as political parties. The Constitution and INEC say no, not all of them. | can understand why ethnic militias cannotbe registered: the state, any state whatsoever, must remain, or aspire to remain, the only legitimate armed force within the territory internationally recognised as belonging to that state. But why can’t ‘small pro-democracy, human rights and socio-political groups and unarmed resistance groups in marginalised and colonised segments of the Nigerian nation be permitted to function as, political parties? Why can't small group in this country, which belong to all ofus, startin asmall place, test its message, platform and strength electorally in a small area, ifit chooses to do so, and then develop? The Nigerian state and its institutions and agencies say that this will endanger the corporate existence of Nigeria and detract from current “efforts” at developing national unity. What then should these small groups do? The Nigerian state replies that they should find accommodation within the big “national” parties that have fianctioning, well-furnished and well-equipped offices and documented memberships in at least 24 states. But in seeking this accommodation they must dissolve themselves into the big parties since, according to INEC guidelines, (section 5), every party member must be so inhisor her “personal capacity”. No group, as a group, can seek legitimate alliance with 6 another group or party to wage a common electoral hattle. It must dissolve itself into a large group. This is another criminal provision, similarly aimed at perpetual hegemony. In any case we all know that with very few exceptions, only big political formations infinitely endowed financially can fulfill INEC’s material and bureaucratic conditions, ¥calso know that these big political formations are not simply dominated by the power blocs, they are owned by the power blocs. And their agenda is clear: the perpetual domination of Nigeria within the economic framework of capitalist globalisation, neo-liberalism, mass impoverishment and enslavement and the political idcology of “war against global terror”. Any national or intemational dissenter is a terrorist. President Olusegun Obasanjo has, in recent past made two statements which deserve some response. Heinsulated himself from any perceived shortcomings inINEC guidelines, saying that it was not hisduty to write the guidelines; he did not write them; and, in fact, had no time for such exercise. Anyone who is dissatisfied should go to the court. But hewas ofthe opinion that guidelines are necessary for the registration of political parties. Fine talk. But we should know, going by the nature of the state in general and Nigerian Political history in particular that INEC guidelines could not have seen the light of day ifthe President did not approve of every line of it, If we do not know this then we should goback foan elementary school ofppolitical science and political history. In another statement reported in The Guardian of May 26,2002, President Obasanjo gave six reasons why he “favours” democracy. The reasons are that democracy is the only means by which leadership canbe brought in or removed peacefully; itdoes not allow for leadership till death do them part, as leaders have to periodically test their popularity; t allows for competition” where the people can judge by programme and record; ithas checks and balances with three, four oreven five arms; it allows for dialogue; and it gives minorities a voice”. The first five reasons are mere propaganda. INEC guidelines area negation of the sixth. Nigeria has been declared a democracy by the ruling classes, their: power blocs, and the “intemational community” whose endezsement isnow the decisive criterion workdwide for designation asa democracy. The forthcoming elections, even the eurrent preparations forthem, are a further confirmation of the designation of our country as ademocracy. But popular and truly democratic voicesin Nigeria are saying that is ahuge lie: that Nigeria is nota democracy and that the electoral process, including INEC guidelines, are moving the country even further away from the direction of democracy. These voices must become stronger, louder and sharper. Beyond Party Mutation 18th July, 2002 political parties were “registered” for the 1999 general elections that brought I General Olusegun Obasanjo to office as “civilian” President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. These were the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the All Peoples Party (APP) and the Alliance for Democracy (AD). Let us recall how these three parties emerged. A large gathering of leading members of the Nigerian ruling classes and their politicians and intelligentsia was taking shape towards the end of General Sani Abacha’s regime, Drawn from all parts of the country, the gathering, known ata certain time as G-34, saw itselfas the successor to Sani Abacha whenever it pleased God to terminate his neo-fascist regime either directly or through the agency ofhis messengers. Many Nigerians did not know how it happened, but Abacha died suddenly in June 1998. The G-34 was the largest and most “national” save-the-nation group that immediately transformed into political parties. Itnamed itself the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), which brought memories ofthe! ‘Second Republic National Party of Nigeria (NPN). The negotiations to consolidate the PDP broke down whena faction led by Awoists, the heirs of late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, objected to three of the party’s foundational elements. The first wasthe near-absence of welfarist perspectives in the programme of the party; the second was the non-recognition of the national question; and the third wes the strong positions occupied in the party by people perceived as anti-democrats and recent collaborators of military dictatorship. The faction withdrew and approached the second largest gathering, the All Peoples Party(APP). Negotiations again broke down on the three questions which the group insisted were non-negotiable. When the Awoists pulled out of this second effort they decided to form their own party, the Alliance for Democracy (AD). There were other disaffected groups, but they possessed neither the will not the power to. pullout. The three parties (PDP, APP and AD) that finally emerged from this process of mutations (that is, combinations and dissociations) I called, and still call, the parties of Nigeria's two power blocs. In June 2002, three and a half years after the “registration of PDP, APP andAD, the Nigerian state decided to recognise, or rather, was compelled to officially recognise, further mutations of Nigeria's political formation. Three new parties: National Democratic Party (NDP), United Nigeria People’s Party (UNPP) and All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) were registered, bringing the total to six. To better understand what happened in June, we may go back to what happened in 1978/79, as General Olusegun Obasanjo prepared to inaugurate the Second Republic (1979-1983). Three establishment parties 8 were the first to emerge. These were the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). A dispute later developed in NPP between the Zikists (followers of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe) and the supporters of Waziri Ibrahim , one of the founders of the party. What the country was told was that Waziri Ibrahim and his supporters wanted the post of party National Chairman and the position of party presidential candidate to go to oneman: Waziri Ibrahim. The Zikists thought that this was a greedy proposition. Although admitting that Waziri was an important figure inthe party, they felt that he should be satisfied with one of the two positions, preferably, party chairmanship, and leave the other, preferably presidential candidature, to Nnamdi Azikiwe, the other pillar of the party. But Waziri reasoned differently. Let me attempt a reconstruction ofhis argument (in my own words, pleese!): ‘The position of party national chairman is meaningless (even ifitis something) ifthe party does not win the presidential election which is still to come. On the other hand, presidential candidate isto position at all: after the election, you become either the president ornothing. So, inthe case the party loses the presidential election, both positions - party chairmanship and presidential candidature - will come to almost nothing although on balance, theparty chairmanship will mean something in thenothingness while the party presidential candidature will be nothing in nothingness. In this case, it will be better to be party chairman. However, ifthe party wins the presidential election, the president will completely dominate, and overshadow, the party chairman. In this case, it will be better to be the presidential candidate. Since the future is unknown, since no one knows how the presidential election will go, itis safer to combine the two positions”, so reasoned Waziti, the leading financier of NPP. The Zikists, being more experienced in politics, saw the irreconcilability ofthe two positions, and quickly seized the party machinery, compelling Waziri and his supporters to withdraw and form another party, the Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP). Asimilar development in the NPN was more dramatic. A large “national movement” of Nigeria’s ruling classes was growing in the bowels ofthe military dictatorship. After the regime lifted the 12-year old ban on political activities (1966-1978), the national movement became the National Party of Nigeria (NPN). How Malam Aminu Kano and many ofhis supporters ever got themselves into the national movementis astory we may not go into here. But history found them there, discussing with the most conservative representatives of the Nigerian ruling classes. We can only guess what actually went on behind the closed doors; but we were told a fraction of it, namely : Aminu Kano, a giant in Nigerian politics, the defender of the Northern poor, the talakawas, was insultingly offered the position of publicity secretary of the emergent political party. Aminu Kano’s supporters pulled their leader out of the meeting and formed the Peoples’ Redemption Party (PRP). The five parties, NPN, UPN, NPP, GNPP and PRP were registered. A rumour later developed, sponsored by the state I believe, that only two parties (NPN and UPN) actually satisfied theconditions forregistration, and that the other three (NPP, GNPP and PRP) were registered forthe purposes of “national unity”, or rather the unity of theruling classes. We also learnt, that the presidential candidates of the three “national unity” parties did not qualify to be candidates, but were allowed, also for the purposes of “national unity”. The rumour was 9 never substantiated and was never refuted. In the 1998/1999 registration exercise it was also rumoured that AD did not actually satisfy the condition, but wasregistered for the sake of ‘national unity”. Again, no substantiation, no denial. Back to June 2002. The three new parties (NDP, UNPP and APGA) were formed, and are led, by former owners, sponsors and leaders of the older political parties of Obasanjo’s Republic (PDP, APP and AD). There was no expansion of the “political space”. The three older parties were simply sub-divided into six to allow internal dissenters to re- group. The retired military officers who now dominate the leadership of at least two of the new political parties are not coming into politics for the first time. But at the time parties were being formed in 1998/1999, the military officers were in service and could not openly associate with the political parties they sponsored or formed. At least one of the older parties and one of the new ones are “national unity” parties as defined above. My question now is this: Who is being deceived? In the first place, the political crisis of the First Republic which led to the first military coup d’etat in January 1966 and culminated in the 30-month Civil War (July 1967 to January 1970) was not the result of either too many political parties or the existence of small or even ethnic-based parties. On the contrary it was the big parties, all of them national in membership and coverage that were used as vehicles for prosecuting tribal competition and war. Ironically, it was the small ethnic-minority-based formations that played the critical roles in re-uniting the country. In the second place many Nigerians know that since the 1978/79 exercise every act of party registration in Nigeria has been carried out with the same strategic objective (to maintain the unity of exploiters and oppressors) and tactics (massive deception with which the “national cake” is shared, in the first instance, between blocs, factions and fractions of the ruling classes). Although the “interests of the masses” are invoked in the scramble for the “1 cake”, little trickles down to them. Like those before them, the establishment politicians in Obasanjo’s Republic are deceiving no-one when they claim tobe promoting “national unity” through an arbitrary restriction on the number of parties and the drawing up cf bogus guidelines. Each time the Nigerian state and theruling class carry out a fraudulent act against the masses, history laughs at them and mocks them by dramatically demonstrating the opposite of theirclaims. Thus, inthe weeks following the inauguration of the present administration in May 1999 and in the week following the so-called registration in June 2002, ethnic and political violence rose in Nigeria. This is just an immediate judgment ofhistory which sometimes appears as mockery. Buta latter judgment usually goes beyond mockery. tional 10 were the first to emerge. These were the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). A dispute later developed in NPP between the Zikists (followers of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe) and the supporters of Waziri Ibrahim , one of the founders of the party. What the country was told was that Waziri Ibrahim and his supporters wanted the post of party National Chairman and the position of party presidential candidate to go to oneman: Waziri Ibrahim. The Zikists thought that this was a greedy proposition. Although admitting that Waziri was an important figure inthe party, they felt that he should be satisfied with one of the two positions, preferably, party chairmanship, and leave the other, preferably presidential candidature, to Nnamdi Azikiwe, the other pillar of the party. But Waziri reasoned differently. Let me attempt a reconstruction ofhis argument (in my own words, pleese!): ‘The position of party national chairman is meaningless (even ifitis something) ifthe party does not win the presidential election which is still to come. On the other hand, presidential candidate isto position at all: after the election, you become either the president ornothing. So, inthe case the party loses the presidential election, both positions - party chairmanship and presidential candidature - will come to almost nothing although on balance, theparty chairmanship will mean something in thenothingness while the party presidential candidature will be nothing in nothingness. In this case, it will be better to be party chairman. However, ifthe party wins the presidential election, the president will completely dominate, and overshadow, the party chairman. In this case, it will be better to be the presidential candidate. Since the future is unknown, since no one knows how the presidential election will go, itis safer to combine the two positions”, so reasoned Waziti, the leading financier of NPP. The Zikists, being more experienced in politics, saw the irreconcilability ofthe two positions, and quickly seized the party machinery, compelling Waziri and his supporters to withdraw and form another party, the Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP). Asimilar development in the NPN was more dramatic. A large “national movement” of Nigeria’s ruling classes was growing in the bowels ofthe military dictatorship. After the regime lifted the 12-year old ban on political activities (1966-1978), the national movement became the National Party of Nigeria (NPN). How Malam Aminu Kano and many ofhis supporters ever got themselves into the national movementis astory we may not go into here. But history found them there, discussing with the most conservative representatives of the Nigerian ruling classes. We can only guess what actually went on behind the closed doors; but we were told a fraction of it, namely : Aminu Kano, a giant in Nigerian politics, the defender of the Northern poor, the talakawas, was insultingly offered the position of publicity secretary of the emergent political party. Aminu Kano’s supporters pulled their leader out of the meeting and formed the Peoples’ Redemption Party (PRP). The five parties, NPN, UPN, NPP, GNPP and PRP were registered. A rumour later developed, sponsored by the state I believe, that only two parties (NPN and UPN) actually satisfied theconditions forregistration, and that the other three (NPP, GNPP and PRP) were registered forthe purposes of “national unity”, or rather the unity of theruling classes. We also learnt, that the presidential candidates of the three “national unity” parties did not qualify to be candidates, but were allowed, also for the purposes of “national unity”. The rumour was 9 never substantiated and was never refuted. In the 1998/1999 registration exercise it was also rumoured that AD did not actually satisfy the condition, but wasregistered for the sake of ‘national unity”. Again, no substantiation, no denial. Back to June 2002. The three new parties (NDP, UNPP and APGA) were formed, and are led, by former owners, sponsors and leaders of the older political parties of Obasanjo’s Republic (PDP, APP and AD). There was no expansion of the “political space”. The three older parties were simply sub-divided into six to allow internal dissenters to re- group. The retired military officers who now dominate the leadership of at least two of the new political parties are not coming into politics for the first time. But at the time parties were being formed in 1998/1999, the military officers were in service and could not openly associate with the political parties they sponsored or formed. At least one of the older parties and one of the new ones are “national unity” parties as defined above. My question now is this: Who is being deceived? In the first place, the political crisis of the First Republic which led to the first military coup d’etat in January 1966 and culminated in the 30-month Civil War (July 1967 to January 1970) was not the result of either too many political parties or the existence of small or even ethnic-based parties. On the contrary it was the big parties, all of them national in membership and coverage that were used as vehicles for prosecuting tribal competition and war. Ironically, it was the small ethnic-minority-based formations that played the critical roles in re-uniti the second place many Nigerians know that since the 1978/79 exercise every act of party registration in Nigeria has been carried out with the same strategic objective (to maintain the unity of exploiters and oppressors) and tactics (massive deception with which the “national cake” is shared, in the first instance, between blocs, factions and fractions of the ruling classes). Although the “interests of the masses” are invoked in the scramble for the “national cake”, little trickles down to them. Like those before them, the establishment politicians in Obasanjo’s Republic are deceiving no-one when they claim tobe promoting “national unity” through an arbitrary restriction on the number of parties and the drawing up cf bogus guidelines. Each time the Nigerian state and theruling class carry out a fraudulent act against the masses, history laughs at them and mocks them by dramatically demonstrating the opposite of theirclaims. Thus, inthe weeks following the inauguration of the present administration in May 1999 and in the week following the so-called registration in June 2002, ethnic and political violence rose in Nigeria. This is just an immediate judgment ofhistory which sometimes appears as mockery. Buta latter judgment usually goes beyond mockery. 10 3 Studying the Abacha Years 18th January, 2001 putting outhisnew book, The Abacha years: What went wrong, portions of which | have read in the newspapers. I should also seize this opportunity to acknowledge the substantial contributions which: Babatope, through his writing, activities and engagements, have made to the development of radical politics in Nigeria, Ihave read the: proceedings of the public presentation of the book, and some of the comments so far made on it. Instead ofreviewing the book in the normal way Ihave decided to propose some parameters for studying the “Abacha years” in general, and Babatope’s account and analysis of the period in particular. This, Ihope, will take account of the book and the comments which the book and the role of the author in the Abacha regime have so far generated, But before proceeding to the parameters, I should first propose some general Tequiirements for an objective study of “Abacha years”. The study has to begin from the Start, not from some convenient pointin the middle. Definitely the story willnot start from Wwhen Abacha started assassinating his opponents in 1995; not in carly 1994 when the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) was formed on the platform oft ‘Opposition to the Constitutional Conference and another prolonged military administration; or later that } car when he started harassing and detaining radicals, unionists and patriots, and dissolving their organisations. The “Abacha years” didnot start even on November 17, 1993 when

    You might also like