Madunagu and our imprisoned future: A rejoinder to Nigeria and
American prediction
by Kenedy Emetulu
Dr Edwin Madunagu’s Nigeria and the
American prediction, published in The Guardian of
Thursday, June 23, 2005 has left me with mixed
feelings. While I remain a great fan of this brilliant academic,
prolific political commentator and iconic activist, I couldn’t help
but note that this piece is essentially marred by his ideological
prejudices and anti-American bias, including his attempt to dish out
some quasi-theoretical nay simplistic proposals to move Nigeria
forward.
He began rather soberly by correctly noting the
hypocrisy of some of those protesting the so-called American report on
a futuristic Nigerian collapse, advocating instead a retreat to honest
“soul-searching”, if only to avoid making the so-called prediction “a
self fulfilling prophesy”. But just when you think we’re in for some
balanced analysis, the man insists on first making two propositions,
which he presumptuously touted as “simple and potentially
non-controversial, but nonetheless irreducible”.
Here is how he expressed the first:
My first proposition is that
American rulers, their institutions and their agencies - including
those that call themselves, or are called "democratic" - do not love
Nigeria as a nation or Nigerians as a people. They love only our oil
resources, and other natural and human resources that are required for
their use. Indeed, in their calculation, our oil and other resources
that are still untapped are part of their strategic reserves. The
Middle East oil is on the same side of this strategic equation. Hence,
we can go to hell, provided the oil is left behind. Nigeria may remain
a single (not necessarily united) country, provided the cost of
extracting oil therefrom does not rise above what is considered
economically rational. On the other hand, Nigeria may break up
provided the oil-flow to America continues unimpeded, that is,
provided the section or sections that eventually control the oil
fields are secure and are prepared to allow the oil's unimpeded flow
at reasonable prices to where the "black gold" is really needed and
appreciated and where nature ought to have located it in the first
place, that is, America.
Left to the rulers of America,
the present crop of Nigerians may vanish - in the literal sense of the
word - provided the territory known as Nigeria remains together with
its known natural resources. New inhabitants from the southern
Hemisphere or the newly "independent" countries of Eastern Europe can
always found to take over the territory under the "protection" of
American marines. Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has shown the way. The best
scenario, however, is the disappearance of a substantial fraction of
Nigeria's population (say 60 per cent) by any means whatsoever - civil
war, ethnic cleansing, natural disaster, disease, etc.
The survivors, whose number will probably correspond to what is
regarded as a reasonable population for Nigeria will then be re-organised
and educated to play their proper role in the contemporary division of
labour as prescribed by globalisation. Anyone who thinks that I am
exaggerating or joking here should refer to the history of America's
foreign relations since the end of the 19th century, and particularly
since the second half of the 20th century.
Now, apart from the fact that this proposition is
not as described, it is indeed a bizarre and sensationally theatrical
attempt by Madunagu to paint a Reaganesque Evil Empire of America – a
subliminally ideologically-driven retaliative depiction that has no
basis in reality. For instance, all the talk about American rulers
dreaming of a Nigeria bereft of its inhabitants, but intact with its
natural resources or of new inhabitants from the southern hemisphere
or newly “independent” countries of Eastern Europe parachuted in to
take over the place under the “protection” of American marines has no
historical precedence. In fact, his “best scenario” of wiping out 60
percent of the Nigerian population so as to supposedly trim them
perfectly for some globalization prescription is equally as
outlandish.
It is worth pointing out at this stage
that Madunagu’s proposition isn’t new. It is a genre of the “Grand
Area planning” conspiracy theory inspired by the communist opposition
to growing American power. Put simply, this theory posits that America
will use all within its power to pursue US interests anywhere in the
globe and at the same time stop or sabotage any positive
socio-political and economic development elsewhere, except such is
ultimately in the interest of the United States ruling class. To this
end, the US will deploy political, diplomatic and military power to
achieve its purpose. In other words, the ultimate vision of the Grand
Area planning is a glittering, prosperous America as an island of
prosperity and power, controlled by these evil rulers, in an abjectly
poor world.
But what people like Madunagu ignore is
the fact that these “American rulers, their institutions and their
agencies” are actually comprised of human beings - flesh and blood -
who have feelings and who invariably express these in their work
privately or publicly. Add to that a vibrant society based largely on
the principle of open government, electoral supremacy and rugged
individualism, what you get is not a robotized system delivering the
whole gamut of evil and unbridled selfishness cooked up in the Grand
Area conspiracy theory, but a dynamic, responsive and progressive
system that would make mistakes, but invariably pick up and reinvent
itself to stay ahead and to keep with the times. The positive changes
that have come over America and the world in the past hundred years
didn’t happen by accident. People made them happen. If anything,
September 11 has proved to America and its rulers that America is not
safe if the world around her isn’t. It is therefore in America’s
interest for development and good governance to spread, no matter the
spin any administration or any party puts on it.
However, on policy level, when people
go around claiming one country does not love the other, they are
simply living in an illusory world of flower-age internationalism,
because countries by their very nature and composition do not express
behaviour through policy as humans do through actions. For instance,
how do you begin to conceive of countries loving one another? Isn’t it
a bit naïve to talk of bilateral or multilateral relations on such a
romantic level? Fact is countries are incapable of such feelings as
love or hate, because they can only “think” and react
neo-mechanistically in pursuit of established and nurtured interests.
No doubt, there are elements of morality involved, but such rules or
customs are only applicable in reciprocity and largely subject to the
realpolitik of each situation.
Dr Madunagu in his thesis of America’s
loveless disposition towards Nigeria insists that we “refer to the
history of America's foreign relations since the end of the 19th
century, and particularly since the second half of the 20th century”
for proof that what he’s said about the Americans is no joke; but I
wonder what is there in America’s foreign relations of the said period
to support his view. Apart from the fact that he isn’t specific as to
exactly what episodes in the said period(s) he wants us to consider,
history tells us that every powerful empire or country did/do have
that aspect of their relations with others that they’d rather prefer
not to talk about, because of the shame and stigma that they
represent; so, why should we expect America to be the exception?
Nonetheless, taking a stab in the dark,
I would say the most important preoccupation of America’s foreign
policy at the end of the 19th century was the war with
Spain over the latter’s colonial policies in Cuba and the Philippines
and America’s obvious desire to have greater influence in these areas
because of their strategic importance to the US. The war itself was
not something President William McKinley just jumped into; in fact, it
took the pressure of public opinion, the agitation of the press
(especially Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William
Randolph’s Heart’s New York Journal) and the backing of
Congress to finally get into it. But whatever the merits or demerits
of America’s “liberation” of these territories, what is not in doubt
is that her presence and influence in the region was far less
objectionable than the historically cruel Spanish colonization
preceding it.
Again, if we consider “the second half of the 20th
century”, the theme of America’s foreign policy post-World War II had
been her preoccupation (along with the rest of her allies in Western
Europe) with the Cold War. Neither the Soviet Union nor America came
out of that episode smelling of roses because at the heart of the war,
in every sphere it is expressed, is the unbridled obsession with the
same age-old desire – world domination. Each couched their case as
alluringly as possible, but their acts, especially in the developing
countries saw them propping up bad governments, ruining economies and
destroying lives. The war in Vietnam, the
bombing of Laos and Cambodia, the support for Somoza in Nicaragua, the
death squads of El Salvador, the counterinsurgency campaigns in
Guatemala, the opposition to Bangladeshi independence, the undermining
of Nkrumah, the killing of Patrice Lumumba, the support for apartheid
South Africa and so on and so forth are not exactly episodes in
American foreign policy history that they can be proud of; but their
adversaries in the Cold War weren’t shrinking violets either. The
Soviet invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan and the
building of the Berlin Wall or the support for Mengistu Haile Mariam
and Said Barre are no less influenced by the same destructive desires
in the name of ideology.
So, what am I saying here? It is simply
that America’s foreign policy has been no different in philosophy and
projection from the foreign policy of the world powers before her or
other world powers of her time. For instance, by “the end of the 19th
century” which Madunagu referred to, the whole of Europe were sitting
in Berlin carving up Africa, terrorizing her people and stealing her
natural resources for their home industries. Whatever America had done
in that time can’t possibly be worse! As for the second part of the 20th
century, no matter the accusation we can rightly lay at America’s
doorstep with regard to her role in the Cold War, fact is the fall of
“communism” or whatever it was they were practicing in Eastern Europe
in the name of the workers of the world was good riddance to bad
rubbish. Any ideology that first steals your essential freedoms before
promising delivery of the good life is obscenely tyrannical and
inhuman and should be fought until it is defeated.
Frankly, people of our generation must
be grateful for the death of communism Soviet-style, even though we
recognize the limits of altruism in American foreign policy and the
danger of a world dominated by one superpower. However, it is one
thing to attack America for the atrocities its troops and policies
have committed and caused and are still committing and causing around
the world and quite another to begrudge her the prerogative to project
her global power for the benefit and protection of her domestic
population first and foremost. Taking care of number one has always
been the rule in international relations, but in an increasingly
interdependent world, that doesn’t mean at all cost, neither does it
exclude the responsibility countries have towards each other under
customary international law. Madunagu’s picture of America’s powers
and desires towards Nigeria is medieval, and has no bearing to the
present or a reasonably predictable reality of our 21st
century world. On that very basis, I reject his first proposition
unstintingly.
Thankfully, Madunagu’s second
proposition is more down to earth. Again, this is how he expressed it:
My second proposition is directed
at Nigeria and Nigerians; and it relates to the prospects of defending
the "national unity and territorial integrity" of the country if and
when the battle-cry is made. My proposition here is that, even if we
disregard the superstition that no country survives two civil wars,
any future civil war or generalised break-down of "law and order"
cannot be prosecuted or resolved the way the last civil war was
prosecuted and resolved. In particular, there will be no single
"villain", no single "rebel leader", no single or contiguous "rebel
territory", and hence no credible or unified central authority to
summon Nigerians to defend their country's "unity and territorial
integrity".
Genuinely patriotic, nationalist,
democratic and humanist voices - many with credible antecedents - will
rise, but they will be hopelessly marginalised. There are simply too
many spheres of discontent and disaffection in contemporary Nigeria.
These spheres are active and can easily go into fighting alliances for
objectives which may not be well defined, or not defined at all, at
the beginning.
Incidentally, the above view is also
shared by the writers of the controversial American document being
interpreted wrongly as a prediction of Nigeria’s collapse in their
“Downside Risks” assessment. Under such a scenario as “the outright
collapse of Nigeria”, it talked about the possibility of open warfare
breaking out in many places in a sustained manner to the extent that
“a failed Nigeria probably could not be reconstituted for many
years—if ever—and not without massive international assistance”. In
any case, Madunagu and the National Intelligence Council people aren’t
saying anything new here. A multi-ethnic and multi-religious country
without a strong history of national cohesion, uncompromised national
institutions and an overarching and effective conflict resolution
mechanism (whether at the grassroots or national level) is bound to
splinter into a thousand pieces “if and when the battle cry is made”,
considering also the vile socio-economic conditions under which the
majority live. Besides, the question of such national conflagration
capable of being ignited from any one flashpoint and over any issue is
real; but I doubt whether all these are sustainable by the two
propositions Dr Madunagu has put forward, at least in the light of the
objections I’ve raised against the first.
Dr Madunagu’s prognosis also dealt with
the work of the National Political Reform Conference. Accusing the
political class of “political bankruptcy”, he wondered why they aren’t
considering the concept of collective presidency “whereby all the
zones (or rather, all the leaders of the zones) and, by extension and
logic, all the states, will exercise power together at each given
point in time, and hopefully, forever”. Now, I find this very curious.
Dr Madunagu who was ousted from the 1986 Babangida Political Bureau
for his “extremist views” and “uncooperative attitude” or who (as some
other accounts have it) walked out because he didn’t want to be used
is now the one calling on the Obasanjo posse of non-representative
“delegates” to come up with “collective presidency” as the panacea for
our troubles as a nation?
My problem with this view is not only
in the fact that such idea lacks legitimacy ab initio, having
originated from a Conference appointed under the whims and caprices of
a president notorious for his impunity and lawlessness; but also for
the fact that its structural origin is proposed by Dr Madunagu to be
in the merger of the idea of the hare-brained rotational presidency
and the soulless creations called states as federating units. It’s
like adding cream to raw faeces and calling it ice cream! As a veteran
of the struggle, Madunagu ought to know that getting all the heads of
the sectional thieves together into one ruling council wouldn’t solve
the Nigerian problem, because that problem is systemic and not in
form.
The problem with Nigeria is not about
the thieves fighting for the spoils amongst themselves, because as
chaotic as things are, the thieves have been the only cohesive group
in Nigeria since the grant of flag independence and that is why
they’ve been very successful! Be they in khaki or agbada, they
have managed to put their ethnic differences/origin aside to
distribute the spoils lavishly amongst themselves without any stress.
Those who’ve ruined Nigeria come from everywhere around the country,
not from one ethnic group, big or small. The problem with Nigeria is
that this small clique of ‘national’ thieves has hijacked the
patrimony of us all. Creating a collective presidency based on the
structure Madunagu proposed or accepts will only legitimize the
thievery.
Today, there are no more than three
small countries practicing this collective presidency idea –
Switzerland, San Marino and Bosnia-Herzegovina. To start with, we
cannot learn much from the Bosnia-Herzegovina three-man collective
presidency, being that it’s a new idea put together by the 1995 Dayton
Accords following the Balkan wars. Even though it’s inserted in
Article V of the country’s Constitution, it’s still a transitional
idea based on the notion of keeping the Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats
(the warring ethnic groups that make up the small country) from each
other’s throats. So, to that end, a straightforward idea of having the
Chairmanship of the Presidency rotated amongst the three after every 8
months seems perfect, at least for now.
But Switzerland and San Marino provide
better lessons, yet only lessons in contrasts, because the factors
that make it successful in those places are obviously not in ours.
Take size, location and population for example. Both are very small
countries. While I’m not so sure what the physical area/size has got
to do with this, it is worth mentioning that Switzerland is only 41,
285 square kilometres while San Marino is only 61 square kilometres!
Both are landlocked countries, the latter totally surrounded by Italy.
Switzerland population is 7, 399, 100, while San Marino is a mere 27,
336 – the world’s smallest republic in size and one of the smallest
population-wise as well. While everyone in San Marino speaks Italian
and is ethnically Italian (apart from a few foreigners) Switzerland’s
ethnic composition is 64% German, 19% French, 8% Italian, 3% Yugoslav,
2% Spanish and 1% Romansch.
Now, in terms of the collective
presidency itself, both have long history of the practice –
Switzerland began the practice of a seven-man Federal Council in 1848,
with one chosen as President for a year rotationally, but each
(including the President) heads a government department or ministry.
The person elected for a year is only a primus inter pares,
with no obvious powers above the rest. San Marino has been practicing
their two-man collective presidency for over 400 years. The elected
parliament simply selects two of their members as Captain Regents
(collective presidents) for six months periods.
So, looking at these facts, it’s quite
obvious that there’s already a conceptual problem with Madunagu’s
proposal. If the federating units are to be states as he proposes, it
follows that we’ll be having a 36-member collective presidency based
on the number of states at present. We cannot begin to talk about
zones since in his proposal zones are not the federating units.
Besides, basing the presidency on a zonal arrangement would simply
replicate the present national marginalization problem at zonal levels
as there would be nothing stopping large/majority ethnic groups on
those levels exploiting ethnic politics to get their persons elected
and re-elected to the collective presidency time and time again. The
fact is a 36-member collective presidency is a no-no and a zonal
arrangement will need more than a little undemocratic tinkering to
arrive at any “acceptable” or “workable” formula.
What all this means in the long run is
that we are more concerned with stability than development or
accountable government. Any arrangement of this sort is bound to
survive or fall only by elitist compromises and not by the ballot box,
which is bound to leave us with worse privative feelings about
governance than we already have. Selection will be the key means of
choosing representation and the ordinary person whom Madunagu
continually roots for in his piece will be far more removed from the
political process than he/she is now. How for instance will anyone be
discussing unemployment or mass impoverishment under such a collective
presidency? Where would responsibility lie for policy failure at any
time? What kind of power would the presidency have under the new
federal structure and how long do we expect each person to head the
group before the next takes over, etc? The truth is a collective
presidency of the sort proposed by Madunagu is a further diminution of
the democratic principle and the idea of accountable government. Where
the electorate has no one single person to hold responsible for
government action at the very top, impunity reigns supreme and change
becomes a mirage.
Anyway, I hope the collective
presidency idea Dr Madunagu has in mind is not the one perfected by
the Soviets in the post-Stalinist era. To have the ghosts of
Khrushchev, Kosygin and Brezhnev stalking poor Nigeria may just be one
abracadabra too many! [back to Top
News]
