Now, if I may aver here, what theoretical and practical approach did Rawlings and Gaddaffi apply to their countries’ problems? Well, it is on record that both of them overthrew corrupt leaderships. Rawlings overthrew General Akuffo while Gaddaffi overthrew a king who thought he was ruling a kingdom. Second, they pursued a-peoples’ oriented economic policies. What they did was to simply PROBLEMATIZED the whole country, and not some selected aspects of the problems, and ruthlessly cleansed the WHOLE. They pursued “social justice” that will endear the people, ignoring bourgeois technicalities, legal booby-traps and unnecessary formalities inherent in seeking “legal justice“. To problematize a social problem besieging a country is a revolutionary principle and a situational practice. This principle, where ever it is applied, is executed without pity.
Another probable fallout of Majors Nzeogwu [1966] and Orkar’s [1990] coups would have been to fall back on the status quo that they had sought to change. In that case, they would have to ISOLATE the problems that necessitated there coups, solve the problems, that is, corruption and, electoral malpractices. They would conduct fresh elections to hand over to patriotic citizens and either retire or return to the barracks. This simplistic approach is called the PROBLEM-SOLVING paradigm. This is the bourgeois approach suited only for the advanced capitalist economies. Historical antecedents show that this approach does not and cannot work in
Will a Rawlings or a Gaddaffi ever emerge in
OPTION 3: The other alternative before Nigerians is the revolutionary approach. A revolution led by the oppressed and not the oppressors, can help sanitize the system. Having been betrayed by a useless political class, that is daily fighting over the spoils of public office, the people decide to take the bull by the horn. The totality of the people is involved. History is replete with examples. In 1917, in the former
With the level of compound corruption, monumental electoral fraud and other inane inanities, it is shocking that Nigerians have refused to revolt collectively. What happened in the Western Region during the elections of 1964 has comparatively, paled into insignificance to what happened in the 2007 elections. The 2007 election was catastrophic and farcical. This can only have happened in
OPTION 4: If we cannot go back to our regional parliamentary system; if our Rawlings and Gaddaffis have refused to emerge from the Armed Forces because of too much pepper soup in the barracks; if a revolution has refused to erupt out of the iniquities, evils, and sheer wickedness in the present amalgamated Nigeria, then there is the need for each agitating region to participate in creating a crisis situation in the country. This will destabilize the polity and make the political class uncomfortable and perhaps lead them into having a rethink on how to sincerely run a seemingly just country.
The Niger-Delta struggle was borne out of internal contradictions generated in our dubious body polity. The movement started [?]off from where the Oodua Peoples Congress {OPC} have left off. It is my conjecture that the {OPC} should continue with its agitation and struggle towards a better deal for the children of the legendary Oduduwa. I also submit that The Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra {MASSOB} should not relent in its struggle. I posit that {AREWA} in the Northern part of
OPTION 5: The best of all is to keep our fingers crossed and hope for a peaceful disintegration of the country to its former regional formation or to outright separate independent states. This might at worst be borne out of internal agitations, propaganda, conflicts, armed conflicts, insurrections, riots, students and market women demonstrations etc {see OPTION 4 above } or, at best be borne through socially engineered peaceful processes. Again, history is replete with such examples. The old Eastern European bloc and the former communist
As far as human nature is concerned, one cannot foist on a disunited people, an assumed consensual marriage of convenience that is devoid of any of love and respect. This is to sow the seed of discord. Recent research by Professor Mike Onwuejeogwu showed that Nigeria has, apart from the three major tribes, has about 500 ethnic nationalities and not 250 as is often been bandied about by government officials. The three major tribes and 500 ethnic groups have different languages, dialects, cultures, traditions and MORES. However, if a union of convenience refuses to converge, the alternative is to call for a referendum and perhaps peacefully stay apart and grow apart. In
I rest my case. Those who have ears let them hear.
1 comment
A very well written article, with a touch of communism. I like the first option, but because option 2 involves some elemnts of bloodshed (and we have had enough bloodshed in our history) I am reluctant to subscribe to it.