Guest Writer
–
Professor Anya O. Anya speaks on Nigerian and the Future: The challenge of national development and national integration in the age of change and transformation at the 2015 Eni Njoku memorial lecture in Lagos
–
| By Professor Anya O Anya |
–
I. PROLOGUE
THE global environment has undergone and is still undergoing unprecedented changes particularly over the last forty years, owing principally to the technological revolution especially in communications. There has been exponential growth in information and knowledge. Indeed there has been more information and data available in the extant situation than there has been in the last two thousand years including the twentieth century which was dubbed the Scientific Age. Indeed, there was more available information in the second half of the twentieth century than was available in the preceding five hundred years. The deluge of information enforces a matrix of alternative courses of action. Consequently the global environment is perceived as being in a state of dynamic flux in which changes can be instantaneous and unpredictable generating often an atmosphere of uncertainty and anomie.
Unfortunately there has been no analogous increase in wisdom, a divine attribute that necessarily comes garnished with experience which is the reason why the uncritical may infer that wisdom is an outcome of chronological age. One should be forgiven if we think therefore that our world is in a state of permanent transition. But transition to what?
Not surprisingly, in this new environment even the methodologies of science and technology have had to accommodate change. The predictable analytical model of the 20th century, has given way to the possibility of new ways of studying phenomena including the admission of the unknowable and with that renewed interest in relativities and uncertainties in the relationship of things to one another. This has spawned new interest in algorithms and asymmetries as the preferred mode of analysis. This has also facilitated the study of large systems whether it be the brain, the cosmos or the global economy. It is not surprising then that these new developments have dramatically changed the methodologies of study in the physical, biological and even the social sciences particularly in economics. In some ways these new methodologies represent a variety of paradigm shifts. Admittedly this has given rise to the notion that the stability we found heretofore in systems, processes, societies and cultures are now of the past. It is against this background that we must endeavour to understand our world, our country and our country’s place in the emerging new world of the 21st century.
–
II. INTRODUCTION
According to the distinguished Harvard Professor and (later U.S. Senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan “the central conservative truth is that it is culture not politics that determines the success [progress] of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself…”
This formulation enforces on us the need to define what are the elements of success or progress on the basis of which we can evaluate a given society and indeed to ask the question: what do we understand as the culture of a people or a society? We can all agree that progress in a given society can be evaluated on the basis of the level of economic development and material well-being in a society or the level of social economic equity or the absence or presence of political democracy. With regard to the culture we can evince two complementary definitions, namely, the sociological definition and what I may call the biological definition. According to the former “the culture of a society encompasses the values, practices, attitudes, symbols, beliefs, orientations, human relationships and underlying assumptions prevalent among people in a society…” A biological viewpoint however could see culture as…” the representation of knowledge socially transmitted within and between generations in groups and populations within species which may aid them in adapting to local conditions- ecological, demographic or social …” Implicit in this definition is the notion that individuals of the same species must communicate to transmit behavioural information, namely, information that may affect the behaviour of another animal. To the biologist, the transmission of knowledge is a defining feature of culture. Indeed the evolution of human culture lies in the transmission of technology-apprenticeship processes that serve to teach, learn and transmit technological knowledge. It has, therefore been suggested that the evolution of powerful means of learning and teaching creates culture by providing a way to transmit and transform knowledge from generation to generation, hence unlocking the potential for behavioural flexibility on the individual level and to cultural change on the social level.
–
III. BEHAVIOUR AND THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF CULTURE
If we accept Moynihan’s thesis on the place of culture in economic development and its interlinkage with politics, it seems germane to examine animal (including human behaviour) as the foundation of culture and as the interactive framework for human development and progress. Studies of humans and their primate cousins the chimpanzees have demonstrated that both share the rudiments of cultural knowledge and cultural variability including the presence of inter-generational learning processes as the basis for cultural transmission and the rudiments of cultural change. Indeed chimpanzees have the capacity to manifest the seven basic mechanisms utilized by humans for inter-generational transmission and innovations as cultural tools, namely, (a) scaffolding (b) playful experimentation with objects (c) observational learning and imitation (d) independent practice (e) conventionalisation (f) use of internal (through gestures) and external representation to teach and guide action and (g) collaborative learning. Of particular interest is scaffolding which includes demonstrating teaching and collaborative learning in tool apprenticeship anchored on observation and imitation. It is an interactional process through which an older more skilled member affords help to the less skilled one. Thus the latter enables the younger to accomplish a task he/she could not have achieved independently. The experience may later be internalized
With the emergence of language, we find the tendency to use arbitrary symbols to teach technological skills. Language became a useful tool for the teacher (usually the mother) to tell the learner what to do but not to explain the process. When cultural innovation on the personal level has taken place the signal is shared and transmitted to others through the technique of playful experimentation and independent practice thus creating the possibility of cultural change at the group level. Observation and imitation are powerful tools to spread novel and innovative behaviour, the innovative use of tools is copied by the juvenile human and the learning period coincides predominantly during the juvenile period thus ensuring cultural continuity and cultural change. Hence independent practice and teen-age teachers often utilize discovery learning and innovation as tools, which is why innovation tends to occur more often in the younger generation. The observation seems apposite that cognition, teaching, technology and skills development go hand in hand. Indeed, different methodologies of teaching and learning processes may predominate when cultures are in a more stable state when compared with when they are in a more dynamic stage.
Since the process of socialization is tailored to prepare the young generation for the future, the process should change when conditions that confront the younger generation change from the conditions under which their parents grew. The question has been asked: do the parents merely repeat the apprenticeship system that guided their learning or do they develop new methods and processes as the societal conditions change, for example, the economy? The answer would seem to be yes. The most appropriate advice seems to be: to teach what affords children the greatest potential for adaptation. To recapitulate the phylogenetic evolution of learning and teaching mechanisms can create the biological basis and potential for cultural change. In furtherance of cultural change, the implicit teaching biases- the tendency to convey adaptive information to off-spring are potentially more dominant than the learning biases – the tendency to acquire adaptive information because those are anchored on the extensive knowledge of parents that accrue from experience gained during the long transition to adulthood.
–
IV. BUILDING GLOBAL CONSENSUS ON THE ANVIL OF EXPERIENCE
It has been suggested that in the pursuit of human progress, three inter-linked themes dominate in successful societies namely economic development, social, economic equity and political democracy. In the pursuit of these ends, alternative theories and strategies have emerged over the years particularly with regard to lifting nations from underdevelopment and promoting their prosperity. These have included the incubus of central planning, import substitution, factor accumulation pursued through education and of course the influence of the elite constituted by intellectuals and government leaders. Specific policies have included land reform, community development, planning with focus on eradicating poverty, providing basic human needs, pursuit of appropriate technology, gender empowerment, privatization, decentralization, foreign aid and now sustainable development.
Although these initiatives along with the new emphasis on market economics and democratic pluralism have produced results of limited impact globally, taken together they have failed to induce rapid growth, enhanced democracy or social justice and equity. Consequently, the search for alternative strategies have been pursued with even greater vigour in the last thirty years. Hence the emergence of the elements of some global consensus to guide policies and the development of strategies. What I may call the human consensus recognized that a society that promotes human progress must promote life, good health, prosperity, education and justice for all.
What is more it also recognizes the impact of behaviour which enforces impact of culture on the development process. We now know that the way people behave in a society has much to do with the signals that are created in the economic system.
Thus, a system of incentives, rewards and punishment conducive to the promotion of good behavior in the economy must be in place. Efforts to properly evaluate the place of culture in economic progress has been hampered by two parallel viewpoints. To the economist, appropriate policies are sufficient to drive economic progress while for the anthropologist; all that matters is the integrity of the given culture. However, it is evident that culture is a determinant factor in driving a nation’s capacity to create wealth and to prosper since culture can shape an individual’s thoughts about risk, reward and opportunity. Moreover as David Landes has pointed out, ever since Max Weber turned the searchlight on the protestant ethic as the driver of western capitalism, it has been recognized that by easing or abolishing those aspects of Christian faith that hindered economic activity such as the prohibition of usury, which stimulated wealth creation, Protestantism defined and sanctioned an ethic of everyday behaviour that promoted economic success built on hard work, honesty, dedication, thrift and the capacity to manage time. The core of the matter is the creation of a new man with a new ethos: rational, ordered, diligent and productive.
This represented the transformation of the cultural values. Adherents were judged on the basis of their adherence to this new code. However, adherents of other faiths have since embraced these values such that the miracle of South East Asia has sometimes been presumed as anchored on the Confucian ethic sharing similar values. Fifty years ago it was assumed that the prosperity of a nation depended on the possession of natural resources such as land, minerals or a pool of cheap labour that conferred a comparative advantage on the nation. When Japan, South Korea and Singapore prospered without these assets it became clear that the story went beyond the presence of these resources. The new insight that emerged, doggedly promoted by Michael Porter was that nations prospered on the basis of their competitive advantage, which is anchored on higher levels of productivity based on knowledge, skills, investments, insight and innovation. In other words science and technology were critical in driving wealth creation. The idea of a competitive advantage was so novel that it clearly constituted a paradigm shift.
–
V. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AND THE PRODUCTIVITY PARADIGM
Implicit in the acceptance of the competitive advantage model is the acceptance of the productivity paradigm anchored on two basic beliefs: – it is higher productivity that drives an economy towards greater prosperity; – with increasing productivity, the potential for increasing wealth is limitless since it is based on ideas, skills and new insights, which are not limited by resources.
The acceptance of the productivity paradigm immediately imposes a new value system anchored on innovation, competition, accountability and education. It also creates an environment where higher regulatory standards are embraced, employees are recognized as the key assets that can attract new skills, new investment and new technology. In the new working environment collaboration with suppliers and customers are essential such that new networks of relationships with new connectedness are critical. The values which constrained productivity and hence economic development such as monopoly, power relationship including family relationships and rigid hierarchy in management and control are now consigned to the dust-bin of history.
The productivity paradigm establishes firmly that the changes that drive productivity and consequently economic development are at the micro-level rather than at the macro-level. The competition between firms in a nation in the pursuit of the best strategies that engages the best methods, assembles the best skills while utilizing the best techniques to operate at increasingly higher levels of productivity is more critical to wealth creation than the efforts to align the macro-economic fundamentals. This applies whether the economy is based predominantly in the agriculture sector, the service sector or even the manufacturing sector.
Location can be an advantage if it enhances factor input such as labour and infrastructure, clarifies local context of strategy, including identifying and containing potential rivals, defines the local demand conditions even as it strengthens related and supporting industries thus enhancing and lengthening the value chain. Demanding local customers force firms to upgrade products and services in a manner that translates to higher value for customers and higher prices for the vendor thus sharpening the competitive edge. If the firms in a nation cannot compete at home they are unlikely to compete in the global arena. This is why the enforcement of the productivity model promotes the development of the cluster concept.
As has been underlined by Porter. “a cluster is a geographically concentrated network of industry competitors and their related and supporting industries and institutions. They enhance productivity by assembling impact and ideas faster from disparate locations facilitating faster production and innovation”. Implicit in the structure of clusters is the concept of decentralization.
By decentralizing the clusters, initiative is harnessed faster. Clusters create a dynamic system for the enforcement of mutual improvements. The co-location of contiguous industries fosters a competitive mindset through greater sophistication of company operations and strategy thus optimizing the quality of the micro-economic business environment.
–
VI. NIGERIA: A BRIEF SNAPSHOT
We have tried in all that we have said so far to sketch out the extant character of the global environment which seems to be in a state of permanent change and transition. Against that background, we have indicated where possible how the global environment could impact on the twin problems of national development and national integration in various areas of the world. In the process we have underlined the centrality of culture in recent strategies for development. Of particular interest has been the role of biology in clarifying the operations of the cultural milieu in the modern world especially regarding the role of behaviour in the culture of a people. How can these insights guide us in understanding and exploiting the inherent strategies in the pursuit of national development and integration in Nigeria? Hence we start with a brief snapshot of Nigeria: historical, social, cultural, political and economic.
The country called Nigeria came into being in 1900 when the British authorities brought together what they had heretofore called the Northern and Southern Protectorates. Regardless they were administered as separate entities. In 1914 a conscious and deliberate effort was made to run the two entities as a unified administration under what came to be known as the amalgamation. The driving force in the amalgamation was fiscal: the administration of the Southern Protectorate was always in credit while that of the Northern Protectorate was always in deficit. For example in 1910 exports from the Southern Protectorate amounted to 4.3 million pounds, while that of the North barely rose above 200,000 pounds. Pooling the revenue from North and South guaranteed the national government operated in overall credit. This political act was to serve the interests of the British tax payer and was not to serve the interest of the local population. Thus, a conglomeration of different societies at different stages of cultural, political and economic development were lumped together as an administrative entity. We have, therefore, over three hundred ethnic entities, with over four hundred languages brought together. While some could have survived as autonomous nation states, others were barely at the cultural level of the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist using the usual categorisation of anthropologists. In political terms, we had the full range of putative political structures from ancient kingdoms, republican city states, feudal enclaves and incipient empires. The challenge was to weld and meld this assembly of peoples into a unified national entity sharing common values and a common vision of the future. Given the disparate cultures and differing political systems, the undertaking cannot be but arduous. But the key lies in what we had learned earlier on the interlinkages between culture and economic development as well as the potential for change in cultural systems which innovative political strategies can engender. As we had noted earlier “economic progress depends on changing the way people think about wealth creation and prosperity, changing the underlying attitudes, beliefs especially the mental models built on deeply ingrained assumptions, generalization or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” and the action we take.
Mental models apply to individuals or groups of individuals. These models are identifiable and changeable and have in them the seeds of cultural change since culture is anchored on the aggregation of individual mental images which may influence the type of mental images and models that individuals have. However we must remember that while culture is a broader macro-level variable the mental models operate at the micro-level. Nigeria is a plural society with diverse cultures, diverse political backgrounds, differing economic potentials and multi-religious background. How to develop a common platform of a shared vision and code of values is the challenge before our political strategists, economic planners and social scientists. In pursuing this overarching goal the insights provided by science and technology particularly the evidence-based offerings of both the biological and social sciences will be vital. Science and technology can provide the framework for national integration through exploiting the insights of both the biological and social sciences.
–
VII. NIGERIA: THE PAST IN THE PRESENT.
After the amalgamation in 1914: it became obvious that a constitutional and legal framework for the administration of the territories that came under Nigeria in both the Northern and Southern Protectorates was necessary. So in 1922 the first effort was made to provide some kind of legal framework with some pretensions to elements of democracy by appointing some Lagos citizens to the Town Council. Given Lord Lugard’s determined effort to keep the Northern Protectorate separate from the rest of the country, this effort could not be driven by a holistic vision of what the new country needed and how to approach the enterprise of building a new nation. This period of experimentation continued till the outbreak of the Second World War. It was during this period that the Nigerian Youth Movement emerged. After the war, in 1946 the British governor, Sir Arthur Richards was asked by London to draft a new constitution. As pointed out earlier, since Lugard’s time Nigeria was governed as a country split in two- the North and the South. Richard’s Constitution in 1947 entrenched the regional structure by defining Nigeria as a Federation consisting of three regions- the North (which remained as one unit) and the South which was now split into two- the Eastern and Western regions. Regionalism was now entrenched in the constitutional framework. The danger that lurked in these arrangements was that what made the peoples different came to the fore rather than what united them which could therefore have served as a rallying point and provide the seed of a uniting value system. By 1954 it was clear that all was not well and the new arrangements needed to be further fine-tuned.
In the meantime the areas of conflict and contention between the three regions were multiplying making it more difficult to build a pan- Nigerian consensus. One area of disagreement was the time-table for independence. The pressure for independence was mounting. India became independent in 1947, Sudan in 1956 and Ghana in 1957. So it was not surprising that when Enahoro moved the motion to set a date for Nigerian independence in the parliament in 1953 tempers rose, particularly among the Northern legislators. Against the background that Lugard had run the Northern administration as a separate unit, “development there lagged behind that in the South. With fewer schools and colleges in the North, many posts in the Northern administration had been filled by Southerners. As independence approached, the situation alarmed Northern politicians who feared that if self-rule came too soon, the North would be dominated not by the British but by Southern officials…”
The situation was not helped by the fact that after Enahoro’s motion the cars carrying Northern parliamentarians were pelted with stones in the streets of Lagos even as they were jeered and booed. When Awolowo soon after followed with a speech in which he allegedly attacked and jeered the North, a few weeks later, anti-southern riots erupted in Kano and the victims were majorly Igbos.
By 1954 it became clear that another constitutional consultation was necessary. This time in London and attended by British officials and the major Nigerian leaders. At this meeting a timetable for independence for Nigeria was agreed, the three regions could apply for self-government beginning in 1956 but all would have done so by 1959. Independence would then be granted by 1960. As it has been noted “as Nigeria prepared for independence, more elections were organized, the results dominated predictably, by the three big regional parties. Nothing in the constitution could force them to work together. The North was still uneasy about independence but was kept on board by a British promise to organise, even to fix, (emphasis mine) the elections in a way to ensure it would hold majority power in the new parliament…”
It should be noted here that accusations that British authorities fixed the elections and manipulated the census before their departure has always been voiced in the past with little credible evidence. However, with the confessions of a British colonial official who participated in these shenanigans, Harold Smith and the publication in two volumes of British Documents at the End of Empire (BDEE) edited by Martin Lynn, a compilation of British documents on Nigeria including the memoranda exchanged by British officials among themselves and the Colonial office from 1930 to 1960 all doubts can now be rested. Those looking for the smoking guns can now find them.
Unfortunately, calls for separate regional assemblies for the Mid-West, the Niger-Delta and the Middle-Belt were ignored. Despite the exhilaration felt by most people on the approval of independence, this was a period of hope – and fear – in equal measure in some sections of Nigeria. It was not surprising that soon after independence, tensions between the Northern-dominated Federal Government and Western Nigeria grew apace. The Federal elections in 1964 set the stage for the conflagration that was yet to come. Particularly in the Western Region, election-related violence had unsettled the country while corruption had tarnished the reputation of the politicians. Awolowo had been incarcerated in the felony trials. In the Western Region, gangs on either side had hunted down their opponent, doused them in petrol and burned them alive in what became known as “Operation Wetie”. This climate of insecurity which spawned tension and fear continued throughout much of 1965 and overflowed into the first military coup on 15th January, 1966. As noted by Peter Cunliffe-Jones, (a British journalist whose grandfather was the pre-independence Lieutenant-governor of Western Nigeria who went on to retire as Chief Secretary of the central government in Lagos), was to observe:
“…across the South many people celebrated the end of the government even if they disapproved of so much shedding of blood. Since 1960 the government led by Tafawa Balewa, had followed an overt policy of “northernisation”, diverting federal resources to the region and systematically favouring northern candidates for jobs and contracts in a bid to help it catch up with the south…” And as Cunliffe-Jones further observes “on the streets of northern towns and cities, ordinary northerners vented their anger by unleashing attacks on Igbos and other easterners. In a wave of killings following the announcement, easterners living in the north were dragged from their shops and homes and killed on the streets. The scale of the bloodshed was shocking. For six weeks killings occurred every day. Tens of thousands died. And as the violence continued, train loads of Igbos fled the region, heading east, bringing with them gruesome evidence of the attacks they had suffered… machete cuts, knife wounds and stories of rape and murders…” and even decapitated heads.
That is the story of the Nigerian nightmare that spilled over into the civil war nearly fifty (50) years ago. Have we in 2015 shown any sign that we have learnt any lessons from this gruesome national tragedy? Given the continuing depredation of the Boko Haram in the midst of continuing poverty and squalor of most of the people, and the continuous baiting and demonization of Igbos it is clear that the lesson of history that a nation habituated on periodic doses of violence and mayhem cannot survive let alone progress has not been learnt despite the best efforts of the last fifty years. Do we in 2015 see the echoes of 1965? How do we fast-track the push for national integration and the emergence of a truly Nigerian nation of prosperity and peace after a hundred years of co-habitation and fifty-five years of flag independence? What are the risk factors and the critical success factors necessary for building a nation out of the conglomeration of ethnic nationalities, kingdoms and republics called present day Nigeria even as we struggle with the challenges of the 21st century?
–
VIII. NIGERIA 2015: SIGNALS AND PORTENTS
In the light of all that has been said, it seems evident that those who proclaim the view that the Project Nigeria of the British was designed to fail have a point. The seeds of failure according to these outside observers can be found in the lopsidedness of the basic political and economic structure and a continued programme to perpetuate and protect the false foundations through inequitable policies anchored on favouritism and selective manipulation. It is fair, however, after more than a hundred years of co-habitation and nearly six decades of post-independence existence that the old shibboleths of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and even imperialism as constraints should no longer ring true. We should by now have struck out along our independent path as a nation if the vision, strategy and leadership had been in place especially if we had decidedly taken a firm position against the subsisting tradition of hypocrisy, deceit and inequity. So we need to return to the basics. As we noted earlier, prosperous and progressive societies pursue three common goals-
- economic development with material wellbeing for the individuals;
- social and economic equity; and
- political democracy.
In the pursuit of these goals we have also noted that societies that optimize economic development with emphasis on material wellbeing for the individual build their economic foundation on competition, productivity and innovation. The pursuit of social and economic equity favours policies in which the differential between the rich and the poorest remain within the boundaries that can ensure basic provision with dignity for each individual citizen. In other words, the Gini coefficient of the economists remains within the bounds of social fairness and social justice. This coefficient has been at an all-time high in the Nigeria of 2015 and that is a timebomb, beyond Boko Haram.
Finally, political democracy is built on a foundation that ensures that political dynamics that necessarily emerge especially in an environment of democratic pluralism guarantees equity, justice and fair treatment for all citizens and all groups. If 2015 bears the disturbing echoes and similarities to 1965 in the tone of the politics as some have suggested what signals and portents can we espy as basis for evaluating the current state of the nation? What hopes can we project for the future? And the fears?
Permit me at this point to mention two diversionary narratives that seem most appropriate as reminders at this stage. In the Chinese alphabet, I am told, the symbol for crisis is the same as that for opportunity. Thus, according to the Chinese, in every crisis there are opportunities waiting to be exploited. In addition I am told by a friend of a historical exchange with the late Shehu Musa Yar’adua when he was second in command of this country. A friend had gone to give him advice on what he needed to do for the North. Shehu had slowly breathed in and then slowly told my friend “You know when you sit here and survey Nigeria, it is difficult to think of only your people – your people are all the peoples of Nigeria” – in their diversity and differences we should add. Let us then advert our minds first to what I may consider the negative signals and the portents.
In the run-up to the 2011 Presidential elections and even more so in the run-up to the 2015 elections avoidable heat and tension was generated not only along party lines but across ethnic lines. It was as if the citizens of Nigeria were total strangers to one another. Ethnically fuelled violence erupted in Nasarawa, Plateau and Southern Kaduna. Scurrilous attacks of individuals and name-calling replaced the discussion of alternative policies and programmes of governance. The deliberate manufacture of unfavourable stories against opponents became the stuff of political narrative with the popular refrain: it is all politics. In this new climate of fairy tales, the ethnic baiting of the pre-civil war period re-emerged with once revered leaders including traditional leaders leading the vanguard. It was as if these ethnic gladiators were competing not to be outdone. Some perceptive commentators have compared the atmosphere generated in those days with the anti-Semitic propaganda machinery of the Nazis in the early and mid-1930s before the Second World War. Responsible leadership implies knowing when, how and where to draw the line. In a viable national leadership, acolytes are guided by a shared code of values which drives the ethics of the competition and hence moderates and punishes excesses. Despite the efforts of our respected diplomats, Kofi Annan and Emeka Anyaoku, prodded by the wise initiative of Ben Obi, that was a little helpful therapy that came perhaps a little late. In hind-sight we could say that it was better late than never. The tone and tempo of the politicking of those days may have seeped into the arena of governance. But these are early days.
The second area where a lot of negative vibes came from is the area of the preparations for, the conduct and management of the 2015 elections. There are many responsible and distinguished citizens who are convinced that divine intervention saved us from a monumental historical explosion. In the euphoria that a new government is now in place and a historical transition has taken place, it is still necessary to interrogate our performance in this area for the sake of the future and posterity and the lessons that we need to learn going forward as a united national family. When the chairman of INEC appeared before the Council of State to report on the preparedness of the Commission to conduct the elections on the earlier scheduled date, he listed eleven areas of unpreparedness which included that the collators and electoral officers had not been trained, the printing of many of the necessary documents including the much-touted Permanent Voters Card was ongoing and many other areas of organisation and logistics were at a high level of unpreparedness. We were being primed for a monumental disaster barely days to the D-day. Yet when the elder statesmen concluded that INEC was unprepared hence the need for postponement, the newspapers and some politicians made it look as if the postponement was procured as a favour to the incumbent government. When the elections came we saw live feeds of long lines of under aged children voting in Kano, Kaduna and Adamawa. In retrospect, we all welcomed an expected outcome that we could live with which would seem to be in the long term interest of Nigeria. Indeed, it can be said as a public commentator has indeed said: Nigerians succumbed to the tyranny of fear driven by pervasive violence as a weapon and in the process our country Nigeria was given a reprieve. We need, however, when the euphoria has died down, to interrogate the conduct of the 2015 election – NOT the results – for the sake of improving on our conduct and management of elections going forward. The present posture of all is well that ends well will not suffice going forward as a necessary foundation for the new United Nigeria which we must now build for our children and their children.
Still on the elections but now looking on the positive signals. A close examination of the results of the election suggests that there is an implicit balance of forces between the two major parties. The differential between the eventual winner and the loser is a little over two million votes (in 2011 it was over ten million votes). A closer examination of the results as per geo-political zones turns up interesting possibilities for the future of democracy and for the future of Nigeria. The two northern zones of North West and North East contributed massively to President Buhari’s plurality – a massive vote of 7.1 million accounting for 46% of his votes nationally. In the North
East the total votes for President Buhari was 2.8 million votes constituting 18% of his votes nationally. With regards to spread President Buhari had the required 25% in the seven states of the North-West and in all the six states of the North-East. In comparison, former President Jonathan had 25% in only one North Western state (Kaduna) and in two North Eastern states (Adamawa and Taraba). On the other hand, former President Jonathan had 4.7 million votes in the South South which contributed 37% to his national total. In the South East, he scored a total of 2.4 million votes which contributed 19% to his overall national total. With regards to spread President Buhari had 25% in only one South South state (Edo) while former President Jonathan had over 25% in all the five states of the South East. It is when we go to the South West and the North Central that the matter becomes even more interesting. In the South West, President Buhari scored 2.4 million votes while former President Jonathan scored 1.9 million votes – a differential of just 500,374 votes. With regards to spread, President Buhari had over 25% in all the states of the South West. In comparison, former President Jonathan also had more than 25% in all the states of the South West. The South West states contributed 16% to Buhari’s national total and 15% to Jonathan.
In the North Central, President Buhari scored a total of 2.4 million to Jonathan’s 1.7 million, a differential of nearly 0.7 million votes. These contributed 16% to Buhari’s national score while the North Central contributed 11% to Jonathan’s national score. While President Buhari scored over 25% in all the six states of the North Central as well as in the Federal Capital Territory. Indeed, the respective scores in the FCT was 48% for Buhari and 51% for Jonathan. Moreover, Jonathan did not score up to 25% in Niger State as he did in the other five states of the zone but he also scored over 51% in Nasarawa state. Overall while Buhari scored over 25% in 27 states, Jonathan scored above this minimum in 26 states.
On the basis of these results, we can confidently say that we are witnesses to the emergence of a balanced two party system or to borrow the colloquial of the politicians, the desirable system is at last finally on ground. The possibility of a oneparty state, barring unlikely and unexpected political cataclysm in the future is not on the cards for Nigeria in the foreseeable future. Secondly, a close examination of these results suggest an uncanny echo of the 1964 Federal elections. Can we reshape the political dynamics of 2015 towards national integration? But we should ask if 2015 is an adumbration of 1965. What are the auguries for the future? Overall it does have intimations of some positive portents for a united country. But more of that later.
–
IX. NIGERIA: PURSUING HISTORY
Implicit in all that has been said so far is the fact that two interlinked challenges face Nigeria as we progress into the 21st century, namely, the challenge of national integration and the challenge of economic development. We have also seen that culture can be a stumbling block as well as a facilitator in the pursuit of these goals. Some cultures are more resistant to change than others just as some cultures are more adaptable hence more accommodating to change especially in economic matters.
With regard to economic matters, it is clear that despite the horrendous levels of corruption, progress has been made over the last ten years. The economy has grown at the rate of 7% on the average. It is known by the economists that economies that grow at more than 7% have the capacity to double every decade. It is not surprising then that the rebasing of our economic data in the recent past has made our economy the largest in Africa ahead of both South Africa and Egypt. The soft underbelly of the national economy remains the high unemployment rate especially among the youth and the stubborn level of poverty in all geopolitical zones. What we need now are strategies and incentives which optimize the level of wealth creation in all geopolitical zones while at the same time creating incentives that can redistribute wealth through enhanced productivity. As has been noted earlier, the key to enhanced wealth creation hinges on competition, productivity and innovation. We also noted that the factors that drive wealth creation is at the micro-level: it is the competition at the firm level that drives both productivity and innovation. As has been noted the overarching goal at this point in our history should be to create a virtuous circle of economic growth and social equity on a sustainable basis in which “…firms take initiative to develop more complex business products and more sophisticated business strategies… these will create higher margins, which provide the fuel to make more investments in the workforce. A more highly educated work force stimulates a higher rate of innovation and higher rates of innovation yield the ability to sell increasingly complex goods and services…”
That this approach can work in the Nigerian environment is attested to by the success of the Dangote Group, the Eleganza Group and the Chikason Group. None of these, at least until recently, had been in the oil industry. Their wealth was anchored on production and on the productivity of their workforce. We must on the other hand avoid the vicious circle of the past in which firms relied not on competition or higher production but on cheap labour, abundant natural resources and underhand deals in foreign exchange which traps them at the level of commodity exchange with minimal margins. In such a situation, significant investment on human capital is not possible and the sources of innovation are constrained. Enduring wealth cannot be created under such circumstances while poverty increases. It is now evident that the pursuit of fast-paced economic development in the globalized world of the 21st century is no longer rocket science. The success of Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, South Korea, Brazil and particularly China in the last thirty years underlines the feasibility of the productivity paradigm. Nigeria is therefore, economically at the cusp of a historical conjuncture to follow their lead if we can deal with the problem of national integration. We have spent a lot of resources to develop the Western corridor from Lagos to Kano. It is time we paid the same level of attention to the development of the Eastern sector from Port-Harcourt to Maiduguri
With regard to the challenge of national integration, the key lies in inducing a Nigeria-wide cultural change in which desirable attributes of our cultures which can create the essential conditions for wealth creation are identified and transmitted. In other words, it is in the national interest to embark on a national programme of cultural re-engineering. In this effort we must be guided by the result of research which suggests that not only do cultures change over historical time but the importance of particular processes of cultural learning and cultural transmission also changes. Specifically, different sets of teaching and learning process may be emphasized when cultures are in a more stable state compared with when they are in a more dynamic state. Particular processes of apprenticeship are highlighted in connection with the dominant eco-cultural system of a particular time and place. What is possible can be illustrated with two significant national entities in Nigeria – the Igbos and the Fulani. These are possibly the only social groups in Nigeria, which can be found in all the crannies and crevices of Nigeria pursuing their business. While the Igbos are acknowledged to be industrious, intelligent, adaptable but brash and boisterous, the Fulani are noted for their doggedness, doughty, wise, conservative but resistant to change. All the values of the Igbos except their brashness and boisterous spirit are vital for economic development anchored on entrepreneurship. The same applies to the Fulani except for their tendency to resist change. The virtues can in each case be maximized while the vices can be constrained. It is possible to create the social incentive, rewards and disincentives that can wean them both from their old ways of socially destabilizing behaviour as a basis of building a Nigerian national ethos that accelerates and optimizes their potential for building a prosperous Nigeria. The positive attributes can be transmitted to other national entities through cultural apprenticeship. The need of the Igbos is to be assured of full rights and protection as citizens of Nigeria in all parts of Nigeria. The need of the Fulani is to prepare them for 21st century not by setting aside special pastoral highways from North to South but helping them to develop ranches in selected and suitable environments. The potential for conflict with farmers and other indigenous populations will be minimized. As General Gowon was recently quoted as saying that Nigeria needs the Igbos, it can also be said that Nigeria needs all the diverse peoples of Nigeria including the Igbos for in our diversity lies our potential for significant economic and political power on the world stage. What has been lacking has been the political will to formulate a national framework for co-existence and national harmony in a violence-free environment. As Robert Edgerton has noted
“Humans in various societies are capable of empathy, kindness even love, and they can sometimes achieve outstanding mastery of the challenges posed by their environment. But they are also capable of maintaining beliefs, values, and social institutions that results in senseless cruelty, needless suffering and monumental folly in their relations among themselves as well as with other societies and the physical environment in which they live…”
Recent research has also shown that the socio-economic gaps between one region and another in a country can be bridged and the emerging cultures re-aligned for fruitful interaction if a policy of decentralization and regional integration is actively pursued. The gap between Northern Italy and the Southern regions was comparable to that between a first world nation and a poor third world country. Edward Banfield who studied the cultural roots of poverty in Southern Italy compared with Northern Italy concluded that culture is at the root of the vast differences between the North and South. Decentralization by promoting a degree of trust, moderation and compromise has narrowed the gap. Since the political decision to decentralize and create incentives for regional integration were taken, poverty in the South has been substantially ameliorated and the economic gap between the North and the South has been substantially redressed. Perhaps Nigeria needs to look in that direction in our pursuit of fast-paced economic development and national integration by re-aligning and energising the geopolitical zones. The competitive energy and regional explosion in desirable initiatives for wealth creation can be amazing. This is the over-riding challenge for politics and governance in Nigeria today.
–
X. NIGERIA: LEADERSHIP AND THE PURSUIT OF HISTORY
From all that has been said so far, it is clear that there is sufficient scientific research with their relevant insights in the biological and social sciences that can enable us, if properly utilized to overcome the dual challenge of national development and national integration. The information age has afforded us the opportunity to exploit new technologies to instil, to transmit and to propagate new visions with their undergirding values which can drive our economic development and our social environment in desirable directions. Unfortunately, we lack at present a pan-Nigerian leadership elite with a common vision, shared values and a generally accepted national agenda. Even when a consensus does emerge, there are no national champions that can push the vision towards desirable goals in the required direction. So there cannot be a Nigerian narrative. A broad-based leadership elite will include political leaders, thought leaders, intellectual leaders, business leaders, leaders in the arts, journalism and traditional leaders. Such a leadership elite must have a codified and accepted rules of conduct and of engagement as well as the agreed processes for recruitment into the leadership and conditions for exit. There is no serious nation that does not have such a leadership elite. Nigeria has paid a high price for the lack of such selfless and self-perpetuating leadership devoid of personal, sectional and sectarian considerations. It is such an elite that can always return us to the essence and being of the putative nation.
In moving forward, it is important that we learn the proper lessons from our past. At this stage, it is germane to recall our national experience with Vision 2010. The programme was inaugurated by the late General Abacha. Clearly he had his designs in convening the assembly of notable leaders but what came out of it was not what he expected or what he had planned for. It was the most clear-headed, and patriotic agenda that any group of the Nigerian elite could bring forth. Although General Abacha seemed committed to implement it, subsequent events indicated that it was not the divine purpose that he would build the edifice of a new Nigeria. It seemed like the situation when King David of Israel wanted to build a temple as a place to worship God but the divine injunction came denying him the privilege. Abacha’s successor without consultation and without any detailed examination of the documents rejected the programme out of hand clearly because Abacha was the apparent originator. When wiser counsel prevailed and President Obasanjo came to understand the ethos and essence of this important national endeavour, it was too late – the momentum to implement had been lost. If a Pan Nigerian national leadership elite had existed, President Obasanjo would not have found it that easy to have dismissed such an important national undertaking so cavalierly.
We now have a near equivalent situation in the Report of the recent National Conference convened by former President Jonathan. Whatever may have been Jonathan’s motivation and designs for the conference, the final result certainly was beyond his expectations and designs. It is now a national agenda of fundamental importance to the future of Nigeria. What will President Buhari do with it? While we await what the answer to this question may be, it is important to underline an important outcome of the National Conference as it relates to the conclusions we can draw from this lecture. We have seen above that nations such as Italy, Indonesia and Malaysia who faced similar challenges of national integration and economic development ameliorated the situation when they devolved power to lower levels of authority and pursued a deliberate policy of regional development and integration.
The National Conference came to similar conclusions with regards to Nigeria and if for no other reason I would plead with President Buhari to consider this Report with statesmanly sense of responsibility and patriotic duty beyond the exigencies of politics in the national interest.
Much has been written in the media on the significance of President Buhari’s emergence to the future of Nigeria. The Igbo people have already rephrased his name from Buhari to Buha-ria (turn-around or overturn). This Igbo word sums up the essence of Buhari’s emergence for those who see it as inaugurating a new period of change and transformation. Can he rise to the challenge? The long term interest of Nigeria demands more than changing things around. After many false starts, we need a determined new approach to the challenge of leadership. In this effort he needs to learn important leadership lessons from the history of other nations in the recent past. He may need to cull from the leadership experience of Atatürk of Turkey, Rabin of Israel, Mandela of South Africa, Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia and even from our own Obasanjo. What are the lessons to be learnt from these historical personages? Atatürk was the man who singlehandedly and determinedly shaped a new vision of Turkey out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. His legacy and vision continue to influence the fortunes of his precious Turkey nearly a hundred years later. He too had a military background. The next is Rabin of Israel. He was one of the greatest soldiers of modern Israel, a war hero. He led the armed forces of Israel to achieve outstanding victories for Israel. In office he used his reputational capital to lead Israel towards the path of peace with their Arab neighbours – the very anti-thesis of what he fought for. He alone could do that in Israel and survive politically because he was a hero that Israel could trust. This is particularly relevant because many of the hard decisions that will confront this Presidency of General Buhari will come from the North. At this particular point in history only General Buhari has the reputation and integrity that can make the Northern peoples undertake what would have been unthinkable under normal circumstances and in the national interest.
The lessons from Mandela’s leadership is the need to make personal sacrifices in the interest of national reconciliation. As the results of the recent elections suggest there is in 2015 echoes of the difficulties of 1965. The lesson from Mahathir Mohammed rests on the applicable strategies to mobilize a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society towards a common goal for prosperity while ensuring that the narrative is known even to the taxi driver in the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Lasting and sustainable development that can create wealth and prosperity is in the final analysis for the benefit of the people. They, the people, must be enabled to own and participate in the development of themselves, their family and their nation. Finally, no one can teach President Buhari any lessons on Obasanjo but it is relevant to indicate that whether you love or hate Obasanjo and despite any personal failings that some may care to list, his focus and doggedness to pursue even in the midst of contrary views his convictions has done a lot of national good and often in the national interest. This litany of lessons is a huge challenge for any man, least of all General Buhari. Despite the early signs of alleged sectionalisation, selective indecision and avoidable delays in the process of governance these are early days. The jury must therefore still stay out. It is, however, important to stress that in the circumstances of Nigeria of 2015 perception is an important part of reality. All in all, the opportunity for this President to make a historic statement that will reverberate down the ages in Nigeria is immense. Given his integrity and mettle, he cannot afford to fail. The consequences of failure as an alternative to a historic success for this administration is unthinkable. As we look into the future of a new Nigeria let us reflect in the words of an unknown Chinese poet of the Han Dynasty:
“Alas, journey upon journey
Upon journey, we’re separated
With thousands of miles between us
Each stranded at the other end of the world
The road so difficult and long
When can we possibly see
Each other again? The horse
From the North still yearns
For the northern wind, the bird
From the South clings, like
Before to the southern branch”
God bless our President and our leaders
God bless Nigeria and
God bless all Nigerians.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Lawrence E Harrison and Samuel P Huntington (2000). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. Basic Books, New York, U.S.A.
- K. Onwuka Dike (2011) Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta, 1830-1885. Bookcraft, Ibadan, Nigeria.
- Sue Taylor Parker, Jonas Langer and Michael L. McKinney (1995). Biology, Brains and Behaviour. School of American Research Press and James Currey, Oxford, U.K.
- Peter Cunliffe-Jones (2010) My Nigeria: Five Decades of Independence. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, U.S.A.
- Steven Silbiger (2009) The Jewish Phenomenon. M. Evans, New York, U.S.A.
Professor Anya O. Anya, Pro Chancellor and Charman of Council Micheal Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Imo State, delivered this lecture in Lagos on August 18, 2015 during the
The 2015 Eni Njoku Memorial Lecture
— Sep 21, 2015 @ 01:00 GMT
|
Tags:
