February 10, 2009
It was the famous literary critic, late Professor Edward Said of Columbia University New York, who brought to the fore the role of exile in understanding the question of alienation- for whatever reasons people leave their country. Professor Said also tried to show what possibilities and challenges life in exile could wrought. It is a matter of conjecture whether Edward Said would have received world acclaim and recognition if he were still in Palestine, Israel or Egypt, all of these being countries where he had lived. The same argument had been made about South African politics.
It was the famous literary critic, late Professor Edward Said of Columbia University New York, who brought to the fore the role of exile in understanding the question of alienation- for whatever reasons people leave their country. Professor Said also tried to show what possibilities and challenges life in exile could wrought. It is a matter of conjecture whether Edward Said would have received world acclaim and recognition if he were still in Palestine, Israel or Egypt, all of these being countries where he had lived. The same argument had been made about South African politics.
There is a distinction between the exiled African National Congress (ANC) activists and those who remained at home to wage the struggle. Although Nelson Mandela headed the first multi-racial administration in South Africa, however, his government was dominated by hitherto exiled South African liberation activists. The split in the ANC itself has been a result of the clash between the exiled and the home-based political activists. The core question at issue is: who contributed more to the struggle for liberation in South Africa? This question may sound trite and irrelevant but it is today at the heart of a new form of struggle in which every key member of the ANC is trying to make claim to importance and seek relevance.
The early 1990s in Nigeria forced a number of activists into exile due principally to the annulment of the June 12 19993 presidential election and the repression that followed. Exile is more of a prison, depending on what you make of it. You are not free to comment on the politics and issues of the host country in a free and frank way, you may be under watch; it is worse if you have a political asylum. This inflicts pain which can degenerate and constitute a psychological problem, it may result in depression. The transition from activism to a lonely life in exile is catastrophic.
However many of the political exiles of Nigeria in the anti-military struggles, whether from the left, centrists, NADECO or any other such movement refused to be cowed. Exile merely presented a new platform to deepen and expand the frontiers of the struggle for the redemption of Nigeria. This struggle brought many exiles into coalitions and alliances-strange people who would never have had cause to relate, be they military, academics, politicians or technocrats. However, they did and the meetings were multi-prolonged and multi-layered; they were linked to the struggles being waged on ground at home, with feedback being constantly sought.
A network of underground communications and passages was built; attempts to streamline and centrally coordinate the struggles were also made, though this did not quite succeed. The target was anti-militarism and the de-annulment of the June 12 election. It may be true that the June 12 struggle was later ethicized at home by some with a view to trivialized and caricature it, however, abroad, people embraced the June 12 elections as symbol of national renewal and political rebirth. In June 12 and through the June 12 election many saw the possibility for change and the potential for settling scores with the military and sanitizing the Nigerian polity . Yet, for those who were afraid of democracy and popular rule, June 12 struggle served as an albatross around their necks.
Exile politics served good political purpose for many Nigerians such as Anthony Enahoro, Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe who were granted several platforms abroad to explain the Nigerian message. Yet this came at grave risks. There was always rumour or purported rumour of the Sanni Abacha espionage forces and intelligence machinery out there to monitor, tail and bomb core activists. Living with this reality and on a daily basis too, created its uncertainties and unpredictability, but life had to be lived with confidence and hope of a better tomorrow. The hope to change Nigeria and make it better for those who will come after.
Death became a perpetual threat, which was more startling because of its ever-present unpredictability. It was a mental torture and something every exiled activist had to ruminate about, more out of curiosity than fear. The threat of death created not fear but curiosity in many exiled activists. The fact that anything could happen to you at anytime further spurred activists to want to use their last strength to power, deepen the struggle, and set example for those who will wish to continue with it whenever death beacons. The anti-military struggle was therefore a struggle for the soul of a nation in a season of anomie.
Exile politics became well appreciated such that with the return to civil rule in 1999, a new bell valorized the role of exiled activists. The recognition and registration of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), in spite of the fact that it did not meet the basic guidelines set by INEC, some have argued, is a mark of recognition and appreciation of the contribution of exile politics in pressurizing for democracy.
It is to everybody’s disappointment that the transition to civil rule in Nigeria falls short of transition to democracy. However, why has this been so? I will only outline some of the core reasons. First, the pro-democracy struggle was preponderantly urban-based and among a network of elites, middle class a déclassé. I make this assertion in form of collective self-criticism. Second, the popular struggle waged was not rooted in the politics of the Nigerian working class. Indeed, various trade unions and working class organizations leaderships were compromised into quietism or simply refused to accept the leadership of the pro-democracy activists under the banner of the Campaign for Democracy (CD). Third, the student movement was compromised and their ranks were decimated, this was a big challenge to the pro-democracy movement. Fourth, there was no organic link between town and country, between working class and peasant struggles. Lastly, the pro-democracy group was divided over the strategic issue of whether to embrace or reject the transition to civil rule in 1998. In the end, even those who embraced the transition programme merely participated on the fringes- as marginals or onlookers. They merely served as election Observers and Monitor so on.
What was the outcome or consequence of all this? Those who supported military rule or who were its key henchmen and women took the centre stage while activists took a backstage. A study by Chris Anyanwu showed that some of the legislators in the National Assembly in 1999 were of questionable character-people who stole their way into power, people who had no mandate were all in the NASS.
There are many activists who have returned from exile and many more who are still out there uncertain about the political future of Nigeria. There is need to break that barrier, whether in driving the goals of governance or waging the politics for expanding the democratic space, the Nigerian Diaspora as generic group has a crucial role to play. Labels and name-calling will not solve the crises of Nigeria. There is need for a new outlook on politics that appreciates the role which the critical mass of activists have played in ensuring that military became a thing of the past, it is sad commentary that many of those who parade themselves as politicians today were apologists of military rule. That is not to be lamented. What is needed is for progressive forces to once again come together, learn from the mistakes of the past and chart a new path by using creative tactics to canvass for politics that empower. There is need to empower women, youth, workers, ruralites and those on the urban fringes. There is need to move beyond mainstream politics to discuss the palaver of the marginalized. Elite politics, hegemonic minority politics must give way to grassroots politics and politics that is participatory and inclusive of the mass of the people.
This is the time to build bridges across Nigeria and network with the Diaspora. There are many things that unite us as a people, as a country than divide us. We have to build democracy first, before we can consolidate it. As such there has to be a democratic agenda, well-spelt out and well understood by its adherents and evangelists. There is a fierce urgency to rebuild Nigeria, that urgency is both clarion call and a generational obligation. We cannot evade it neither can we push to the next generation. Frantz Fanon was absolutely right on this issue.
There is a distinction between the exiled African National Congress (ANC) activists and those who remained at home to wage the struggle. Although Nelson Mandela headed the first multi-racial administration in South Africa, however, his government was dominated by hitherto exiled South African liberation activists. The split in the ANC itself has been a result of the clash between the exiled and the home-based political activists. The core question at issue is: who contributed more to the struggle for liberation in South Africa? This question may sound trite and irrelevant but it is today at the heart of a new form of struggle in which every key member of the ANC is trying to make claim to importance and seek relevance.
The early 1990s in Nigeria forced a number of activists into exile due principally to the annulment of the June 12 19993 presidential election and the repression that followed. Exile is more of a prison, depending on what you make of it. You are not free to comment on the politics and issues of the host country in a free and frank way, you may be under watch; it is worse if you have a political asylum. This inflicts pain which can degenerate and constitute a psychological problem, it may result in depression. The transition from activism to a lonely life in exile is catastrophic.
However many of the political exiles of Nigeria in the anti-military struggles, whether from the left, centrists, NADECO or any other such movement refused to be cowed. Exile merely presented a new platform to deepen and expand the frontiers of the struggle for the redemption of Nigeria. This struggle brought many exiles into coalitions and alliances-strange people who would never have had cause to relate, be they military, academics, politicians or technocrats. However, they did and the meetings were multi-prolonged and multi-layered; they were linked to the struggles being waged on ground at home, with feedback being constantly sought.
A network of underground communications and passages was built; attempts to streamline and centrally coordinate the struggles were also made, though this did not quite succeed. The target was anti-militarism and the de-annulment of the June 12 election. It may be true that the June 12 struggle was later ethicized at home by some with a view to trivialized and caricature it, however, abroad, people embraced the June 12 elections as symbol of national renewal and political rebirth. In June 12 and through the June 12 election many saw the possibility for change and the potential for settling scores with the military and sanitizing the Nigerian polity . Yet, for those who were afraid of democracy and popular rule, June 12 struggle served as an albatross around their necks.
Exile politics served good political purpose for many Nigerians such as Anthony Enahoro, Wole Soyinka and Chinua Achebe who were granted several platforms abroad to explain the Nigerian message. Yet this came at grave risks. There was always rumour or purported rumour of the Sanni Abacha espionage forces and intelligence machinery out there to monitor, tail and bomb core activists. Living with this reality and on a daily basis too, created its uncertainties and unpredictability, but life had to be lived with confidence and hope of a better tomorrow. The hope to change Nigeria and make it better for those who will come after.
Death became a perpetual threat, which was more startling because of its ever-present unpredictability. It was a mental torture and something every exiled activist had to ruminate about, more out of curiosity than fear. The threat of death created not fear but curiosity in many exiled activists. The fact that anything could happen to you at anytime further spurred activists to want to use their last strength to power, deepen the struggle, and set example for those who will wish to continue with it whenever death beacons. The anti-military struggle was therefore a struggle for the soul of a nation in a season of anomie.
Exile politics became well appreciated such that with the return to civil rule in 1999, a new bell valorized the role of exiled activists. The recognition and registration of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), in spite of the fact that it did not meet the basic guidelines set by INEC, some have argued, is a mark of recognition and appreciation of the contribution of exile politics in pressurizing for democracy.
It is to everybody’s disappointment that the transition to civil rule in Nigeria falls short of transition to democracy. However, why has this been so? I will only outline some of the core reasons. First, the pro-democracy struggle was preponderantly urban-based and among a network of elites, middle class a déclassé. I make this assertion in form of collective self-criticism. Second, the popular struggle waged was not rooted in the politics of the Nigerian working class. Indeed, various trade unions and working class organizations leaderships were compromised into quietism or simply refused to accept the leadership of the pro-democracy activists under the banner of the Campaign for Democracy (CD). Third, the student movement was compromised and their ranks were decimated, this was a big challenge to the pro-democracy movement. Fourth, there was no organic link between town and country, between working class and peasant struggles. Lastly, the pro-democracy group was divided over the strategic issue of whether to embrace or reject the transition to civil rule in 1998. In the end, even those who embraced the transition programme merely participated on the fringes- as marginals or onlookers. They merely served as election Observers and Monitor so on.
What was the outcome or consequence of all this? Those who supported military rule or who were its key henchmen and women took the centre stage while activists took a backstage. A study by Chris Anyanwu showed that some of the legislators in the National Assembly in 1999 were of questionable character-people who stole their way into power, people who had no mandate were all in the NASS.
There are many activists who have returned from exile and many more who are still out there uncertain about the political future of Nigeria. There is need to break that barrier, whether in driving the goals of governance or waging the politics for expanding the democratic space, the Nigerian Diaspora as generic group has a crucial role to play. Labels and name-calling will not solve the crises of Nigeria. There is need for a new outlook on politics that appreciates the role which the critical mass of activists have played in ensuring that military became a thing of the past, it is sad commentary that many of those who parade themselves as politicians today were apologists of military rule. That is not to be lamented. What is needed is for progressive forces to once again come together, learn from the mistakes of the past and chart a new path by using creative tactics to canvass for politics that empower. There is need to empower women, youth, workers, ruralites and those on the urban fringes. There is need to move beyond mainstream politics to discuss the palaver of the marginalized. Elite politics, hegemonic minority politics must give way to grassroots politics and politics that is participatory and inclusive of the mass of the people.
This is the time to build bridges across Nigeria and network with the Diaspora. There are many things that unite us as a people, as a country than divide us. We have to build democracy first, before we can consolidate it. As such there has to be a democratic agenda, well-spelt out and well understood by its adherents and evangelists. There is a fierce urgency to rebuild Nigeria, that urgency is both clarion call and a generational obligation. We cannot evade it neither can we push to the next generation. Frantz Fanon was absolutely right on this issue.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });