We must never be tired of demanding that any government should chasten itself and give us the foundation and the example to propel us forward. We must demand that any government should deal honestly with us and level with us…. We must have accountability and transparency that we are not getting now. If any administration is turning evil we should spare no efforts and no sacrifice to remove it. General Olusegun Obasanjo, Keynote Address to the participants at the Workshop on Nigeria: The State of the Nation and the Way Forward, Arewa House, Kaduna, 1994, p.29
The abrupt, unscheduled Saudi trip and PDP’S reaction to a keen observer of events in the normal discontented salariate can quickly conclude that turbulence and tempests have returned in due course, leaving an intact nomenclature that whenever a President sneezes, the country catches cold. The time has come when the long hidden bloated enduring image of the President’s health is playing itself out distinctly and more transparently.
History is replete with stories of full blown dictatorships which were eventually swept out of power by the collective will and determination of the people. In 1986, people’s power brought down two oppressive and tyrannical regimes; one in Haiti, and the other in Philippines. That year was a sad one for dictators all over the world, and a fruitful one for all lovers of decency and freedom, because the governments of two despots- Baby Dor Duvalier of Haiti and Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines crashed like sack of beans. Dictatorship has been referred to as ‘’power without responsibility’’, and to which James Baldwin noted as ‘’historical and official privilege of prostitutes’’- because the effectiveness only last for the governed, dictators by their very nature are vulnerable, because dictatorship is a confidence trick. However for any trick to be effective, the perception or feeling of the people upon whom the trick is played is crucial. If the people are gullible or credulous and are unable to detect such a fraud when it is unleashed on them, then the trickster becomes unsteadied, more undecided, uncertain than the previous ones and fall becomes inevitable. Such a fall may occur at anytime during this diabolic trip, and it may be soon, as in Liberia, where Samuel Doe’s ludicrous antics paved the way for his eventual waterloo. On the other hand, it may take several years as in Haiti, Zaire, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Philippines, where the people have been brainwashed to believing and accepting that the dynasties or imperial lords in power would be there till eternity, more so that they had plenty of time and acolytes to establish themselves firmly. In the end, they were swept off, like dead cockroaches into the waste bin of history.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
Like General Abacha, President Yar’adua is also keeping mute about his health. He has left his boys to do the shouting and growling. The same forces led by Chief Tony Anenih, who are now sycophantically trumpeting the need for President Yar’adua to clutch at power at the expense of his health and a nation of about 140 million people, gallivanted round the globe rationalizing the actions of General Abacha. Despite the tension in the country at that time and the late General’s fragile health status, they crafted a diabolically unique scheme of getting all the registered political parties to adopt General Abacha as the sole candidate in his self-succession bid. It was only the cold hands of death, which snatched the general that spared Nigeria the calamity their actions would have triggered. Leaders who are bent on enthroning authoritarianism are known to be both as ruthless as well as reckless in the pursuit of their inordinate ambitions. Unfortunately, our President is increasingly shaping into that frame. While he flaunts his credentials as a Malam who has not taken the presidency as a matter of life and death, his recent actions cut him in the mould of those who easily forget the lessons of history. Ironically, it was the same President who should be the best student of history by reflecting on the episodes that consume the late Shehu Yar’adua, but history does not repeat itself but rather it is people who forget the lessons of history. In the sixties right through the seventies, African leaders modified their constitutions to keep themselves in power. The process itself was marked by repression and in some cases violence. Those who opposed the amendments were termed traitors and arrested on trumped up charges of treason. They were either put behind bars for as long as the dictators wished, or given some kangaroo trial, hanged, or executed. In some cases opposition leaders or their supporters were simply eliminated. What happened in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo), under General Mobutu is particularly so gruesome that it merits recalling here. Mobutu transformed cruelty into a gory spectacle. For instance in May 1966, he ordered the arrest of four of his opponents namely, Evariste Kimba, a former Prime Minister, Mahamba, Anany and Bamba, on charges of treason. They were given some “trial” and sentenced to death by hanging. General Mobutu decreed that the hanging took place in the open, at Kokolo Camp on May 31, 1966. People were mobilized to go and watch. He invited all important dignitaries, including foreign diplomats stationed in Kinshasa, to the horrific “show”, which he was to personally chair. Evariste Kimba and the three others were hanged one by one.
General Mobutu never kept his promise. He remained in power until he was violently pushed out by the forces of Laurent-Desire Kabila. Using the party he founded, in 1967, Mouvement Populaire de la Revolution (MPR), he perfected the art of divide and rule while heavily relying on the army he recreated to repress his opponents and keep the people in check. He also used the considerable mineral wealth of the country to consolidate his power and to co-opt his rivals. Repression and corruption were the hallmarks of his administration. Estimates in 1984 placed his personal wealth at four billion US dollars which was almost equivalent to the country’s national debt. With such misrule, development was obviously never a priority. The pressures for democratization which became intense with the end of the cold war and dwindling of foreign aid forced Mobutu, in 1991, to agree to a national conference to chart a new course for the country and to allow for multiparty politics. Mobutu ensured that none came to pass. By 1994 Congo Democratic Republic, was ranked 168 out of 177 countries in the United Nations 2004 Human Development Report.
It was obvious that a little push could sweep the regime from power. This was because, despite General Mobutu’s extreme authoritarian rule. General Mobutu was ousted in May 1997 by the forces of Laurent-Desire Kabila with the aid of the RPF government in Kigali. Between 1999 and 2005 over four million people were killed by disease, war and ethnic violence in the DRC and 1.8 million people were displaced. Cote d’Ivoire, under Houphouet Boigny is another example. While Houphouet Boigny did not descend to Mobutu’s level of bestiality, when he arrested his opponents, nevertheless, he made sure that they were given some trial in a court located in a section of the presidential palace and given long prison sentences. He was able to silence the opposition for a long time and some progress was made in the economic and social spheres. A World Bank report on Cote d’Ivoire went like this:
‘Few countries, DEVELOPED or DEVELOPING, can match the growth record of the Ivory Coast. Its annual growth rate in real terms of over 7 per cent during the past years is unique on the African continent. With no mining activity to speak of cocoa, coffee and timber have been and still are the pillars of the economy.; 1975 export of these commodities were respectively four, five, and thirty times the 1950 exports in volume. In 1950, with a per capita income of around $70, the Ivory Coast ranked among the poorest nations. At independence in 1960, income had risen to $145, and in 1974 it had reached $450.’
It went on,
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
The government’s liberal and pragmatic economic policies, and its emphasis on political stability and the creation of an image of modern growth-oriented economy, were instrumental in attracting even more capital and labour from abroad….Foreign private investors were impressed by the political stability and continuity in policy the government was able to provide.[37
Still on political stability the Bank added:
“To mould a nation out of more than fifty groups with different identities and interests is a major achievement Continuity in policy has probably been as important as the kind of policy followed. A recent poll among foreign industrialists in the Ivory Coast indicates that political stability rank highest in the list of factors governing choice of location abroad. In the election of November 1975 the president, at the age of 70, was given a mandate for another five years’
What this report failed to add was that there were no contestants. The charade continued until Houphouet Boigny died in Switzerland in 1994. For years before his death he was virtually resident in France. Despots hardly come out with a clear line of succession for fear of wetting the appetite of the designated successor for power. Houphouet Boigny was no exception. In response to pressures from the international community over his succession, he requested the National Assembly, on 25 November 1980, to create a deputy position. However, in 1985 although he was supposed to be nominated with a vice presidential running mate, the constitution was amended in an eleventh-hour meeting of the National Assembly so that he could, once again, appear alone on the party ticket. Article 11 of the constitution was revised so that if a vacancy should occur, the President of the National Assembly will act as interim Head of State and Chairman of the PDCI, for 45 days until the people have voted for their next leader.
His justification for this action was that: "In a chief’s lifetime, whether he be chief of a region or of a family, no one must know the name of his replacement’’
All opposition candidates including President Laurent Gbagbo were not allowed to contest despite provisions in article 7 of the constitution allowing them to do so. Months before his death it was clear that Cote d’Ivoire was heading for a disaster. In 1992 and 1993 the President embarked on a series of trips to France for medical treatment. Relying on article 24 of the Loi Fondamentale (The Fundamental law) of Cote d’Ivoire, Alassane Ouattarra, the Prime Minister tried to deputize for him. The President of the National Assembly, Henri Konan Bedie, also was determined to do the same according to article 11 of the same Loi Fondamentale. The problem here is that while Article 24 stipulates that the Prime Minister deputizes when the President is out of the country, Article 11 stipulates that in the event of the incapacity or inability of the President to fulfill his duties, the President of the National Assembly takes over. Despite this glaring contradiction President Houphouet Boigny and those around him did not make any effort to solve it. They also conveniently ignored the dangerous division it had created in society. A few months before the death of President Houphouet Boigny, he had travelled to France, again to seek medical attention. Prime Minister Alassane Ouattarra decided to convene a meeting to consider the budget for the year. Supporters of Konan Bedie immediately accused him of constitutional coup d’état. The death of Houphouet Boigny brought about further intensification of the rivalry and bitterness between the two. Immediately after the announcement of his death by Alassane Ouattarra, Konan Bedie declared himself the president and addressed the nation and set about a process that was to inexorably take Cote d’Ivoire into an uncertain future. In 1995 he prevented Alassane Ouattarra from contesting the presidential elections claiming that the latter was not an Ivorian. Konan Bedie came out with an ideology which also became a policy, ivoirite (pure Ivorian pride), which made anybody with a non-Ivorian parentage a foreigner no matter how long he or she had stayed in the country. Those who have acquired land were denied permanent right of occupancy. Ivoirians with Muslim names were the obvious targets. The last straw was a constitutional amendment that enhanced the powers of the President. In September 1998, thousands of people took to the street to demonstrate their displeasure about the state of affairs. Many of them were protesting against the xenophobia that the ivoirite ideology had stimulated in the country. The instability that engulfed the country finally led to a military coup d’état which in turn set off series of terrible developments that finally culminated into a civil war. Cote d’Ivoire today is in dire straits. The country has been divided into two. The North is controlled by the Nouvelle Forces while the South is in the hands of Laurent Gbagbo and his Young Patriots. The economy is dislocated. Sit-tight African leaders also created extreme personality cult such as is beginning to rear its ugly head in Nigeria today. At the behest of those leaders, their sycophants kept drumming into the ears of those who cared to listen that they are immortals and guarantors of peace, stability and even life, which heavens will fall without them. The praise singing infused some messianic illusions in those leaders. They began to interpret their dreams to mean revelations. They became isolated from reality and ended up believing their own lies. They became Papa or Baba, Nana or Mama such as our President’s wife has become. The danger is that Baba or Mama is never wrong. In such circumstances, expert advice is dispensed with and the dreams of the dictators became the policy. Such is the fear they instill in the people including their hangers on that even in their senility or insanity, they keep on clinging to power until violently overthrown, as in the case of Mobutu, or overpowered by death in the case of Houphouet Boigny. A factor in the instability that befell their countries is rooted in the fact that while alive they created the illusion of their immortality and, therefore did not groom anybody to take over. Inevitably, instability engulfed their countries when they could not defeat death, because the struggle that ensued to fill the vacuum they had created became violent. The peace those leaders boasted they had given their countries had turned out to be the peace of the graveyard. The reason for this is not farfetched for, in the first instance, the very process of effecting the constitutional modification that kept them in power, was tainted with repression. But their repression could not continue unchallenged.
MUKHTAR KABIR USMAN
([email protected])
IS A PhD FELLOW AND WROTE IN FROM
UNIVERSITI ANTRABANGSA ISLAM MALAYSIA.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });