Notes on Babangida's 'conversion'
By Edwin Madunagu
THREE Nigerian public figures, among others, are in my "active file", by which I mean that I treat them as if I am conducting continuous, open-ended researches on them. The three personages are army generals: General Olusegun Obasanjo, General Ibrahim Babangida and General Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. Please, I am not making a mistake about Ojukwu or his title and I am not defying anyone's notion of legality. I am simply dealing with historical facts, whatever present conveniences may dictate.
Generals Obasanjo, Babangida and Ojukwu are in my "active file" not only because of what they did while in office but also, more importantly, because of their activities and utterances since leaving office. Beyond this, and in the lighter mood, each of my three subjects is always a reporter's professional delight. I say "professional delight" - that is, delight as a reporter - because a reporter encountering Obasanjo, Babangida or Ojukwu may in the end, not be politically satisfied. However, even when they refuse to answer your questions, their body language will give you a good story. And if they get angry and threaten to set their dogs on you, you will have a good story from the encounter. Of course your day as a reporter will have been made if they agree to talk to you - however briefly, however angrily. What the three personages say are nearly always newsworthy, interesting and exciting - and sometimes shocking.
Two more general points. Recently, a young female university graduate requested for, and received, a copy of a published selection of my columns in The Guardian. A few days later she phoned and asked why I wrote on Arthur Nzeribe who, according to her, "everybody dislikes". It did not matter to her that she comes from the same state and Local Government Area (LGA) as Nzeribe. I told her that I learn more from people like Nzeribe than from public figures that "everybody likes". The point may be made more strongly: People like Arthur Nzeribe reflect their classes and express their class interests, their true preferences, their fears, their strategies and their tactics more truthfully than their "urbane", "civilised" and "populist", but deceptive and hypocritical, compatriots. The same thing can be said of Sunny Okogwu, General Babangida's brother-in-law.
Let me give two illustrations. You will recall that under General Babangida's political transition programme (1986-1993), two political parties (SDP and NRC) were created by the Nigerian state. You will also recall that the 1992 presidential primaries in SDP was won by late Shehu Yar'Adua, a retired general and elder brother of the current President. Almost all the defeated aspirants, including Arthur Nzeribe, condemned and rejected the result as a rigged one. But Nzeribe went further: He said he was particularly angry with Yar'Adua because he (Yar'Adua) violated an unwritten code that each contestant could rig, but should not rig in another's territory or backyard. Thus, Yar'Adua could rig in the North, Olu Falae in the West and he, Nzeribe, in the East. Shehu Yar'Adua annoyed Nzeribe because the former extended his rigging to the East, Nzeribe's territory! Now, whose statement is more significant: that of the other oppositionists, or that of Nzeribe?
The second illustration. In a recent newspaper interview Chief Sunny Okogwu referred to General Babangida's regime as "we". The interviewer was confused. He asked Okogwu what he meant by "we". It was Okogwu's turn to express surprise. To bring themselves back to the "same page", as the saying goes, Okogwu reminded the reporter that General Babangida is married to his (Okogwu's) younger sister, that he and his sister were of mixed parentage: Delta Igbo and Hausa, and that he shares his in-laws views and aspirations and sometimes performed assignments for him. So, why should the regime headed by Babangida not be Okogwu's? The reporter was satisfied. Is the reader not satisfied? But only few people of similar status and in similar position can talk the way Okogwu did. Now, who offers more significant information, and greater insight: people like Sunny Okogwu or his hypocritical compatriots who would prefer to speak as if they were as distant from Babangida as any other Nigerian?
For reasons similar to those given and illustrated above, I pay close attention to what my subjects - Obasanjo, Babangida and Ojukwu - say and do. In general, at the personal and even political level, I pay more attention to what my opponents and "enemies" say than what friends and supporters say. One more general point. We know that the sum of the parts is not always equal to the whole. In other words, there are elements other than the concrete parts that enter the constitution of the whole. I think I have obtained, and have communicated, all the concrete parts of the "Obasanjo phenomenon", "Babangida phenomenon" and "Ojukwu phenomenon". But I am yet to constitute the whole of any of them: there are still missing elements, certain elements are still elusive. So, I check out whatever any of them does or says - or is reported to have done or said. Who knows when I will strike a missing or "cementing" element!
With this rather long introduction we may now proceed to the main subject of the day: an examination of a speech made by General Babangida, without notes, at a recent event in Minna, Capital of Niger State. The event, according to the report in The Guardian on Thursday, September 24, 2009, was the "Third Annual United Nations International Peace Day Lecture series organised by the General Abdulsalami Abubakar Institute for Peace and Sustainable Development in collaboration with the Niger State Government". Babangida was officially not the main speaker at the September 23 event, but his unwritten contribution, as expected, dominated the media reports of the event.
Let me try a summary of what I understand General Babangida to be saying - before considering the reactions to the speech. In general, Babangida called for the abolition of the particular type of federal system currently being practised in Nigeria because it gives too much power to the centre. He said he was now a "born-again". In the new structure the states will have more powers and responsibilities, while the centre will be concerned only with "issues like defence, foreign policy and internal security". Education at the primary and secondary levels should be left with states and individuals. He saw "internal security" as very crucial and a "vital tool for peace and development in any society". He called for the "introduction of state police that will be under the supervision of the federal police for proper maintenance of law and order in the country". He proposed the abolition of the "quota system" and its replacement with "merit".
On the economy General Babangida was reported to have proposed that "the economic management of the country should be strengthened well". He then said that he remained an "advocate of capitalism" because it is "the best economic system for the country". This was how The Guardian report put it: "The system, he argued, gives opportunity to people to excel in their chosen business and talents, saying that the country is full with people with talents and they should be given the opportunity to showcase their God-given talents".
Public responses to Babangida's "conversion" have been mixed. I want to eliminate the responses that simply abused the general and reminded us of his antecedents. I think we - and by we I mean the Nigerian Left - should be tired of this type of "criticism" of Babangida. It contributes little or nothing to our (further) understanding of the man or his regime or charting the "way forward", or indeed preventing him from coming back to power if other factors in this damn system favour him. Every radical Leftist should know this. Of the other responses, while some dismissed the conversion - on the grounds that the man cannot, or can still not, be trusted - others argued, or rather pleaded, that in spite of our mistrust, Babangida's recent statement should be carefully examined - on the ground that "wisdom and truth may come from the most unexpected quarters". This last bit came from Abdul Raufu Mustapha in his piece Grounding with IBB (The Guardian, October 12, 2009).
I have looked at the "Babangida conversion speech" several times and on each occasion I have come out with the conclusion that there is not much that is new either to public discourse in Nigeria or to Babangida himself. Nevertheless, I have been struck by two of its elements. First is Babangida's emphasis on "internal security" which the Federal Government should handle. Even the state police which he advocated should be supervised by the federal police. Defence, which again goes to the Federal Government - naturally, as many people would say - is actually to complement "internal security". Security for whom and against what? I answer: Security for the "shareholders" of Nigeria and against the defrauded masses. I did not see any idea for the amelioration of the miserable human condition in this land.
The second element is Babangida's emphasis on capitalism. Why did the general find it necessary to argue so strongly for capitalism which many "good", "trusted" or even "progressive" politicians happily take for granted, as given, as permanent? Is there a threat that Babangida sees which his more "trustworthy" compatriots do not see?
