Democracy, Biafra and a sense of history - By Reuben Abati
The military practically overstayed their welcome. The first military coup in Nigeria was in January 1966, followed by the counter-coup of July 1966, and then the civil war of 1967-70 which turned Nigeria into a military theatre more or less as the Federal forces engaged the Biafran secessionists in a fratricidal war that resulted in the loss of more than a million lives, starvation and the tearing apart of the Nigerian fabric. The military would remain in charge of Nigeria and its affairs for more than 30 years in total, and it is worth remembering that virtually every successful coup was welcome by the people.
It was thought particularly in the 70s
that the military had a role to play in many developing countries in
Africa to ensure stability and national discipline. The civilians who
took over from the colonialists in Nigeria and Ghana, to cite two close
examples, proved worse than their predecessors, and hence the usual
argument for military intervention was corruption, and the need to keep
the country together, and check the excesses of the civilian rulers.
Military rule was perhaps closer to what the people had known
traditionally and also under the colonialists. Kings or feudalists who
did not tolerate any form of opposition, or free expression governed the
traditional communities and likewise, the colonial masters were
dictators. The military continued in that tradition. In-fighting among
the emergent military elite and the competition for power eroded
discipline, and resulted over the years in more coups.
To be fair, military intervention in
Nigerian politics yielded some positive dividends, and created a
leadership cadre, and indeed till date, the influence of the military in
Nigerian politics, as seen in the transmutation of many military
officers into professional politicians, remains a strong factor in the
making and unmaking of Nigeria. But by 1990, with the global wave of
democratization, glasnost and perestroika, the collapse of the Berlin
wall, and the greater emphasis on human rights, and the rise of civil
society, the Nigerian public began to subject the military to greater
scrutiny than was hitherto the case.
After a fashion, every military
government presented itself as a corrective regime, with the promise to
hand over power in a short while to civilians. By 1986, the Babangida
administration after a year in office had launched a political
transition programme, beginning with the establishment of a 17-man
Political Bureau. In 1989, the ban on political activities was lifted.
The military junta would later ban these existing political parties and
create its own parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National
Republican Convention.
This seemingly endless transition
programme and increased civil society activism merely drew more
attention to the military and its record in the public sphere. The
people began to demand an inevitable return to civilian rule. They
complained about the human rights abuses of the military, the apparent
domination of power by the Northern elite, the marginalization of other
groups in Nigeria, and the spread of injustice and inequities.
When a Presidential election was held
on June 12, 1993, and the SDP candidate, Chief MKO Abiola won the
election- an election that was adjudged to be free and fair, Nigerians
felt that the hour of their liberation from military rule had come. But
the Babangida administration refused to announce the final results and
subsequently, it annulled the election. It was a disastrous moment for
the Nigerian military and the administration. It also marked the
beginning of a national crisis that dragged on for six years. The
Nigerian people were inconsolable. In the course of the crisis, General
Ibrahim Babangida had to “step aside”, handing over power to an Interim
national Government (ING), which was soon shoved aside by General
Abacha. Between 1993 and 1999, Nigeria had three different leaders:
Chief Ernest Shonekan, General Sani Abacha and General Abdusalami
Abubakar.
The ensuing struggle for democracy was
long and momentous. Progressive Nigerians and the civil society turned
against the military. The South West declared that it had been robbed.
MKO Abiola fought for his mandate. The international community
ostracized the Abacha government. Nigeria became a pariah nation. The
media was in the forefront of the struggle, and many journalists were
jailed, hounded into exile, publishing houses were set ablaze. Anyone
who criticized the soldiers was framed for one offence or the other and
thrown behind bars.
The progressive forces insisted that
the military must go. “Never Again”, the people chorused. There had been
no other moment like that in contemporary Nigeria. The martyrs of that
people’s revolution were the ones that died, including Chief MKO Abiola
who died in Abacha’s detention camp, the many innocent persons who were
shot by the military, and every one who suffered one major loss or the
other. The heroes were the valiant men and women who stood up for
democracy and justice and opposed military tyranny. The villains were
the soldiers who trampled upon the people’s rights, and their
opportunistic agents in civil society. On May 29, 1999, Nigeria returned
to civilian rule. It was the day of our country’s second liberation,
liberation from the “years that the locusts ate.”
In the month of June, there would be
another historic date for Nigerians, that is June 12, a definite
milestone in Nigerian democracy even if the Federal Government has been
largely in denial since 1999. MKO Abiola deserves to be honoured
post-humously not just selectively by states in the South-West but by
the Nigerian Government as a kind of restitution, and by this, I mean a
formal declaration, for record purposes, that he was indeed the winner
of that June 12, 1993 election.
This brief excursion to the recent
past is important because it is so easy to forget. I have met young
Nigerians who have never heard of Chief MKO Abiola. In a country where
history is no longer taught in schools, that should not be surprising.
The Nigerians who were born in 1993 are today out of university, and
many of them may never have experienced military rule. They were still
children when their parents fought for this democracy. Whoever makes the
mistake of even remotely suggesting any form of return to military rule
is an enemy of the Nigerian people. Such persons would be taking this
country back to 18 years ago and beyond.
Whatever may be the shortcomings of
our democracy, this system of government has served the Nigerian people
well. We may worry about the form or the shape, or the character of our
democracy, the opportunism and imperfections of the professional
political class, or the weakness of certain institutions but all told,
this is a much better country. The best place for the military is to
function under a constitutional order and to discharge its duties as the
protector of national sovereignty. Any soldier who is interested in
politics should resign his commission, and join a political party,
politics being an open field for all categories of persons, including
ex-convicts, prostitutes and armed robbers. I find the auto-suggestion
of military intervention gross and odious. It is regrettable that those
whose duty should never in any shape include scare-mongering were the
ones who started that nonsensical discussion in the first place.
Today, democracy has given the Nigerian people, voice. There is a greater consciousness of the power of the people, as well as the need to hold persons in power accountable. The electoral process is still imperfect, but the people are now supremely confident of their right to choose. But not all our problems have been solved. For example, exactly 50 years ago today, the late Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, hero of the Biafran Revolution, led the people of the Bight of Biafra on a secession move out of Nigeria.
He said: “…you, the people of Eastern
Nigeria, Conscious of the Supreme Authority of Almighty God over all
mankind, of your duty to yourselves and prosperity; Aware that you can
no longer be protected in your lives and in your property by any
Government based outside Eastern Nigeria/Believing that you are born
free and have certain inalienable rights which can best be protected by
yourselves. Unwilling to be unfree partners in any association of a
political or economic nature… Now, therefore, I, Lieutenant-Colonel
Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, by virtue of the authority and pursuant to
the principles recited above, do hereby solemnly proclaim that the
territory and region known as and called Eastern Nigeria together with
her Continental Shelf and territorial waters shall henceforth be an
independent sovereign state of the name and title of The Republic of
Biafra…”
In other words, the people of Eastern
Nigeria no longer felt free or protected or respected inside Nigeria.
They opted out. In the Ahiara Declaration of 1969, Ojukwu summed it all
up as follows: “When the Nigerians violated our basic human rights and
liberties, we decided reluctantly but bravely to found our own state, to
exercise our inalienable right to self-determination as our only
remaining hope for survival as a people.”
The civil war ended on January 12,
1970 but 50 years since the declaration of secession by the people of
Eastern Nigeria, Igbos are still protesting about their relationship
with the rest of Nigeria. But significantly, they are not the only ones
complaining. Farmers are complaining about pastoralists, indigenes about
settlers, Christians about Muslims and vice versa, women about men, men
about women, youths about the older generation, the people of Southern
Kaduna are unhappy, other Northern minorities too, the people of the
Niger Delta have been unhappy since the Willink Commission of 1957/58,
the other over 400 ethnic nationalities that are not recognized in
Section 55 of the 1999 Constitution are also wondering whether they are
truly part of this union…Basic human rights and liberties are still
being violated.
Nigeria remains a yet
unanswered question. Democratic rule may have opened up the space, but
our country still suffers from a kind of hang-over. The people are free,
but they are today everywhere in chains: politically, economically and
ethnically. This is the sad part of our democracy, but the best part are
the many lessons that the people are learning about the meaning, the
nature and the cost of the choices that they make or that they have
made.
Post a Comment