THE CALCULUS OF REGIME CHANGE: ABUJA AND BAGHDAD COMPARED

By

Mike Ikhariale

Pundits and students of strategic studies must be having a good time burning their midnight candles, pouring over pages upon pages of open and classified literature and spinning on the possible fall-outs as well as speculating on the psychological disposition and, indeed, the policy mindset that have generated the ongoing momentum for a ‘regime change’ at two critical but largely unrelated political centers across the globe. The one, in Baghdad, and the other, in Abuja, both developments capable of many strategic possibilities.

While it is possible that most analysts are focused on the Bush initiative on Baghdad due to the loud global media rave it is getting, it would be a real surprise if there is any serious academic faculty on strategic studies anywhere that would fail not to seriously reflect critically on the concept of Ta-zarce or roughly similar to the notion of "regime change" currently being formulated in parts of Nigeria. How has placed Nigeria on the world map? Given the geopolitical standing of the country, it would be difficult for the world to ignore political permutations relating to Nigeria because the ripple effects of developments within the country have the real potential for considerable global consequences, more so, as an important exporter of oil which is well known for it strategic significance in the industrialized economies.

In many respects, therefore, these two developments, even though occurring from two independent and distant locations are strategically related in clearly remarkable ways, close enough for those who can read them correctly, and able to draw critical parallels. At the middle of the two hurricane-like forces is the importance of the very emotive term: ‘change’. It is perhaps one of the realities of creation that it is the ability of matters to perpetually change form and characteristics that has kept the universe alive. Growth and decadence are the two principal manifestations of life, i.e., birth and death, a beginning and an end, all occurring in an endless cycle.

The same observation could be make about the life of a society, its evolution, composition and management. There is however the troubling reality that changes in society are not easily perceived in terms of growth and decay because what some people see as growth may indeed be decadence – some changes, good or bad. It is also in politics that the idea of change tends to suffer the absence of objective criteria for evaluation until the worse has happened. That probably explains why some great empires have degenerated beyond revival and many modern states are perpetually at war with themselves because people are yet to agree on the nature of change a society must make at any given time in history.

The concept of regime change by which one power, by force or sheer influence of whatever variety, succeeds in effecting a leadership turnover in another for its own strategic purposes has always been a critical factor in power politics, be it domestic or international. But because the law of nations has somehow conceded to the municipal order (where powerful nations are involved) the sovereign prerogative to effect regime alternation by whatever means possible, not much intellectual efforts have been devoted to the aspect of the concept of regime change engineered mainly from within.

On the international level, however, it has remained a dominant factor in the affairs of nations whether it was in the pre-League of Nations alliance and the balance of powers days or in the post League of Nations multilateral era under which so many of the sharper effects of the concept of regime change were submerged under the haze of the Cold War or re-clothed in different political camouflages. As a matter of fact, successes in the Cold War were measured by how far one power succeeded in planting ideologically pliable (proxy) governments in as many places as possible, and it was usually through the process of regime change that such policies were made possible. In any case, phenomena like revolutions, coups d’etat (civil or military), impeachment, political assassinations and barefaced election riggings and other forms of manipulations are merely variants of regime change by those who are disposed to effecting it outside of the pre-existing rules.

From the policy of appeasement, through that of engagement to that of containment and now, regime change, no one can say that there has always been strong ethical paradigms on which one nation or group of nations take it upon themselves to take out another regime other than that of selfish interests or in strategic parlance, vital interests. Several pretexts have however been devised in the past to get through this ethical dilemma in the forms of wars against religious unbelief, feudal oppression, slavery, pacification, colonialism, ideological preferences, human rights, dictatorship and, in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 terrorists bombing of America, the possession of "weapons of mass destruction", WMD, and the harboring of terrorists. With regard to these intervention justifications, it is important to note that the accusers are always also the judge and the enforcers, all at the same time.

One thing that is clear is that no maliciously targeted regime has ever been given the real motive for the ouster; it must be deliberately mislabeled for yet more sinister reasons. In any case, the winner is always right. For example, while it is the truth that oil is the main reason for the regime change project in Iraq, the operative pretext is definitely something else. When the US National Security Adviser, Ms. Condolezza Rice pontificated on the Axis of Evil, which in the definition of the Bush administration includes Iraq, Iran and North Korea, it was obvious that the weakest link in the axis is Iraq and the real prize being Saddam. To effect that, he has to be labeled and demonized as a harborer for terrorists and a mass producer of WMDs, two items, in spite of Tony Blair’s recent suborned Dossier on Iraq, and Bush’s sable-rattling, that are conspicuously missing from Saddam’s current intelligence Curriculum Vitae.

It is pretty convenient to use the dominant theme of the day, i.e., the war against terrorism, to justify a regime change by a predatory power already poised against a vulnerable target such as Israel has learnt lately in her conflict with a weak Palestine. Sharon’s war today has simply become a "war against terror". One in which the designated target is a public enemy numero uno. What is more, the fact that a regime change was recently aerially effected in Afghanistan provides additional justification of the process, never mind that Hamid Karzai; the new helmsman in Kabul is only in office courtesy of the Marines. All the same, the strategic interests of the hawks in Pentagon who front for the huge military industrial complex and other special interests continue to pat themselves on the back, especially as the defense industry component of the American stock exchange continues to do well. Who cares how many body bags would be brought back home eventually as the inevitable opportunity cost of this boom? Remember that in this murky business the subject of morality remains the headache of the Imams and clergies and, certainly, not anything relevant in the permutations of regime change die-hards.

In practical terms, the new hawkish conservative team now in the White House is simply tired of Saddam Hussein and his antics which has the imminent possibility of undermining the profitable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and has also stalled the career prospects of many operatives at the Pentagon. Therefore, the man must go as a necessary sacrifice to the gods of revenge and that of the dollar now reigning in the US since the dastardly 9-11 terrorists attack on several symbols of the greatness of America and, as was forcefully pointed out by Donald Rumsfeld recently, the Defense Secretary (who by the way has now made it a dressing habit to always bandage himself up as Moshe Dayan or a GI-hero just returning from a hand to hand combat in Mogadishu), whether or not Saddam accepts the unconditional return of the UN weapons inspectors, what is important to the US are complete disarmament and regime change. Asked what if Saddam agrees to disarm? He answered that the man would still be removed, any way, as there are a thousand and more other reasons available with which to justify his ouster. After 9-11, a 'smoking gun' evidence is a luxury the Americans cannot afford. Saddam has in the past violated several Security Council Resolutions, just the same way Israel has never respected any of them addressed to her but since there is no regime change necessity in the Kingdom of David, their own violations are a tolerable exceptions (ally) to those who have made themselves the king makers of the world.

Stepping out militarily to bring down Saddam, unilaterally or preemptively, has become a veritable election weapon. It is evidently very attractive to the GOPs who are scared stiff to look at the horrible economic statistics that have dipped badly since President Bush opened up the treasury to the defense industrial complex who bankrolled his election campaign. The forthcoming congressional election is uppermost in the minds of all the parties, particularly Bush, who is riding high on the war theme inspite of the troubling economy. So Iraqi has become a very convenient diversion, a lifeline, for the failings of the national economy down from the unprecedented boom Clinton handed over less than two years ago.

It may now be asked: How does Abuja feature in a regime change calculus in which Iraq is the subject matter? What is the connection between Saddam Hussein and President Obasanjo? How do we compare someone with purely domestic problems with another with an externally generated crisis? In many ways, of course! Amongst the several related factors, the oil factor, as it is in Iraq is, at bottom, also the real motive of the call for a regime change in Nigeria, at least, indirectly. There are more than a thousand reasons why Nigeria should be given a new lease of life in terms of good governance because there is a lingering reality that it is the stubborn prolongation of bad leadership that is the bane of the country. Also, the people have not reaped the full dividends of democracy and that fact makes the demand for a regime change very interesting to a lot of disappointed citizens. Unfortunately, however, those now singing the tune of regime change are not necessarily interested in the progress of the economy or the improvement of the quality of governance which remains characterized by the Ghana-must-go syndrome.

Make no mistake about it, those who call for regime change in Nigeria do not contemplate a qualitative alteration in the substance of government. Neither do they have any viable alternative ideas of a better government. If anything, the situation can only grow worse, given what we already know about their philosophy of government and the personal antecedents of those at the forefront of the call for change. I do not see any serious differences between the six political parties now in contention. In 1978, some of us had a choice between the NPN, a reactionary group or the PRP, a progressive group or the UPN, a commandist social welfare group. Today, I am at a loss determing the differences between ANPP and AD, etc., much less, the PDP, the party of utmost confusion.

That is why there has been nothing heard about the ideological or the program orientation that their so-called change would entail. Changing the personnel of government from one ethnic configuration to another just for the fun if it cannot in any way alter the ideological bearing and moral orientation of the government even if we are able to turn them over once every month. Also in Iraq, it would seem the same logic holds for those who want a change. By way of comparison, it seems that all that President Bush desires in Iraq is an immediate change from Saddam Hussein to anything else that would guarantee unrestricteed oil flow and, by implication, the security of his people, just as that those calling for change in Nigeria are not making their demands in the interest of democrcay but for the benefit of their private pockets – a return to the old wayward days of cheap money. Either way, the people are left out of the equation of change.

It was fashionable during the military dictatorship to contend that an end to military dictatorship must be accompanied by a power shift from the north from (where most of these soldier-dictators hailed from) to the south, which has not been allowed to partake in the rulership of Nigeria. It was the expectation that once there is a regime change, i.e., a shift of power to the south, all would be well. In the absence of any viable policy or program platform, such a 'shift' has turned out to a ruse. Today, Nigerians know better. The so-called change form the north to the south was only an intra-class arrangement to placate their gullible followership. Obasanjo may be a Yoruba man from the south but he was actually foisted on the nation by the same northern clique from whom power was supposed to have shifted. He did not get the vote of his people (south) which means that his presidency could not be described as a product of genuine power shift but a foisting of a leadership by those who were in a position to effect it, ostensibly to their own calculated advantage.

Whether or not he has succeeded in carrying out the agenda of this clique has been the main issue being raised by those who are now crying foul, betrayal and marginalization and they have now skillfully reversed the power shit logic to again suit their own selfish interests. That is why the many years of northern possession of political power did not profit the people there; the Babangidas and the Abachas may be stinkingly rich but it remains their private family possession which they would not share with the ordinary people of the north. If anything, they are more comfortable sharing their ill-gotten wealth with their colleagues from the south and elsewhere. When individuals who are not part of the intra-class covenant join in the frenzied clamor for tazarce, it reminds me of the old saying that the common man is always a political commodity to be routinely used and dumped by the ruling elite at will because even if there is a power shift to the north today, these foot soldiers would still remain the distant spectators they have always been, mere disposable pawns in the ‘regime change’ warfare.

Using the name of the common people to demand for a regime change which indeed is for the selfish and exclusive benefit of a few ethnic warlords (euphemism for regional moneybags) is nothing but a monumental political fraud. In the absence of any identifiable ideological foundation for the call for regime change, it is obvious that the motive is of those pushing for it to perpetuate the very evil that they are presently harping upon such as corruption and economic indiscipline. It is like changing the orchestra with the music remaining the same! They have no program intended for the liberation of our unfortunate victims of perennial misgovernance who populate both the north and the south of Nigeria. A good road is a good road. It serves everybody. A good medical system is for everybody. The same is for all the good things a responsible government is expected to provide. Even in the partisan context of competing political parties, a good government benefits both the party members and the non-party members alike. The only reward for the party doing well in office is the acquisition of additional mandates to rule.

A situation where individuals are contended to own their own electricity generators or private water supply arrangement, private body guards, etc., are just breeding grounds for social disharmony and frustration which in turn breed insecurity, robbery, assassinations and communal strife. What we are witnessing in Nigeria is not a regime change that is predicated on better governance as it is the same people that have always misruled the nation that are the likely beneficiary of the call. The long-suffering people would remain in their misery as no suggestion exits as to how their lots would be changed alongside the expected regime change.

From the reasons so far adduced by the regime change protagonists, it is obvious that they are all fighting for an unimpeded access to Nigeria’s petrol-Naira which in the current legislative impeachment jargon, is access to the Budget. The failure of the Obasanjo government to live up to the minimal expectation of Nigerians is in many respects a lamentable retardation of the collective aspiration of the entire nation. It could have been better if more effort was put into fulfilling the yearning of the people that had for decades been put down rather callously by callous and kleptocratic military dictators than the shadow boxing that is the now prevalent.

In spite of all, an honest evaluation would admit that for the first time in many years, the nation has regained afresh its ability to hope. To make it seem as if the emergence of the Obasanjo arrangement (incidentally contrived by the north) is the loss of any particular group is to miss the point. If that was the case, nepotism should have been the number one item in the curious impeachment allegation listed by the legislators. It would seem that in the calculation of our regime "changers", Obasanjo has become the Saddam of Aso Rock who must be hounded out prematurely. Nigerians will celebrate an Obasanjo removal that would benefit the poor, the weak and the neglected but it will just be business as usual if all that is intended to achieve is to merely change the personnel and not the substance of governance. It is regrettable that many otherwise rational people have, for fear of being branded traitors, have bought into this misleading thesis of change. By way of analogy, not to support the war cry in the US today is the new definition of unpatriotism just as it has almost become a religious duty among some Nigerians to want to depose Obasanjo by all means possible.

Where our common headache with the government is the manifest incompetence and lack of direction in policy, their special grouse with it is that the regime does not circulate enough of free cash and patronage to them or that the direction of flow is currently not to their advantage, a new variant of the old chop-and-chop politics. How does that affect the fact that there is no more personal security for the ordinary people, no jobs for the school leavers and the economy remains planless? In all probably, they want him out so that they can step into the old iniquitous style of plundering the nation, and in furtherance of this goal, they are contriving all sorts of accusations, true or false and, no matter how incongruous they may read.

In any case, whether it is Saddam or Obasanjo, whenever it is time to slaughter a dog, you just must first find a bad name for it. And just like Saddam, Obasanjo has his own problems; what with his well-known lack of presidential finesse, arrogance, incorrigibility and the seemly general failure of governance. Our case here, however, is that those who want him out before his term is over do not hold better prospects to the long suffering people of Nigeria. In fact, they are worse and that is a real and looming tragedy confronting the nation: leaping from the proverbial frying pan into the fire beneath. They do not trust a truly democratic process as they would not be able to manipulate the electorate or teleguide them mala fide. That is one of the reasons why they are fashioning schemes like impeachment

While there is no doubt that both Obasanjo and Saddam are not persons with too many admirers outside of their large circle of sycophants and cronies, and may not succeed in a fair democratic contest, anyone who has studied the charges being leveled against the two embattled leaders by those who want them out at this time would see the spurious nature of the allegations – past previously acceptable actions, ad hominien formulations, suspected capabilities to do future mischief (in the case of Abuja, a second term) and the fact that the accusers have a bemused and hardly critical audience.

In the case of Nigeria, however, what is important to the regime change crusaders is how they can get hold of power and, then, the control of the oil wealth of the country which they so much want to re-possess as they have always done but for the short period of the so-called "no business as usual". So, whether it is in Iraq or in Nigeria, it is no coincidence that the decisive motive for the so-called regime change is oil and the wealth it naturally generates. Nigerians really want to hear from those who want to rule the country now how they can reduce our dependency on oil; diversify the economy in very productive and patriotic ways, how they want to generate wealth from agriculture and solid minerals. But all we see are active and greedy permutations on the sharing of the oil money already in the coffers and nothing about generating additional wealth from other means that abounds scandalously all over the country.

Those who truly want a regime change for truly positive goals should be able to tell the nation how they want to run the economy without depending on oil revenue hundred percent. It requires a hard working and disciplined leadership to restore the groundnut pyramids back to Kano; convert our limitless fertile soil into the African food basket it ought to be, restore value to the national currency and reaffirm the dignity to labor of our toiling people through positive examples. Seeking political power only as avenues to steal recklessly from the little that is available from oil is the easiest way to create poverty, hunger and disease in a society and that is not the kind of people the nation needs now.

Another strategic similarity in the equation is that both the architects of regime change in Abuja and Baghdad are claiming to be doing so in the interests of the oil producing peoples of these two countries. In fact, they speak as if they want to liberate the hapless victims, be they at Odi or amongst the Kurds, forgetting that in both instances, they indeed initially installed these leaders over these hapless peoples and all that these "new tyrants" did in office were actually done to please their mentors who have now turned their accusers. The CIA armed Saddam to fight Iran in the eighties, while Obasanjo was pushed to invade Odi and other places just to satisfy the desires of his political godfathers who are scared of resources control agitations and the related issues of internal self-determination by many previously oppressed Nigerian communities. Is that the way of protégée?

Another strategic parallel that could be drawn between Saddam and Obasanjo is that those who plot their removal do not reckon with their capacities to refuse to go down quietly. Removing Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader of the rag-tagged alimajiri regime of Kabul with the aid of the hard-fighting troops of the Northern Alliance is not the same thing with taking out Saddam with the Ba’ath party at his behest. Neither is impeaching Obasanjo the same thing with impeaching Balarabe Musa, a not-so-rich and radical PRP helmsman, by the wayward federal aided NPN legislators in the old Kaduna State.

Finally, those working themselves to pulp on these regime change projects are evidently not bothered about the aftermath. In the case of Nigeria, if the removal of Obasanjo from Aso Rock before his term expires is the goal, then those plotting it must prepare for a long haul. The possibility of failure and the likelihood of a boomerang should be a natural expectation within the complex dynamics of power shift. Those who armed the Mujaheedins against the Soviets never thought that the aftermath would be the Talibans. And those who armed Saddam Hussein against Iran and the Kurds did not expect that Iraq would ultimately threaten their oil supply lines. It is even harder to predict whether those who want Obasanjo to go now would still be around to reap the profits of their political investments as those who ‘own’ the oil may finally chose not to be part of the unholy Nigerian game any more.

As we have maintained all along since the impeachment news broke, those who gathered at the hallowed chambers of the National Assembly to pass a motion with which they wanted to impeach the president honestly knew that the procedure that they have adopted was patently unconstitutional and therefore an exercise in futility. They merely took the nation for a ride. It was a huge joke because inside that motley crowd of "honorables" are many lawyers and other very educated people who should have no problems reading and comprehending the provisions of the Constitution dealing with impeachment. If they really wanted Obasanjo impeached they know what to do. Section 143 is very clear on the matter. Unfortunately, with the misguided collaboration of some buccaneer intellectuals and some ill-motivated media analysts, the nation was put on a wild goose chase, hoping against hope for an imminent ta-zarce.

Rather than Na’Abba and his men moving the motion in a theatrical format and sheer political braggadocio, it was the proper constitutional duty of the President of the Senate, after not less than one-third votes of members of the two houses have approved the motion to do so. See sec.143 (2) (a) of the 1999 constitution which every lawmaker ought to be familiar with by now - three years into the democracy business - is very clear on what should be done to start a presidential impeachment in Nigeria. There is no room, for example, for the party caucus to be sitting as a Grand Jury weighing the charges against the President as the PDP circus did or still doing. By the way, it is already more than a month that the well-choreographed motion came to the nation with fire and brimstone was first moved. The two weeks ultimatum has expired and nothing intelligent has happened since and, I am afraid, will never happen. It was a charade cast from the political foolery of bygone centuries and they all know that for sure.

In fact, the President was himself in serious constitutional errors to have replied to those unconstitutional demands. Perhaps it was a well-orchestrated process in which the political class wanted to keep the nation diverted while they do their own thing. The members of the House of Representatives only succeeded in fooling the nation into believing that they wanted to impeach the President in line with the regime change movement. They meant none of such and I am pretty sure that they all knew that fact all along. If any one had hired them to do what they did, they can, at least, report back that to say, "you see, we tried", especially as the president has been thoroughly humbled, if not subdued by the totally illegitimate motion. It was unfortunate that some Nigerians allowed themselves to be duped once more by those who have no respect for the constitution but were only playing along the regime change theme abusing the document in the process.

There is no doubt that Nigerians will support any valid demand for a regime change. By that I mean a new set of leaders with legitimate developmental agenda who have not been associated with the morbid corruption of the past. More importantly, Nigeria deserves to be governed by people who are able to develop a verifiable political program that is not contrived merely for the cosmetics of power shift. It is shameful that in country with so many universities and thousands of well-educated people that those that are still angling to rule us do not have formal education beyond the GCE ordinary level and the vocational NDA certificates. Nigeria deserves a lot more than that and our power shift advocates must take that fact into account.

Why should we continue to suffer the national humiliation of having crude and insufficiently educated military retirees without additional social education beyond the pips that were cheaply planted on their shoulders constitute our only ‘viable pool’ of leaders? I don’t care where any Nigerian President comes from because it really should not be an issue if there are agreed parameters for acceptable performance. But I care seriously what types of policies and political programs that animate a particular government. Simply calling oneself ‘president’ does not translate into actual presidential effectiveness in the absence of a concrete agenda for effective and responsive governance.

Demanding for power shift or regime change just to make the nation’s cheap oil revenue accessible to those who would again do exactly what Abacha did to our national economy is not what the people of Nigeria are calling for. They need a regime change that would improve on the quality of life of everybody in Nigeria, identified more by its operational philosophy than by the names of those pushing it, headed by men and women of good moral and intellectual standing, and not the ones that will only seek to redress "injustices" articulated essentially through ethnic and sectarian partisanship. Individuals who do not see anything wrong with the constitution, the rules of the game they go into, as it is now but are willing to simply tag along are people who are clearly coming in for the status quo ante and it is obvious that any power shift or regime change without any moral and ideological foundation would still end up, if not worse, than the current one pretending to be in charge within the framework of a constitutional democracy.

Oct 2002