From Haïti, France, Venezuela & USA To Nigeria, With Lots Of Love And Lessons

By

Kòmbò Mason Braide, PhD.

[Port Harcourt, Nigeria.]

A Historical Digression:

The history of the world is essentially one of disenfranchised human beings rising up in anger at being victims of government-aggravated hopelessness. The Haïtian Revolution, the French Revolution, the Venezuelan Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, and several others, were all violent reactions against the political and economic stupidity of their respective governments. When the full dosage of overwhelming bankruptcy, economic collapse, homelessness, uncertainty, injustice, starvation, frustration, disease, and asymmetrically abject poverty attains a certain critical mass, there will always be upheavals. Trans-national complicities, internal cronyism, and sheer idiocy have left almost no corner of the world untouched. Therefore, such anger and social perturbation could percolate into Nigeria if sufficient care is not taken to arrest the trend. Somehow, Latin America has managed consistently to stand out as a precursor of things to come in Africa. In a sense, the over four hundred (400) years of early Spanish and Portuguese invasive colonisation of South America helped to fine-tune the methods of later day European colonisers by the time they focused their attention on Africa in the late 19th century, prior to pillaging the continent to their satisfaction.

Coups and counter-coups d’etat had been a way of life in South America for over a century before Nigeria’s independence. Firing squads, dark goggled military personnel, secession, self-succession, local super-heroes and opinionated retired generals that operate above the law, torture chambers, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, phantom coups, set-up coups, state-sponsored sycophancy, repression, assassination, political surrogates, election rigging and annulment, a culture of executive impunity, charismatic military conmen, political party creation, approval, and registration, narcissistic First Ladies, urban guerrillas, personal thugs, abysmally corrupt policemen, prison warders, customs officers, soldiers, Judges, and civil servants, headlights-shining, siren-blasting convoys of government officials and local "sacred cows", beret-wearing pseudo-revolutionaries, Gestapo-like security agents, ethnic militia, megalomaniac, and sometimes, "drug baronish" active and retired despots, warlords, and more: Latin America has seen them all, long before now, for almost 200 years before Ifeajuna, Nzeogwu, Boro, Ironsi, Gowon, Ojukwu, Mohammed, Dimka, Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Buhari, Idiagbon, Babangida, Vatsa, Nyiam, Okar, Tolofari, Abacha, Diya, Abubakar, Dogonyaro, Garba, Adekunle, Gwadabe, Gusau, Umar, Mark, Sabo, Al-Mustapha, Bamaiyi, Malu, Akilu, Aikhomu, Marwa, or "Sergeant Rogers", and several more. Therefore, Nigeria has a lot to learn from the experiences of both failed and successful Latin American countries.

Many Stupid Questions Awaiting Wise Answers:

What roles, if any, do American Nigerians, European Nigerians, Middle Eastern Nigerians, and several other variants of expatriate Nigerians, the so-called "Nigerian Diasporans" have to play in the unfolding political metamorphosis of Nigeria? Why have most Nigerians continued to be stark ignorant of their constitution, including their most fundamental human rights? Can the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria not be written in a language (like Pidgin, Broken, or Rotten English), and in a simpler and easier-to-remember format and style, instead of the current tedious and heavily legalistic Abubakar Constitution of 1999? What are the essential mechanics of national collapse, including the dynamics of intrusive external subversion of another country’s progress?

How do we demystify institutionalised despotism and other manifestations of entrenched authoritarianism? Why do Nigerians indulge in masochistic self-marginalisation? Why do we have the very architects of Nigeria’s ruination, former military dictators, all fronting as leaders and elder statesmen of Nigeria? How does the "Nigerian spirit" always manage to rise above the mediocrity of its leaders, and the circumstances of their country? Given the "Nigerian spirit of resilience", and the abundance of both natural and human resources, how can Nigerians synergise efforts for the benefit of their country? Could it be for the greater good of Nigeria if all former military dictators like Generals Gowon, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, and Abubakar, are banned for life, constitutionally, from ever partaking again in partisan politics? Can coups be prevented in Nigeria, as General Babangida (GCFR) once enticed Nigerians? If so, is there any assurance that such valuable know-how has been downloaded into Nigeria’s political knowledge base? If not, can Nigerians ever trust the utterances of General Babangida (GCFR) again?

Did General Yakubu Gowon really aid and abet the failed coup d’etat of Friday, 13 February 1976? Given their antecedents and undisguised addiction for power, did General Obasanjo, Lawyer Diya, Major Generals Yar’Adua, Olanrewaju, and Adisa, Colonel Gwadabe, and other military politicians really attempt unsuccessfully to overthrow General Sani Abacha’s tenure as a dictator? "Yes" or "No", simple. If "No", why have Nigerians not been told so, explicitly? If "Yes", who "absolved" or pardoned them of such treasonable acts against the Nigerian state?

How do we counter the lure to political self-recycling, and Mugaberisation in a democratic Nigeria? Is it not strange that one can be a President of a very ethnocentric society, without the political support of their ethnic group? How really fair were the general elections in Nigeria in 1999? If not, then was it in the "national interest" to pre-determine the outcome of those elections? What are the long-term consequences of the break up of a nation? Is Nigeria a banana republic, and therefore irreversibly retarded psychically, socially, economically, and politically? Could it be that the problem with Nigeria is its civilian politicians, and not necessarily its military politicians?

Could the paradox of "business-as-usual", despite deafening pronouncements of the end of the era of "business-as-usual", be attributable to institutionalised doublespeak? Is it really not counter-productive to have a majority of former Nigerian dictators as members of Nigeria’s apex decision-making body, the National Council of States? What negative impacts do successive generations of essentially the same actors, so-called official aides (ADCs, Chief Security Officers (CSOs), protocol officers, security advisers, bodyguards, drivers, and so on, and so forth) of the President, state governors, local government chairmen, indeed politicians, and top government officials, have on the sustenance of a militaristic culture of unrestrained authoritarianism in Nigeria?

Is it not farcical, and selectively puerile to continuously blow a lot of hot air about the "Abacha era", when General Abacha’s Vice President, Lawyer Oladipupo Donaldson Diya, is alive, well, and goes about his post-Aso Rock life completely unmolested about accounting for whatever Nigerians may perceive as wrong about that "era"? Has incumbency "absolved" General Obasanjo of all the well-articulated acts of human rights abuses in his previous and present capacities as a military dictator, and a civilianising President of Nigeria? Could General Sani Abacha been "absolved" too if he were alive? Beyond "settlement-induced" charisma, why do Nigerian "heroes" lack enduring followership?

The problem of this article is to bear all of the above queries at the back of our mind, identify contextual similarities, and salient factors of national progress (or failure) from the long-term experiences of the Republics of Haïti and Venezuela, note the influences of France and the United States of America on the fortunes of those countries and others around the world, from the 18th century to date, and to fish out and highlight any useful lessons such experiences may hold for Nigeria at this point in its evolution as an aspiring stable 21st century democracy.

The Secret Of Eating Your Cake And Having It In Your Mouth:

Two centuries after the Haïtian Revolution, freedom-loving, freeborn Nigerians migrate voluntarily to the "New World", reside and take up jobs there willingly, sometimes, against all odds. It is getting clearer and clearer that a very patronising, myopic, simplistic, and essentially greed-driven trend is very much in vogue among the so-called "Nigerian Diasporans", resident in the United States of America, and in the European Union. Some of them even aspire to become Local Government Chairpersons, or Executive State Governors, or Distinguished Senators, or Honourable Members of the House of Representatives, and so on, and so forth, or even President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 2003, possibly campaigning remotely from overseas. The inherent assumptions of their thinking appear rather naïve, presumptuous, and uncharitable. Let us, for a moment, digress a bit into "Diaspora" prehistory in order to shed more light:

The Navigational Nightmares Of Admiral Columbus:

The first ever Black President of a nation was a Black Haïtian called, Jean-Jacques Dessalines. In other words, Haïti is the first republic in the world ever to have been led by a person of African descent. That the revolt and subsequent victory of Dessalines’ troops forced Napoleon Bonaparte of France to abandon his bid for the control of the state of Louisiana in America, and eventually, the rest of the "New World", is not trivial. Therefore, we can safely conclude that were it not for the rebellion of Dessalines and his gang of self-liberated African slaves, probably, the United States of America would not have been what it is today. Probably, the United States of America would have been, at best, similar to what Canada is today: that is to say, a federation of former British, French, and Spanish colonies, with strong historical, economic, social, and political links with Britain, France, and Spain.

Hispaniola, the island on which Haïti is located, had been inhabited by various human beings before the arrival of Europeans, led by one Admiral Christopher Columbus. The first known settlers of the island were the Ciboneys who migrated from North America. The Tainos who were members of the Arawak nation, with their origins in the Amazon jungle, followed the Ciboneys. The Tainos were peaceful farmers who lived in large villages, cultivated corn, weaved cotton, made pottery, carved furniture, and weaved baskets. They invented the hammock. A small number of friendly Caribs, who had emigrated from what is today, South America, also inhabited those villages. The Tainos called the island "Ayiti", which means, "Land of Mountains".

Admiral Christopher Columbus and his crew arrived Hispaniola in 1492. They landed at the western tip of today’s Haïti. Although he was disappointed that he did not reach either India or China, as planned, Admiral Christopher Columbus loved the island of Hispaniola. He and his crew thoroughly enjoyed the hospitability of the Tainos, who initially thought that Christopher Columbus and his crew came from heaven to help them fight against their bellicose neighbours, the Caribs. Indeed, when Christopher Columbus’s ship, "Santa-Maria", was wrecked, the Arawaks were happy to help him salvage its cargo ashore. Timber from the wrecked ship was used to build the first European settlement ever in the "New World", called, La Navidad (The Nativity).

Admiral Christopher Columbus returned to Spain and organised a bigger expedition with 17 ships and 1,200 persons. Upon arrival at La Navidad, they found that the Caribs had taken over the settlers’ fort and burnt it down to the ground. In addition, the Arawak and European population had been exterminated. Admiral Columbus simply abandoned that site, sailed east, and established a brand new colony on the northern shore of the island in what is today’s Dominican Republic. Gold was found in abundance in a nearby river, and Columbus decided to explore other islands and amass more gold, while his other Spanish compatriots established a foothold in Hispaniola, mining more and more gold in vast quantities.

While Admiral Christopher Columbus was away, his Spanish compatriots started to loot, rape, kill, flog, and enslave the natives, making them turn in gold as well as food for ransom. This regime of terror continued, and eventually led to the complete extermination of the local Carib population. Estimates suggest that somewhere between 300,000 and one million Haïtians died of exhaustion, disease, violence, or suicide between 1492 and 1550, under the direct supervision of the Spaniards. The exhaustion of gold nuggets in the riverbeds and mines further led the Spaniards to move westwards to newer eldorados, in search of silver, gold and other precious solid minerals, in what are today, Argentina, Mexico, and Peru.

Although officially under Spanish rule, Hispaniola was mostly left unpopulated for three-quarters of a century. By 1630, French and British pirates had set up a stronghold on the island of Tortuga (or Ile de la Tortue), near Haïti, and by 1644, had established a settlement on the northern shore of Haïti. Those pirates raided Spanish ships that were returning with stolen treasures from the Aztec and Inca Empires in the "New World". The seizure of Hispaniola by the pirates and their constant raiding of Spanish ships eventually led the Spanish monarch to cede the western portion of Hispaniola to France in 1697. It was subsequently renamed Saint Domingue, and later became "La République d'Haïti".

From Paradise to Hell, Via Rebellion:

In the 17th century, Europe’s trade with Haïti was far more important than with all the thirteen colonies of America combined, or any other place in the "New World" for that matter. This astounding economic success was however obtained at a terrible price: human slavery. Within a century of slavery, about three (3) million West Africans had been abducted from their homes around the Gulf of Guinea, transported under horrendous conditions, and used exclusively as forced labour in Haïti. Within 100 years, about seventy (70) African slaves died every day due to horrible work conditions. Although King Louis XIV of France had established the "Code Noir" (The Black Law), a law by which any freed slave was to be granted full French citizenship and rights, the colonists in Haïti decided that freed slaves would remain part of an underclass, without the right to vote or be voted for, or join the army, or become a medical doctor or pharmacist, or even sit in the colonists’ section of any Christian church.

The news of the French Revolution of 1789, and of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme (Human Rights Declaration) brought new hopes to the slaves of Saint Domingue (Haïti). Colonists did not however take the news with much enthusiasm, and so, did not apply the reforms in Haïti. This resulted in a series of revolts in 1791 by African slaves led by a "native doctor" (voodoo priest), culminating in the destruction of sugarcane plantations, and the massacre of thousands of French colonists in Haïti. The slave revolts were aggravated by sporadic encroachments by the British. In 1793, the French Commissioner-in-Charge of Haïti officially announced the abolition of slavery in the colony maybe because he was radically against slavery, or very probably, because he badly needed the 500,000 African former slaves to help France push back the British invasion. At this time, Toussaint L’Ouverture, a freed African slave, formed a battalion of former slaves, which, under the French flag, drove away the British invaders. For his courage and valour at the battlefront, Toussaint L’Ouverture was installed as Governor of Saint Domingue (Haïti).

The Haïtian revolutionaries, led by Toussaint L’Ouverture, reminded African American slaves, who were still excited by the promise of the independence of the United States of America in 1776, that not only could liberty be theirs if they were brave enough to grab it, but that equality with the master class might be theirs too, if only they were brave enough to try. For African-Americans, this was a most exciting moment of great inspiration. However, for the European slave owners of the United States of America, it was a moment of extreme trepidation. Haïti was a dangerous precedence next door! A kind of 18th century Cuba, with rebel leader Toussaint L’Ouverture as the 18th century Castro!

The slave owners of the United States of America were very scared of Toussaint L’Ouverture of Haïti, and had no doubts that he knew exactly how to get what he wanted. In the European American mind, Toussaint L’Ouverture was simply a nightmare, but a very competent leader. He was often depicted in their newspapers as a Black Napoleon: somebody who could always find his way; somebody who would always be successful in battle. There was no doubt in their minds that they were dealing with a very fierce and extremely dangerous adversary.

Although Toussaint was deeply inspired by events both in France and the United States, and some of his chief lieutenants had in fact been on the American mainland with the French army during the American Revolution. US President William Jefferson was certainly petrified by what was happening in Haïti. He referred to Toussaint’s army as cannibals. His fear was that African-Americans could be inspired by what they saw taking place just off shore of the United States of America. And so, US President Jefferson spent virtually his entire presidential career trying very hard to shut down any contact, and therefore any movement of information whatsoever, between North America and Haïti, over 200 years ago, in a kind of 19th century War against Terrorism. Déjà vu?

To the utter consternation of civilised Europe, Toussaint L’Ouverture proceeded to conquer the eastern part of Hispaniola in 1801, abolished slavery there, and installed himself as governor of the entire island. Napoleon Bonaparte saw this as a threat to France’s control of the island, and so, sent his own brother along with 20,000 troops, with the specific mission to capture Toussaint L’Ouverture, and to re-establish slavery in the colony of Haïti with maximum despatch. Toussaint was captured in 1802, and shipped to France, where he died in a cold prison cell as a common criminal, for "undue radicalism". The slave allies of Toussaint L’Ouverture had also surrendered to the French, but remained in Haïti.

Two factors led them to start the Haïtian Revolution:

The north of Haïti went up in arms, united with the southern rebelling slaves, and defeated the French in 1803. Dessalines proclaimed the independence of the Haïti on 1 January 1804, almost two hundred (200) years ago, and gave it back its native name of Haïti (Ayiti). The first republic in the world ever to be led by a person of African descent, Haïti, was thus born, almost two centuries ago.

News Flash: Goliath Defeats David!

Subsequently, US President William Jefferson called upon the US Congress to abolish trade between the United States of America, and the independent Republic of Haïti. He argued that France still owned Haïti. In short, he denied that African Haïtian revolutionaries had the same right to independence and autonomy that he claimed for himself and other European American revolutionaries in the United States of America. Consequently, in 1806, the United States of America summarily shut down trade with Haïti, which completely decimated an already comatose Haïtian economy. US President Jefferson then argued that Haïti was indeed an example of what happens when Africans are allowed to govern themselves. Thereafter, Haïti underwent severe devastation, caused in main, by the economic and diplomatic policies of the United States of America, two centuries ago. Déjà vu?

Notice the similarities between the early histories of Haïti and that of the United States of America. In Haïti and in the United States of America, European colonists exterminated indigenous populations that formerly inhabited both territories. Both prospered economically through the labour of slaves shipped in mainly from the Slave Coast of the Gulf of Guinea, in West Africa, and both fought for independence around the turn of the 18th century. Their post-independence paths, especially from an economic standpoint, have however been radically different. While the United States of America is today about the most robust economy in the world today, Haïti is economically at the very bottom of the league of abjectly poor nations of this planet.

In 1847, some forty-three (43) years after the Haïtian Revolution, the Liberian Constitution, and flag, modelled after those of the USA, was drawn up. In July of that year, just like the United States of America, Liberia became independent. Although founded by freed African-American slaves, 95% of Liberians are indigenous Africans, with the descendants of the returnee slaves comprising less than about 5% of the population. Seventy (70) years after its independence, Liberia declared war on Germany in 1917, thus giving the USA and its European allies a base in West Africa.

Liberia had been relatively calm until 1980 when one native African Sergeant Samuel Doe overthrew President William Tolbert, an African-American Liberian, after fierce street riots that were precipitated by the escalating cost of food. Sergeant Doe’s coup d’etat marked the end of the rather strange dominance of the minority African-American Liberian settlers, but heralded a period of profound instability. It does not seem like the lessons of the Haïtian Revolution have been learned adequately. Déjà vu?

Venezuelan Déjà Vu With A Twist:

If there is one country from whose experiences Nigeria can learn, particularly with respect to the impact of military incursion into governance, the diversity of ethnic groups, socio-political differentiation, and a petroleum-dependent 3rd World economy, that country is definitely the Republic of Venezuela. For a start, a former soldier that transfigured into a civilian political Messiah on retirement from active service, rules Venezuela now, just like in Nigeria. Prior to his incumbency, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was a failed coup plotter. Prior to his incumbency, Nigerian President General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) was imprisoned on charges of coup plotting. At any rate, more significant are the impact of long duration authoritarianism and military politics on Venezuela, how Venezuelans handled their predicament, and the useful lessons (if any) that Nigeria may learn from the experiences of Venezuela, with over 100 years of military dictatorships.

Let us now take a closer look at the status of Venezuela and some of its neighbours, products of the collapse, some one hundred and seventy-two (172) years ago, of the former Gran Colombia (Greater Colombia), after the death of its founder, the legendary General Simón Bolívar.

Like in Nigeria, there were different levels of violence, diverse, and sometimes, conflicting ideological orientations, and levels of participation by the ordinary citizenry during the early post-colonial days throughout Latin America. The Latin American post-colonial struggles took place in two major phases:

The catalyst for the Latin American independence struggles was Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Spain in 1808, four years after the independence of Haïti from French rule, and the imposition of one Joseph Bonaparte, a French citizen, on the Spanish throne. This change in leadership caused a crisis of legitimacy in the Spanish colonies as to who was the legitimate King of Spain, and hence, who should be obeyed: The French usurper, or the dethroned Spanish King. The colonists chose their deposed Spanish King, and rejected French authority. In essence, they unilaterally declared rebellion against an imposed monarch that they refused to recognise.

There were certain inherent systemic problems with the Spanish Empire. These included the relative isolation and distance of the colonies, their resistance to commercial restrictions placed upon them by the Spanish Crown, and a discriminatory and inflexible colonial administrative structure. In addition to the immediate crisis of the Spanish throne, these factors contributed to facilitate an awareness of the possibilities of true independence throughout Latin America, prior to, and after independence, quite unlike in Nigeria.

Tentative attempts at full independence in Latin America between 1810 and 1815 were characterised by the inexperience, naiveté, and idealism of the indigenous politicians, who were feeling their way through a process that they did not quite fully understand, and in very confusing times. The second stage, a military phase (1815 ~ 1825) ended with the triumph of the patriots, and was characterised by complete militarization. The victory of the patriots was ambiguous however, insofar as the social and political structures of power continued to be oppressive for the majority of the people in the newly forged Latin American republics.

Throughout the 19th century, there were incessant civil wars in Latin America, resulting from popular unrest and the festering unresolved conflicts between conservatives and liberals, centralists and federalists, one regional power centre versus another, and so on, and so forth. To a certain degree, those wars were a legacy of the contradictory and unfinished "victory" of the anti-colonial struggles. To a large extent, the First Nigerian Civil War (Nigeria-Biafra War) was a legacy of the unfinished and contradictory struggles against 60 years of British colonial rule in Nigeria

General Simon Bolivar was part of the crème de la crème of Venezuela’s elite by birth. All past Nigerian military dictators, without exception, were/are from rural peasant origins. General Simon Bolivar was born on the 24 July 1783 in Caracas, Venezuela, and was educated both in Venezuela, (by the radical Jacobin intellectual, Simón Rodríguez), and later, in Spain. Shortly after his return to Venezuela from Spain, Simon Bolivar launched himself into military politics. Between 1815 and 1825, Bolivar was able to harness local and international support, propelled by his own continental vision, into a winning strategy. He escaped several assassination attempts, and was constantly on the move. He imposed his will upon Venezuelans successfully, especially after executing one of his allies, and a most distinguished patriot for treason, just as General Ibrahim Babangida (GCFR) did to Major General Vatsa in Nigeria.

General Simon Bolivar organised the liberated territories into a super-state called, Greater Colombia (Gran Colombia), encompassing present day Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador. He dreamt of an even larger union, which would include Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. However, he was unable to control the deep divisions that erupted between Venezuelans and Colombians. He was unable to resolve the differences between centralists and federalists. He declared a dictatorship in 1825 and lost much of his prestige and "glory", and died in 1830, a virtual pariah in both Colombia and Venezuela. There seems a rather bizarre synchronicity of anticlimax, between the experiences and fate of General Simon Bolivar of Venezuela in his last days, and those of Nigerian President, General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR).

For most of the first 60 years of the 20th century, benevolent military dictators, who promoted the petroleum industry, and allowed for minor social reforms, ruled Venezuela. However, since 1959, elected governments have presided over Venezuela. The country’s current concerns include drug-related conflicts along the Colombian border, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price uncertainties, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples of the Orinoco Delta and Amazon Jungle (just like in the Niger Delta of Nigeria).

The Transfiguration Of A Paratrooper:

In 2002, a group of conspirators led by an oil industry executive and an army general overthrew President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The American press hurriedly buried Hugo Chavez with commentaries of his ill-fated political style. After spending just two days in limbo, Chavez returned triumphantly to his palace, carried by huge popular support. The resurrection of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was amazing.

Chavez was elected democratically in 1998 in a landslide victory that signalled the bankruptcy of the old political order. Under Chavez’s populist leadership, Venezuela ratified one of the most progressive constitutions ever written. Applying novel political procedures and manoeuvres, Chavez dismantled the power of the old elite. Not only did he push policies of land redistribution, free education, and health services for the poor, but also in order to pay for those policies, he found the courage to take on all the corporate oil interests of the United States of America in Venezuela. Nobody can accuse Chavez of not fulfilling his pre-election pledges to the voters faithfully.

The former Venezuelan power elite has not yet accepted its loss of power. Using its ownership of the media, its control of the Venezuelan oil industry, and with a little help from some dubious trade union leaders, the old Venezuelan political and military elite made the country ungovernable, in order to disorganise Hugo Chavez through stage-managed communal tension, clashes, conflicts and general disorder, just as is frequently done in Nigeria.

The recent fight was over the control of PDVSA, Venezuela’s equivalent of the NNPC. The Venezuelan oligarchy engineered a general strike and street riots. Taking advantage of a minor shoot-out near the presidential palace, the coup plotters accused Chavez of irreconcilable disregard for human rights, and kidnapped him after he refused to resign, just like General Abacha, Lawyer Diya, Colonel Gwadabe, and their entourage politely requested Chief (ING Chairman) Ernest Shonekan (ex-Chairman, UACN) to do, on 17 November 1993. It almost worked. But then, "almost" is the distance between Dodan Barracks and the Kirikiri firing squad range, between Aso Rock Villa, and Yola Prison, between the Venezuelan presidential palace and the Caracas underground jailhouse. Nearly cannot kill a bird!

Recipe For Coup Busting:

Nigerians have some lessons to learn from that stillborn (non-phantom) coup d’etat that took place in Venezuela. Many forces combined to defend the Venezuelan Constitution. Just as General Babangida installed Chief Ernest Shonekan in 1993, the Venezuelan coup plotters installed Mr. Pedro Carmona, a businessman, the Interim President, only for him to last for 48 hours after the kidnap of President Chavez. Pedro Carmona betrayed the deep-seated hatred that members the Venezuelan status quo had for Chavez when, barely seated in his new office, he annulled practically everything Chavez did, particularly, the widely-acclaimed and innovative Venezuelan Constitution, the National Assembly, the laws of Venezuela, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and so on, and so forth. He then sent the police to arrest all the cabinet ministers and hunt the supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in a manner very similar to what Major General Mohammadu Buhari did in Nigeria in 1984, post-coup d’etat, and just as any other incumbent autocrat (military or civilian) effortlessly does in Nigeria, one way or the other, on usurpation of political power, whether by election, selection, or treason. That vengeful demolition job really frightened and fragmented the Venezuelan elite, similar to what happened in Nigeria in 1993, post-Shonekan, when General Sani Abacha (GCFR) formally announced the still birth of the 3rd Republic, and the concurrent materialisation of his ogbanjeoid, and abikuic "child of circumstances", with the tactic "eat-your-cake-and–have-it" support of the Nigerian civilian politicians, including the presidential candidates of the annulled elections of 12 June 1993.

A significant portion of the Venezuelan army joined the civilian population in protests, and broke ranks with their generals, quite unlike soldiers typically do in Nigeria. At the other end of the social spectrum, ministers, members of parliament, and politicians refused to accept Chavez’s so-called resignation, demanding strict adherence to the Venezuelan Constitution, which requires the National Assembly to ratify any such resignation. This is very much unlike what happened in Nigeria in 1966, 1983, and 1993 when the first and second Republics were aborted, and when the presidential elections were annulled, and the Interim National Government was sacked, post-Babangida. No less important was the refusal of many Latin American governments to recognise the coup plotters. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we can conclude that the counter coup would not have succeeded were it not for popular support and mass mobilisation throughout Venezuela, especially among the people of Caracas, who took to the streets, surrounded the presidential palace, joined by Venezuelan soldiers, and demanded that their democratically elected president, Hugo Chavez be brought back, unconditionally. One wonders if such a scenario can ever play itself out in Nigeria, given the demography of Abuja.

Lesson #1:

The first lesson of the failed Venezuelan coup is the entrenchment of a new sense of constitutionalism in Latin America. The rule of law is no longer the luxury of soldiers to observe at their convenience. It is an idea that begins to command allegiance from politicians, soldiers, and common Venezuelans alike. Generals cannot assume a "no questions asked" recognition from other governments, and they cannot even trust their armies any more to march against a democratically elected president. Since unpopular ones can be defeated at the polling booth, it is likely that military coups will become rarer in Latin America. That lesson should not be lost on Nigeria, whose military and political elites are as discredited as was those of Venezuela were, in 1998, when ex-paratrooper Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez came in and changed gears, radically, to the appreciation of Venezuelans.

Lesson #2:

The second lesson of the coup is relevant to Nigeria’s foreign policy posture. Observe that the United States of America, once again, found itself thoroughly ridiculed by the events in Venezuela, when the White House, virtually all alone in the whole wide world, noisily welcomed the new regime of Venezuelan coup plotters with undisguised delight. Meanwhile, in Venezuela, Chavez’s defiance towards Washington DC was, and still is, popular with his fellow Venezuelans, some of whom, understandably, hold the very strong belief that the United States of America was privy to the conspiracy to destabilise Venezuela. The lesson for General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) is that a foreign policy that stands for nothing, except, perhaps, self-inflicted presidential jet lags, ultimately leads nowhere because nobody follows it.

Lesson #3:

The third lesson is for Chavez himself. Having survived, Chavez is stronger today than before the coup. However, the source of his strength is not where he believed it to be. The Venezuelan Army, on which he has so far relied, could not decide where it stood. With its political unity shattered, the Venezuelan Army is now a far less important factor in the politics of Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was saved by the trust of the Venezuelan people, and also by the Venezuelan Constitution that he developed. General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo should remember ex-Paratrooper Hugo Chavez as he tries to rethink his role in Nigerian history.

Final Lesson:

The last lesson is about the mass media. The Venezuelan media, mostly privately owned, participated in the coup d’etat. The media campaigned against Hugo Chavez, provided steady information about mobilisation against him, and a free platform for the coup plotters. Once Chavez was arrested, the media put a blackout on the mobilisation against the coup. Chavez supporters had to physically conquer the broadcasting station so that the messages of the constitutional government could be announced.

The media in the United States of America followed the White House and propagated very anti-Chavez newscasts. Almost all information the media provided related to Chavez’s unpopularity. The New York Times applauded the coup, betraying how much the editors cared about democracy. Even after Chavez was restored to power, the New York Times kept asserting that the mutiny against him was still on!

The systematic repression of information, particularly about popular mobilisation worldwide, is common in the United States of America, especially since 11 September 2001. For example, TV networks hardly showed the angry demonstrations that welcomed George W. Bush at his inauguration. The press routinely minimises the numbers of demonstrators, when it bothers at all to report about such things happening in the United States of America. What happened in Venezuela and the USA should ring an alarm about the dangers of the control of information (newspaper, radio, TV, Internet service) by a handful of private interests.

The message is clear: An anti-democratic press is a danger to democracy in Venezuela, in the United States of America, and in the Federal Republic of Nigeria: an anti-democratic media is a danger to democracy anywhere.

Remnants Of A Defunct Utopia:

Ecuador is another of the three countries that metamorphosed from the collapse of former Gran Colombia. Between 1904 and 1942, Ecuador further lost territories in a series of conflicts with its neighbours. A border war with Peru that flared in 1995 was only resolved in 1999. Ecuador is unstable.

Colombia is the third country that emerged from the collapse of former Gran Colombia. A forty-year guerrilla campaign to overthrow the Colombian government, financed by funds from cocaine trafficking, escalated in the 1990s. Although the violence is deadly and large patches of the hinterland are under guerrilla control, and hence drug barons, the rebels lack the military might or popular support necessary to overthrow the government of Colombia effectively. While the Colombian government continues to try to negotiate a settlement, neighbouring countries, worry about the violence spilling over.

Ecuador and Colombia amply illustrate the possible long-term negative social, political, and economic consequences of sustained military dictatorship on a country. The lessons to be learned are therefore cogent for Nigeria and its constituent centrifugal parts.

Stretching The Imagination To The Limit:

Imagine for a moment that at the end of the forthcoming Local Government chairmanship, or gubernatorial, or presidential elections in Nigeria, a winning candidate decides to wear an àdìré coat with a Rex Lawson T-shirt (from a "bend-down" boutique), an Akwete trouser, Michelin tyre slippers, bangles, and a nose ring at his inauguration ceremony. Please, also imagine that the winning candidate is a part-time disk jockey (DJ), a professional native doctor, and a main actor in a Nigerian home movie comedy series: a Nigerian politician who keeps the "kingmakers" in a heightened state of insipient insanity by his impromptu remarks, his one-man campaign train, and his non-aligned political disposition; a Nigerian politician that annoys the status quo.

Again, imagine a Nigerian political Messiah who can show, once, and for all, that a Nigerian does not need to be that desperate in order to be a Local Government Chairperson, a State Governor, or a President and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Just imagine how much good it would do Nigeria’s transition from forty-six (46) years of post-amalgamation colonialism (1914 ~ 1960), through six (6) years of post-colonial parliamentary democratic fumbling (1960 ~ 1966), through thirteen (13) years of Phase 1 of engineered authoritarianism (1966 ~ 1979), through four (4) years of debut presidential fumbling, through sixteen (16) years of Phase 2 of reformulated military dictatorship ("off-shoots" of Phase 1), through four (4) years of quasi-diarchic gerontocracy, to a future stable democracy. What a difference these scenarios would make. Now, let us get back to real-time Planet Earth.

Venturism: The Antidote for Self-Succession:

The Executive Governor of Minnesota State, US of A, His Excellency, (Wrestling Champion) Jesse Ventura, represents more than an ideological paradox. Jesse Ventura represents a style, one that annoys a status quo that feels that he does not take politics seriously enough. At his inauguration party, he wore a Jimi Hendrix T-shirt, a fringed jacket, and big earrings. His part-time occupation as a soap opera actor, professional wrestling referee, and football commentator, keeps the status quo of the United States of America in a heightened state of aggravated hypertension. They are repeatedly embarrassed by his off-the-cuff remarks, his goofy campaign advertisements, and his casual dressing habits. His Excellency, Jesse Ventura has proved conclusively that you do not need to be a nuclear physicist, a "party faithful", or a "Who is who" in order to be a governor, or a Local government chairperson, or even a President.

It was fantastic to see Hubert H. Humphrey III, then Attorney General of Minnesota State, not only being defeated, but also unreservedly humiliated, losing to a former professional wrestler with a weird fondness for snakes, a second-rate actor, and a radio talk-show host, whose candidacy was treated rather casually like a health-enhancing harmless joke. It was comic, and indeed, it turned out strange. Hubert H. Humphrey III, given his ancestry, could not even claim that Jesse Ventura won based purely on name recognition and celebrity status, the two major determinants of "political credibility" in Nigeria today.

Despite his background in the make-believe world of professional wrestling and acting, the cigar-wielding, earring-wearing, gun-toting macho governor, His Excellency Jesse Ventura, manages to be more genuine than most Nigerian politicians in babanriga, agbada, wòkó, "Power Shift" caps, "Resource Control" hats, and walking sticks, or designer suits, can ever be. It is not as if His Excellency, Jesse Ventura, is any less intelligent than the average Nigerian politician (admittedly a very low baseline of reference) is. It is just that he was never obsessed with looking or sounding important. If the frolics of His Excellency, Jesse Ventura, have made people not to take politicians too seriously, then, that in itself is a noble and worthwhile accomplishment for democracy worldwide. In a sense, Jesse Ventura’s victory in the last gubernatorial elections in Minnesota, USA, was an open denunciation of sly politicians, the sort of people whose every move is geared towards getting and holding onto power at all cost, like most Nigerian politicians desperately do.

His Excellency (Wrestling Champion) Jesse Ventura announced the other day that he would not seek a second term. While some Americans may view Ventura’s distaste for politics as evidence of a personality defect, Nigerians worry about their politicians who are so addicted to politics that they would never consider giving up the reins of power voluntarily. Unlike conventional politicians worldwide, His Excellency (Wrestling Champion) Jesse Ventura never tried to please everyone. While the citizens of Minnesota hailed his tax cuts, his criticism of the war on drugs, his opposition to government funding of stadiums, and his proposal for a legislative session exclusively dedicated to eliminating all the bad laws of Minnesota, once, and for all, many were alarmed by his embrace of campaign finance restrictions. His Excellency calls reporters "jackals" and believes that organised religion is "a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people".

Clearly, Jesse Ventura does not calculate the high political risk of his utterances. He freely offers his unexpurgated opinions, which are so frequently at odds with the views held by most ordinary Americans. He speaks favourably of decriminalising prostitution, and expresses scepticism about paternalistic legislation in general. He believes that government cannot legislate against stupidity, because people have always done stupid things, do stupid things, will always do stupid things, and government should get out of the businesses of passing laws to stop people from doing stupid things.

Maybe, Aso Rock Villa, Apo Village, and the thirty-six Government Houses nationwide, badly need a strong dose of "Venturism" for a change, at least to curtail the lure for political self-recycling.

Democracy In The Global Village:

Sequel to the 1996 presidential elections held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, declared to be free and fair by international observers, including former US President Jimmy Carter, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Yasir Arafat, was duly elected with 87% of the votes. Imagine a scenario in which this same Mr. Yasir Arafat stuns the world by demanding that the United States of America holds free and fair democratic elections for a new Chief Executive before it attempts to continue in its role as a peace broker between Israel and Palestine, based on the innuendo that Mr. George W. Bush (Jr.) is tainted by his association with the selective disenfranchisement and the palpably parochial executive strong-arm tactics that took place in Florida, controlled by Mr. George W. Bush’s younger brother, since records show that he would have lost the election if his associates had not deprived so many thousands of African-Americans, an oppressed racial minority, of the right to have their votes counted, and that the US President is therefore not the right person to bring peace to the Middle East.

Imagine also, that (former paratrooper) Hugo Chavez, democratically elected President of Venezuela with 62% of the popular vote, concurred with Mr. Yasir Arafat. It will be recalled that Chavez has long been a victim of US President George W. Bush's attitude. For example, after the choreographed Venezuelan rebellion failed, and Hugo Chavez was back in power, the White House actually told the Venezuelan President that legitimacy is not necessarily conferred by a majority vote. (Wow!) For people like Hugo Chavez and Yasir Arafat, and probably billions of other fellow earth beings, the United States of America hardly sets the best example for the Middle East, or the rest of the world.

Of course, US President George W. Bush has his supporters. Of course, Israeli Prime Minister, retired General Ariel Sharon, democratically elected head of a 21st century nation state that officially discriminates among its citizens on grounds of religious belief, forbids politicians from advocating an end to that discrimination, and disenfranchises an entire people through brazen military occupation, would dismiss such calls as "absurd", or even "irrelevant".

Take a closer look at the arrangement on American independence. US President George Washington was not only unelected, he actually collaborated with terrorists that rebelled against the authority of the British colonial administration. In other words, Mr. Yasir Arafat could be very busy, comparing his credentials with those of pioneer US President George Washington. In fact, he could be working hard on a plan to find a new Israeli leader that is not tainted with the massacre of hundreds of innocents in Lebanon, to negotiate with, for the sake of a truly lasting peace in the Middle East! Different strokes for different folks. Different lanes for different brains!

From Nigerians, With Gratitude:

"The people revolted. But, mark you, the people never came to power. As a matter of fact, while the power change was going on inside the palace, the people were kept outside the palace. Isn’t that what happened three years ago? … When it came to decisive moments, to effect a change of leadership after the people had carried out their revolution, they were excluded from the sanctuary of power." - Dr. Adebayo Williams in an interview, "Romantic Bulletin from the Ghost Land of General Cobra".

Nigerians continue to express a curious gratitude to two soldiers for handing over usurped power, back to selected civilian political authority. It started with General Olusegun Aremu Obasanjo (GCFR) in 1979, and then re-echoed, some 20 years after, in 1999, when General Abdusalami Alhaji Abubakar (GCFR) handed over power, to Chief (General) Olusegun Aremu Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss), one more time. Ironically, in both cases, power was actually conceded in the enlightened collective self-interest of the Nigerian status quo, particularly the military elite, to which Generals Obasanjo and Abubakar belong.

In essence, for just over 100 years now, Nigeria has been transiting from foreign colonisation, through indigenous military colonisation, and hopefully, to democracy. The process of transiting from indigenous military dictatorships to indigenous democracy is further complicated, if not derailed, by the distraction of the participation of former military dictators of Nigeria over the past 32 years, the very key actors of a supposedly bye-gone mismanaged phase of Nigeria’s painful political evolution. Indeed, the emergence of General (Chief) Olusegun Aremu Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss) as the President, and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (once again) has set a very bizarre precedence and scenario loose on Nigerians.

For example:

Requiem For The Last Nigerian Emperor:

"Look at what is going on in Aso Rock. Obasanjo is known as ‘Baba’! When you have a ‘Baba’, that is an authoritarian figure: that is, ‘He who must be obeyed’; that is, ‘Kaabiyesi’, which translates to a kind of military temper. When you call the Head of State … even those who are his friends, they call him ‘Baba’… That kind of appellation reinforces the symbolism and semiotics of authoritarianism" - Dr. Adebayo Williams in an interview, "Romantic Bulletin from the Ghost Land of General Cobra".

General (Chief) Olusegun Aremu Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss) has tried his human best. The cumulative number of years of his dominion over 120 million Nigerians rival those of the longest tenure of any military dictator of post colonial Nigeria.

He conceived, designed, developed, edited, vetoed, considered, approved, and commissioned Nigeria’s 1979 Constitution, which was effortlessly subverted barely four years after, by the "offshoots" of his earlier dictatorship. Again, in 1999, he accepted to operate in the blind, an equally thoroughly booby-trapped and discredited constitution that was handed over to him by one of his former subordinates, now also a fellow retired general. His 1979 Constitution established a precedence of significant deviations from the true spirit of federal governance in Nigeria, while the Abubakar Constitution (1999) was a product of historical expediency. General (Chief) Olusegun Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR) promised Nigerians dividends of democracy and the rule of law in 29 May 1999, but now, he exercises the omniscient powers of the Emperor of a "home-grown nascent democratic" Nigeria. Most of his subjects live in abject poverty, ignorance, and utter dismay at his obliviousness of their predicament.

It must be appreciated that the Nigerian Army, from whose ranks he rose to become a general, evolved from a culture of colonial invasion, occupation, intimidation, and repression of Nigeria and its citizens, of which his fellow Nigerian soldiers were unfortunate pawns, serving obediently in the Nigerian sector of the chessboard of the British Empire. As a military dictator, he tried his human best to put forward a succession of decrees that transferred land ownership from dispossessed Nigerians to the central and state governments of Nigeria. As a civilianising democratically selected President, he preached against corruption and teenage prostitution, fiddled with electoral laws, ordered his troops on punitive expeditions to the Niger Delta and Middle Belt regions of Nigeria, lost his Attorney-General to assassins, watched as his subjects jeered and booed at his Vice President at Kano, visited the sites of exploding armouries at Lagos and lost his temper there, intimidated, and destabilised the National Assembly to the best of his ability, presided over the first ever police officers’ strike in Nigeria, supported Robert Mugabe’s self-immortalisation project, and tenaciously applied patently futile strategies for attracting foreign investors to Nigeria, by loitering around the world frequently, while fasting and praying aloud for divine guidance in Nigerian politics. By the way, the politics of the society he leads is decidedly crude, Machiavellian, and self-destructive.

His role as elder statesman in Africa came to a climax more than two decades ago. His earlier move toward international stature was by his public denunciation of corruption, on assumption of office, some three years ago. Today, Nigeria’s creditors tell him straight to the face that he presides over corruption of gargantuan dimensions. With his 1977 model Afrocentric diplomacy, General (Chief) Olusegun Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR) masochistically projects Nigeria as the fixer of all of Africa’s many near-intractable problems, despite Nigeria’s local and foreign debts of over N1.1 trillion and US$28.6 billion respectively.

Since, 29 May 1999, General (Chief) Olusegun Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR) has been to Washington DC, Zurich, New York, Beijing, Johannesburg, Bonn, London, Atlanta, Paris, Rome, Caracas, Rio de Janeiro, The Hague, Tokyo, Pretoria, Amsterdam, Sydney, Cape Town, Geneva, Havana, ad nauseam, appealing to Prime Ministers and Presidents all over Planet Earth for debt forgiveness and forgetfulness, in the spirit of a new, improved "World Order". No one seems to listen to him. He seems to have remembered to forget also to visit Malabo, Kinshasa, Kigali, Cotonou, Timbuktu, Niamey, Tel-Aviv, the Gaza Strip, Kabul, Papua New Guinea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or even Freetown to cheer up his troops on ECOMOG duties there.

With his empire under severe economic stress, both American multinational oil companies and the White House are now luring Nigeria out of OPEC, with the promise of "debt relief", just like the French promised Haïtian Governor Toussaint L’Ouverture, some 200 years ago. At any rate, General (Chief) Olusegun Mathew Obasanjo (GCFR) has warned the whole world: "It is Nigeria today-o, it could be you tomorrow-o. As for me, sha, I dey kámpé".

References & Sources

Appendix 1:

Below is a copy of the last state broadcast of General Simón Bolívar to the citizens of the former super state of Gran Colombia, from whose break up, today’s republics of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela emerged. General Simón Bolívar was the legendary South American hero who founded the once prosperous super-state, but died very unhappy about the rapid demise of his vision of a sub-continental power bloc, caused by the destabilising impact of rival members of the military elite, coupled with sustained acrimony between the constituent states of Gran Colombia.

Proclamation To The People Of Colombia

10 December 1830

Simón Bolívar, Liberator of Colombia, etc.

Santa Marta,

Colombians:

You have witnessed my efforts to establish liberty where tyranny once reigned. I have laboured unselfishly, sacrificing my fortune and my peace of mind. When I became convinced that you distrusted my motives, I resigned my command. My enemies have played upon your credulity and destroyed what I hold most sacred - my reputation and my love of liberty. I have been the victim of persecutors, who have brought me to the brink of the grave. I forgive them.

As I depart from your midst, my love for you tells me that I should make known my last wishes. I aspire to no other glory than the consolidation of Colombia. You must all work for the supreme good of a united nation: the people, by obeying the present government in order to rid themselves of anarchy; the ministers, from their sanctuary, by addressing their supplications to Heaven; and the military, by unsheathing the sword to defend the guarantees of organised society.

Colombians! My last wishes are for the happiness of our native land. If my death will help to end party strife and to promote national unity, I shall go to my grave in peace.

Simón Bolívar

Hacienda de San Pedro, in Santa Marta,

December 10, 1830.

Appendix 2:

Below is a copy of the translation of the original Declaration of Human Rights after the French Revolution. Notice the simplicity of presentation (in format, style, and syntax). Its uniqueness lies in the concise and straight-to-the-point delivery of its vision, with out highfaluting legalese. No wonder, the French know, and demand their rights. There is need for a Nigerian Bill of Rights

The Declaration of the Rights of Man:

The representatives of the French people, organised as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities, and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all.

Therefore, the National Assembly recognises and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Articles:

July 2002