WHY NOT? (4)

by

Professor Omo Omoruyi

Research Fellow, African Studies Center, Boston University.

This is the part (4) and the concluding part of the four-part essay on the phenomenon, Generals are Coming’. In Part [1], I laid the basis of the phenomenon: the commitments of Nigeria under the Human Rights regime, the requirements of the Constitution and the opportunity for the voters to exercise his choice based on the voters’ appreciation of the candidates’ vision.

In Part [2], I presented the President Obasanjo’s height of insensitivity argument in spite of Nigeria’s commitment under the Human Rights regime and the requirements of the Constitution. 

In Part [3] I presented the General Tunde Ogbeha’s Human Rights/Democracy argument, which rejects the distinction between the politicians with a military background and politicians with no military background.

In this part, Part (4) is drawn on the highly provocative but candid interview with the captivating headline, ‘Civil Society has no confidence in non-military politicians’ in the Sunday Vanguard of May 13, 2001 by General Ishola Williams. I shall be presenting the General Ishola Williams’ Democracy/Political Efficacy argument, which is very specific on the commitment of Nigeria under the Human Rights regime and the requirements of the Constitution and the loss of status by the civilians in politics.

CREDIBILITY OF GENERAL ISHOLA WILLIAMS

General Ishola Williams held many command (no political) positions in the Nigerian army before he left the service in protest against the military’s betrayal of the democratic rights of Nigerians in 1993. He was appalled by the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election. General Williams is well acknowledged as one of the proverbial ‘soldiers soldiers’ as we used to call the non-political Generals in the Nigerian Army. The ‘soldiers soldiers’ are military officers who do not believe in political offices as the basis of making progress in the armed forces.

It should be noted that ‘soldiers’ soldiers’ are still around in the country. It is important to know that not all retired military officers were political officers or were coup makers in the past or benefited from participation in government and political action in the past. These ‘soldiers soldiers’ compare favorably with the US retired Generals who are now in charge of the US program of re-professionalization of the Nigerian army. If President Obasanjo actually has faith in Nigerians, he knows the soldiers’ soldiers such as Generals David Ejoor, Alani Akinrinade, Domkat Bali, Martin Adamu, Ibrahim Haruna, Olutoye, Ejiga, Salihu Ibrahim, Lawrence Uwumarogie, and Ishola Williams to name a few abound. He knows that the careers of these retired military officers did not involve politics, coup making and human rights violations in the past and benefited from the best military training in the world. President Obasanjo surrounded by coup makers in the past, as functionaries in his administration would not clear these retired officers to assist the President to re-professionalize the armed forces. President Obasanjo could have used these named retired military officers to deal with the three issues in the anti-democratic posture of the armed forces.

To digress a little and for the information of readers, the three issues in the anti-democratic posture of the armed forces are (a) the environment of the armed forces, (b) the composition of the armed forces and (c) the attitude to government and politics of the armed forces. There is no way the US team can get to these issues as they are all political and could best be handled by Nigerians who are conversant with these issues.

These issues can be resolved within a clearly defined defense policy, which the Chief of Defense Staff said recently would be ready by the end of May 2001. Is it strange that up till now Nigerians do not have any idea of who their enemies are, the basis of a nation’s defense policy? Who is Nigerian enemy? They are Nigerians who are demanding their rights. President Obasanjo’s definition of Nigerian defense policy and by implication her enemies are the people of the oil producing areas. But for the determined resistance of the Governor and people of Lagos, he wanted to add the Yorubas of Lagos to the list of his enemies subject to military occupation. What is Nigerian defense policy? How could a defense policy of a major country like Nigeria with a long history of military involvement in Nigerian political life be arrived at in secret?

Those who would have been involved in the process such as the retired professional military officers such as General Ishola Williams who retired as the Chief of Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) of the Nigerian army and experts in defense matters have no place in Obasanjo’s regime. Maybe this is what President Obasanjo wants the businessmen-cum-retired US Generals in the name of the ‘Re-professionalization Program’ to achieve. Under this program the US gives Nigeria some money, which is meant to be spent by the US retired Generals and businessmen in the US.

Those who know General Williams would testify to his professionalism. How many of us read what he said about General Oladipo Diya and his wives after what they said at the Oputa Commission? Only few retired officers could be this forthright. There is no question about his commitment to professionalism and democracy.

General Williams is today in charge of the Transparency International; he is heading this anti-corruption group in Nigeria. This background is necessary for us to evaluate what General Williams has to say about the Generals are Coming. In my view, his views on the issue of Generals are Coming should be taken seriously as coming from a man who knows what he is talking about.

General Williams made two vital points among others on the phenomenon Generals are Coming. One was the ‘Democracy Argument’ and the other was the ‘Political Efficacy Argument’.

Now to the question, the ‘Generals are Coming’ into the political arena, General Williams made one of the most profound statements using new democracy as an argument. According to General Williams:

‘I’ve always maintained the position that these people are entitled to vote and be voted for, simply because they are citizens of this country. They have every right to participate in the political affairs of this country, if they so wish. General William dealt with the past of these retired military officers. According to him It is left for the electorate to decide whether they performed creditably well when they were formerly in government.

He then advised Nigerians: We shouldn’t look upon those who were once in uniform as a different species of Nigerians. They were civilians before they joined the military; they’ve gone back to civil society’.

One only needs to refer to the Human Rights Treaties and the Nigerian Constitution. I am referring to ‘the right to vote and be voted for’ called the democratic rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ‘the rights of citizens’ in the Constitution.

For the interest of Nigerians, under the Universal Declaration, Article 21, the accent is on the opening statement, ‘Everyone has the right to participate…..’

Under the International Covenant, Article 25, there is an internationally enforceable requirement of States that are party to the International Covenant. It states that

‘Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unnecessary the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections….’

The distinctions in Article 2 are:

‘race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status’.

In my view distinction on basis of profession will run foul of this provision of the International Covenant.

On the requirements of the Constitution, we should go to the relevant sections dealing with the qualifications and disqualifications for any office.

The same right, which the candidate for elective office has, is what the individual voters have and more. The voter has the same right to vote but in exercising that decision he takes many factors into account. This is where he is the final arbiter of who would eventually be the President. This is the political empowerment, which we should be developing in our people. Our people properly educated would not vote for someone who would oppress them and who would deny them their right to their God-given resources. That decision should not be based on whether (a) has military background or (b) is a professional politician.

Nigerians were denied their choice in 1993; that denial continued under the Interim National Government and under the reign of the military dictator, General Abacha between 1993 and 1998. This denial reached its zenith under the self-succession project, which saw many of the so-called civilian politicians as campaign managers.

The death of General Abacha on June 8, 1998 would have given the country another opportunity to embark on soul searching for clues as to how we reached that stage and to ponder over a way forward. We lost it. Isn’t it strange that after forty years of independence, Nigerians are still in search of how to live together and how to govern themselves? President Obasanjo would have been in a position to ensure the convocation of a national Conference within the first year of its administration. But instead the President started to use the issue of ‘Sovereignty’ to avoid coming to terms with the fact that the administration in place was not equipped to handle the issues. Isn’t obvious that the administration is part of the lingering political problems of Nigerian today?

It is gratifying that the recent Leaders of Thought meeting now came to the conclusion that a National Conference was the only answer to the lingering political problems afflicting this country. The problem, which we would face is that the on the uncertainty over how to live together and how to govern ourselves would be superimposed a dilemma beginning this year over the question, ‘After Obasanjo, Who/What?’

To discuss the issue facing our people, we should assess what we have on the ground. The era of professional politicians ie the era of the ‘tall men’, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Sir Ahmadu Bello and the rest who served the various communities and Nigeria had long gone. Their immediate survivors like Chief Anthony Enahoro are fast disappearing. There is a dearth of men in the character of the ‘tall men’ to lead the various communities in Nigeria. This is why the country has been rudderless since 1993. This is critical to the issue of choice facing the Nigerian people.

On whether the Nigerian people have a choice, General Williams was positive. He still based his reason on the notion of choice, which is a democracy argument in the following words:

‘Yes, Nigerians have plenty of choices. These retired officers are not the only political contenders in the country. Besides, these new groups do not exclusively belong to former military officers. There are also civilians in their midst. Nigerians might as well vote in those without a military background’.

This is political choice facing our people. I have my preferences; they would be determined by the candidates’ vision.

General Williams said what many Nigerians know. But we also know that Nigerians are afraid to tell the home truths. It is a profound statement when General Williams blamed the travail of the civilians in politics on their declining political status in society. In political science jargon the politician with no military background is low on the political efficacy scale.

General Williams in response to the question about the new trend of Generals being promoted by various groups in civil societies but themselves made the following profound statement:

‘I think there’s something wrong with the Nigerian civil society. The Nigerian civil society is really sick! This simply shows that those who have been preaching political empowerment have failed’.

Continuing, General Williams castigated the Civil Society organizations.

‘The campaign for Generals Obasanjo, Babangida and Nwachukwu indicates that the civil society have no confidence in politicians with no military background’.

He went on

‘Something is seriously wrong and it is about time civil society organizations went back to the drawing board, took stock and did some re-evaluation.

This is an indictment on the civil society organizations in Nigeria. General Williams made a very serious statement about the growing tendency in Nigerian politics. According to him:

‘If care is not taken, Nigeria may become like Israel where one retired General hands over to another retired General in perpetuity, and today retired General Sharon is the Israeli Prime Minister’.

From my experience with the politicians with no military background in the recent past, they seem to have been losing confidence in themselves. Why the number seems to be growing daily, the civil society organizations committed to the empowerment of the political class seem to be losing focus. This is what General Williams is talking about. For example, General Williams asked:

‘Why can’t it be Sunday Awoniyi, for instance or Gemade or Professor Nwabueze, Ajuluchukwu’?

One’s hope is that Nigerians who are complaining about the Generals are Coming would find answer to the issues raised by General Williams.

General Williams also advised Nigerians to demand from these Generals what they plan to do for Nigeria. If Nigerians did not demand this from General Obasanjo in 1999, this error should not be repeated this time around, advised General Williams. It is amazing that it is a retired General who is advising our people. Where are the so-called Civil Society organizations? General Williams declared them a failure. What must we do to revive them?

In the concluding part, I shall be presenting a comparative assessment of the tales of the three Generals, the cause of the growing political powerlessness of the politicians with no military background and other concluding remarks.

2001