Dear Sirs:

I wish to comment on the above article by Mike Ikhariale in the Wednesday, December 17, 2003 issue of Daily Independent.

First of all I want to give credit to the writer for his well-written essay and his skill in demonstrating that while Nigerian commentators publicly disavow and detest military rule, the Nigerian society as a whole however embraces it in principle by nurturing and cultivating the candidacy and electability of ex-military officers and former generals to the exclusion of civilians in the professions and other seasoned non-military politicians.

Altogether, the writer’s observation and analysis that "particularly in Nigeria, the military junta was largely a rogue institution that devastated the nation to its marrows," is correct. I wish to however argue to the contrary concerning his follow-up remark: "with the result that even if someday we are lucky to have the most dedicated and patriotic government, it will still take a very long time to restore the country to the path of progress, because the monumental rot that they inflicted on the nation will take some time to remedy."

I disagree with that opinion because it is too excusatory and characteristic of other analyses that have been made in the past to justify the glaring ineptitude of the present administration. In keeping with that trend, upon assumption of office our own Finance minister is reported to have remarked that Nigerians should not expect to see marked improvements in their general economical well being until after another 10 years of implementing government policies. In civilized societies, she would have been forced to resign over the fall-out from that tactless, bland, policy statement. But not in Nigeria. In Nigeria, government needs uncountable years reprieve to embark on wild-goose chasing in the name of implementing policies without having to be accountable to the people.

Regardless of the rot of past military regimes, it does not take four and an-half years to impress upon Nigerians, a most tolerant and enduring people, that you mean well if in fact the government of the day does mean well. Actions speak louder than words and the collective actions of this administration – too many to require detailed enumeration – give an unmistakable picture of its total disdain for the average Nigerian who does not walk in those higher corridors of society.

Elsewhere, the writer starts well by saying: "the apparent failure of the current Obasanjo government to minimally live up to the promises it gave the starving people of Nigeria is partially explainable by the fact that it is suffering from its militarist origins, constitution and operations, despite the fact that it is a democracy," but ends on a quizzical note by adding: "It has nothing to do with the personal competence and desire of Mr. President himself, because he remains one of the most dedicated Nigerians to the cause of a greater nation for the Republic." I do not claim to know Obasanjo any better, or to know him at all. But it does seem to me that it is not possible to know what is in a person’s heart or what his convictions are without seeing them demonstrated through action. The question therefore becomes, what actions has Obasanjo taken since 1999 to demonstrate that "he remains one of the most dedicated Nigerians to the cause of a greater nation for the Republic?" Or perhaps we should rephrase the question. What actions has Obasanjo taken since 1999 that demonstrate that he remains one of the Nigerians most averse to the cause of a greater nation for the Republic? The answer is legion.

From forgery of the Electoral Act 2002, to the gargantuan extra-budgetary expenditures like the Abuja stadium project, (done well in excess of the actual costs and without the cover of appropriation by the National Assembly,) to attempts to stymie and restrict participation in the 2003 elections by violating the independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) through the machinations of The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, (attempts which were stumped by the ruling of the Supreme Court on the registration of political parties), to the fraudulent April 19 elections which the president believes were "free and fair," despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that negates that claim, to the criminal, fraudulent, and tyrannical way and manner of the present exercise in fuel deregulation: exporting Nigerian jobs overseas from where we import refined crude instead of revamping our own refineries and keeping the jobs here. Requiring Nigerian citizens to live by energy costs based on international market prices when Nigerians do not have international market standards of living. Encouraging corruption by telling Nigerians that over 700 million dollars worth of contracts have been awarded for Turn Around Maintenance of the non-functioning refineries without being forthcoming about what investigations, if any, are underway to unearth the culprits behind this tragedy which is a threat to our national security. Watching (or pretending to watch?) Nigerians suffering and clearly broken by the years of broken promises and under the unbearable officially-sanctioned liberalization of fuel price hiking by cartel-oriented Independent Marketers. In the face of all this, even when the president is confronted by well-meaning Nigerians like the NLC and other civil society groups, royal fathers, etc., he can dismiss them with a wave of the hand and proclaim loudly: "more tough times are still to come." Is this how the president is perceived as being "one of the most dedicated Nigerians to the cause of a greater nation for the Republic?"

Another stated opinion of the writer is as follows: "Yes, there were conceptually faulty arguments in the [Daily Trust] editorial, as you would also find elsewhere. For example, it is conceptually and circumstantially incorrect to liken what we have now in 2003 with that which existed in 1983 when Shagari was in power. First, in 1993, the world had still not, as a matter of principle, repudiated military rule. It was still a tolerable option and if the Tribune called for a military intervention to halt the decay that the Shagari regime became at that point in history, not many people would be disturbed. But if we fast-forward the clock of the nation to today, such would have become an anathema."

I do not want to say it, but it almost seems as if we are back again at -- and unable to dissociate ourselves from -- the scent of tribal politics. The writer may very well be giving an honest opinion here, but at the same time it is impossible to go away from that statement without thinking that the real reason it was okay for the Tribune to make those remarks in 1983 and not okay for the Daily Trust to make them in 1993 is because the Tribune is based in the South-West from where President Obasanjo hails and the Daily Trust is based in the North from where he does not.

As far as the doctrine of democracy and the rule of law is concerned, it is true that military rule is the antithesis of the foregoing. However, that does not necessarily mean that military rule or intervention in politics is an anathema. The writer himself admits as much when he posits elsewhere that some nations were lucky enough to have military-styled regimes with "truly nationalistic officers in charge and who, with Spartan determination, got their societies transformed from rural backwater nations to modern and industrial societies."

The current exploits of the Pakistani dictator, Pervez Musharraf have earned him recognition and acceptance by Western democratic governments – his anti-democratic credentials notwithstanding. The report below from the UN’s Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) dated December 16, 2003, also casts the concept of military interventionism in a pragmatic mold with particular reference to the recent toppling of the ‘democratic’ government of former former president Kumba Yala of Guinea-Bissau.

The point I am trying to make here is that the sooner Nigerians get over their hangover with military interventionism the better for everyone to see clearly and move forward. The military may yet intervene directly in Nigeria’s political experience not because I, Gani Fawehinmi, Daily Trust, and a host of others predict that this could happen, but because the military are a fact of life and part of the strategic framework of ensuring national security and regional stability.

In Guinea-Bissau, the political equation was not very different from what obtains in Nigeria today: a corrupt and inept administration that is effectively holding the populace to ransom. The military intervened, ousted the corrupt civilian regime, and set up a transitional government to administer the country and prepare for proper democratization. That action, initially condemned by Obasanjo and his clique of corrupt African leaders, is bearing fruit and today receiving the commendation of the globally respected UN Secretary General. Therefore the responsibility for the prevention of military interventionism in politics primarily lies with the political class and not necessarily the frustrated citizenry, or even the press. Where there is a respect for the rule of law and a prosecution of those policies that display sensitivity to the peoples plight, job creation, and other socially engaging trends, there will be no occasion for Nigerians to hark for any kind of interventionism. But where corruption thrives, avarice, ineptitude, indolence, criminality, and general erosion of the peoples trust in governance, the people – and by extension and inclusion the military – have every right to recapture and reclaim their sovereignty by any and all means possible and reinstall sanity of the Georgian, the Guinea-Bissau, and the Bolivian kind. This kind of action, albeit in theory unconstitutional, is in fact an expression of the peoples democratic rights which nature, history, and political tradition has bestowed on them.

Jan 2004