THE ERROR CALLED IGALA AGENDA

As you take a tour from one end of Kogi state to another, you are greeted with a perception that speaks ill of the people ranging from a docile citizenry to an indolent leadership. What does a people need from a democracy, but for the fact that it gives them opportunity to be individuals and is able to translate governance cum leadership in its minutest form for the benefit of the least persons in any society! We have preoccupied ourselves with governance in Nigeria to the extent that we need to take a journey inward, since even the presence of good governance at the federal level may not necessarily guarantee a better standard of living for citizens at the local level, if leadership at such level is faulty. I’ve always asked myself why the little efforts made by the federal government has consistently failed to yield economic progress that would metamorphose into better standard of life for Kogites. One of the major reasons I’ve advanced to this question is ethnic sentiment. In all states of the federation, we have people from different ethnic/tribal groupings, with national representations at the senatorial level cutting across districts. Like every other state, Kogi has three senatorial districts, which cut across various major ethic groups in the state, with the Igala race being the largest. Thus, like Benue state that has the Tiv race in the majority, the Igala people of Kogi state have always been in control of political machinery of the state. It is on this note that the first error, which is the idea of creation of a state for the Igala kingdom stems from. Surely, many Igala sons and daughters would have made a frail comparison with the Idoma race of Benue state, as a basis for the argument that there is need for a state solely for the Igala nation. As a trained philosopher, I’ve learnt not just to look at immediate and peripheral causes, but also to look at the substance in issues.

In all the states of the federation where you have major and minor ethnic groups, those in the minority always yearn for independence as a result of marginalization from major ethnic groups in such states. That has been the cry of people who have not had the privilege to control the machinery of governance. Let’s take Benue state as a case study, where the Igala Kingdom once belonged. It is well known that the Idoma and Igede race are in the minority (in terms of numerical strength) in the state. Hence, the craving for a state that primarily takes into cognizance the welfare of the people and makes them more democratically engaged. On the other hand, in Kogi state, we have three senatorial districts, which cut across the three major ethnic groups (Ibira, Okun, Igala) in the state, of which the Igala race are in the majority. Like the Tiv of Benue state, the Igala race primarily takes charge of governance. But the irony of the Igala race stems from the fact that they conceive the idea of having a state that takes into cognizance the welfare of the people and democratically engage the people in governance. However, there is a dialectic of marginalization, in the sense that it is unending. Give a state to the Idoma race and the Igede people would begin a craving for a nation, since they would necessarily become minority in the midst of the Idoma race; so do we have it in every society in Nigeria.

With the above in mind, let us come to the crux of our discussion: since the Igala race as the majority ethnic group in Kogi state, crave for a state as a result of marginalization and a desire to get the people democratically engaged, then who marginalizes the Igala people of Kogi state? Surely, we can’t suggest that we are being marginalized by a minority race, since that would be laughable. It means that nature has not always favoured numbers, but history has always aligned with people who have leveraged on their numerical strength to their advantage. If we cannot rely on factors from “with-out” as a justification of our debased condition, then we could possibly locate causes from “within”. Looking at the wind of politics as it blows daily, we know that as a country, we may not have the kind of government we want to have, but the political dialectics in recent time has shown that, though we may not be where we would have desired, we would certainly not be where we had been; we are moving towards perfection. It is however unfortunate that this feeling of optimism necessarily eludes you if you are a Kogite, particularly of the Igala origin. This is made possible by the fact that we have for a long time, run a system of government manned by the most unscrupulous or unsuitable people, who have seen politics as a quick means to a sharp end of amassing wealth, while at the same time, giving stipends to those who dare to associate with them. The immediate reason for an average youth who ventures into politics is extractive in nature; this is exactly the idea that has been transmitted to them from an older generation that has mentored them in the art of deviance. History has largely shown that a politician of the Igala descent who assumes the role of governance, keeps his position primarily for two reasons: repatrimonization (recycling goods and services among family and friends) and extraction. Governance is the second agenda. State creation would therefore fail the Igala race, since repatrimonization and extraction couched in marginalization, are really the substance.

What do we stand to lose if an opportunity is given to a man outside the Igala race to govern the state? Economic prosperity? Certainly not! Because you have not been motivated by such factor in the first place. Pride? Certainly yes! But of what relevance is our pride without dignity, which we have been denied for some time? In the final analysis, there is pride in dignity, there is however no dignity in pride. It is on this note that this experiment called Igala agenda should be rectified momentarily at the state level, since it has proven to be a deceptive phrase put on the lips of the masses by the elite group, for the furtherance of the agenda of the Igala political elites and not for the enhancement of the Igala kingdom.

Secondly, at the national level, if you have tried particular leaders at the state, or National Assembly and it has yielded no positive result for the people, it is simple wisdom to try others. The reason for this is that even if the new hands to be tried are not predictable in terms of their success rate, it is better to have them to lead for a while, since you have nothing to lose, because in the first place you never even had any gain. In such a situation, change is what you need, even if the change is not a reasonable choice for the moment. At least, let it be penned down in history that for a moment, we had a consistent anthology of failed leaders. We cannot keep doing things the same way, while at the same time expecting different results.

Long live the Igala kingdom! Long live Kogi state!! Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria!!!      

       

BETWEEN GENERAL BUHARI AND DR. JONATHAN

In 2013, I was in a leadership conference in Lagos where Oby Ezekwesili said repeatedly that a leader must possess three qualities: character, competence and capacity. She mentioned these very qualities during the APC Summit in 2014 in a paper titled; “The Uncomfortable Truth of Elusive Economic Development…” The issue with these qualities is that you cannot possess one, to be sufficiently called a leader. I was in another leadership summit at Oriental Hotel, Lagos, in 2012, where Pat Utomi cautioned emerging leaders not to confuse provision of infrastructural development with good leadership. From the various kinds of corruption listed by Okonjo Iweala at TEDxEuston in 2014, I cannot but agree with Ezekwesili that governance does not happen in Nigeria, what happens in Nigeria is ‘massive business transaction’. For those who have read Marx’s philosophy, you will understand that he saw a government ruled by the bourgeois and would be eventually taken over by the proletarians of the society. But have you studied Nigerian history with the rise of a proletarian in government? Once a man in the lower class climbs the seat of governance, he becomes a bourgeois and eventually joins those in the upper class to torment those in the lower class. The dialectic continues as those in the lower class begin another revolution to take over government and when a leader eventually emerges from amongst them, with time, he ceases to identify with those in the lower class and eventually becomes a bourgeois. We must understand that this is the dialectic of Nigerian democracy, although with some very few exceptions.

Back to my analysis. I have studied and carefully concluded that John Major, Bill Gates, Dangote, etc, spent time developing themselves to be leaders and not necessarily scholars; John Major therefore, never needed a university degree to rise to the position of Prime Minister of Britain, he simply grew to a stature of leadership. There is a lesson to be learnt from their gradual development; leadership is both an art and a school on its own. At this juncture, I should say that over 50% of Nigerian politicians never acquired the art and went to the ‘school’ of leadership. These were people who intended to build a profession of their own, but ended up in various political offices as ‘accidental leaders’, and it would be erroneous to expect substantial results from such a process; truly, we can only achieve accidental results.

Let us take a tour on Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and Dr. Goodluck Jonathan based on the yardstick of the qualities of competence, character and capacity. I prefer to use the titles ‘Gen.’ and ‘Dr.’ to qualify their various professions, because there is nothing inherent in these two titles that necessarily suggests political leadership. A professor of zoology will fail in the art of leadership if, outside his professional discipline, he hasn’t acquired the art of leadership, which is a school on its own that requires professionalism. Thus, the citizens in such a system of government will end up being treated like the animals in the zoo of his profession that he was meant to lead. A military General in his own light will end up being a dictator of the people he was meant to lead if he hasn’t acquired the art of leadership. So, a professor and a military general who are also leadership experts would be better off, than a professor and a military general who are not specialized in leadership. On the other hand, a high school graduate who has spent most part of his life acquiring leadership skills without a university degree, should be more suitable than a university professor who has not acquired such skills. Eventually, the task of leading a country transcends academic certificates.

Therefore, on the question of governance, Nigerians have lived with a misguided promise that a university don could be the best leader, without taking into cognizance the intricacies of these qualities, ranging from, character, competence and capacity. Well, Nigerians have come to see that it is possible for a human being not to possess one, two or, all three qualities. I have also studied carefully that citizens who are chanting Buhari’s name as the hope in the next dispensation, will also still chant his name if he were to be either in Labour Party, APGA, PDP, etc. What this means for these citizens is that, they prefer to flow with a man they consider to be a person of character, political party notwithstanding. I carefully listened to one of the officials of the PDP on Channels TV as he responds to their choice of gubernatorial candidate for the state and he said; everyone knows that Enugu State is PDP State. What this implies is that even if Gen. Sani Abacha rises from the dead and becomes its flag bearer, PDP would certainly win. To those of you who belong to this category, I welcome you to kakistocracy and neocolonialism. There is still a third group of people who appear to be indifferent, but are still actually not conclusive on which party, or who to vote for, but they would eventually make their conclusions from developmental strides of each candidate and how well they are convinced to vote for one party over another. From commentaries and other careful studies, we would observe that Gen. Obasanjo as President of Nigeria, had competence, capacity, but had no character. President Jonathan may not be competent and have the capacity, but he may have the character. On the other hand, Gen. Buhari may not have the capacity, but he may have the character and competence. It means that in our evolving democracy, there would still be no perfection, but we can still have the most preferred (even the most preferred candidate should still be criticized for us to have progression in democracy).

Finally, as the pendulum of politics moves and definitely tilts towards one direction, I have an advice for my fellow citizens: let your pendulum tilt towards a man who has refused to become a bourgeois to torment those in the lower class because; Acemoglu and Robinson observed that many countries became rich only when their citizens overthrew the elites who controlled power and created a society where political rights were broadly distributed, with an accountable government that was also responsive to the citizens and enabled them to take advantage of economic possibilities. The reverse has been the case in Egypt and Nigeria that have been ‘ruled’ by narrow elites who organize the masses to harness resources for the advantage of the elites.