THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT SINCE 1999: WHAT A GREAT FAN OF MILITANCY AND INSURGENCY!

By Kay Aderibigbe.

The recent spring of protests that took place in various parts of Nigeria in October this year showed that the Nigerian people, when pushed to the wall, are not that docile as being repeatedly painted by the media and even some NGOs. Lagos state, being the epicenter of the protests witnessed a ghastly massacre of some youths who were legitimately at the forefront of the protest. Despite being bunches of spontaneous groups, the protesters, though, encountered stiff oppositions from both government-hired thugs and law enforcement agents at different locations but they remained resilient, organized, resolute, and focused on their sole purpose of ensuring that Federal government bring those bad eggs in the police to book and also reform the police force. 

Government did not want the protest in the first place, as such, it became utterly expedient to secretly buy off the agitators. When all efforts to bribe the arrowheads of the protests and few notable ones among them proved abortive the government immediately blocked the bank account that was being operated with fiat money for the purpose of financing the protest but the youths forged ahead and prevailed in sourcing finance through digital currency.

From the viewpoint of the civil liberty movement or theories of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance to political authority, one will realize that the youths reasonably conducted themselves. Probably this was due albeit, to some factors such as: the evident 'unity of the elites' despite the regression of Nigeria as a country, absolute poverty that ravaged the land, the continuous defense of the police force and crude deception being perpetrated by its hierarchy; and also, the need to make a statement by the Nigerian youths that religion or ethnicity could be sidelined for the purpose of a collective political struggle. The aforementioned reasons could be said to have motivated the psyche of the protesters.

Initially, police brutality, impunity and the overbearing influence of police officers over the common man was identified as the bases for the protest. Instead of the government to reckon with the yearnings of the people, it was the usual absolute silence that ensued from the government. To add insult to injury, the police authority also remained adamantly deceptive and apparently unwilling to sincerely effect changes despite the hue and cries of the protesters. 

Consequently, the protest got needlessly prolonged and it was eventually hijacked by hoodlums who took to the streets on the premise that  'if government forces could kill armless protesters in cold blood then it sounds justifiable to vandalize police stations and loot private property in order to get even with an almighty Nigerian government that doesn't seem bothered by virtually anything'. I became sad and had to posit that . .."this development on its own is an alarming negative social logic which requires oriental societal discursive differentiation in order to positively drill the minds of our people".

The very crisis that erupted after the Lekki shooting revealed the volatility of our social formation and the precarity of the Nigerian state - as it is evident in the porousness of our security architecture, the depth of poverty, social degradation and above all, the non-identity of the teeming foot soldiers that could be deployed to wreak havoc at any time. It is axiomatic that the unrest which followed the Lekki masacre necessitated the national broadcast reluctantly delivered by Mr President. One of the psychological implications of such a presidential broadcast on the mentality of an average Nigerian is that the government doesn't care about or entertain legitimate political advocacy.

What then is the link between the cruel quell of the October protest and the future of legitimate advocacy or civil society/liberty movement in Nigeria?. How does it relate to insurgency?. Well, a short delve into agitations​ that turned to militancy between 1999 and now should suffice in this regard.

For instance, the Niger/Delta militant groups started as peaceful protesters on the streets of riverine area of Southern Nigeria in the year 2000; but they were molested, imprisoned and killed until they metamorphosed to deadly gang of kidnappers and terror-unleashing armed groups who could snap or cut short the lifeline of the Nigerian economy at any slight provocation. 

The same dreaded Boko Haram group started as an islamist fundamental social group, until their leader Muhammed Yusuf, was killed and his farm destroyed by the government forces in 2009. In fact, the Nigerian government dishonored ICJ's ruling on compensating Yusuf's family and they also failed to disintegrate his followers by engaging them through productive activities.

Groups of disjointed bandits that are terrorising most parts of Northern Nigeria in the recent time were once laymen, farmers and herders. But they got frustrated out of failed secret promises by the political elites who created and used them as instruments of destabilization. As such, they became monsters and chose to wield the arms they got from politicians for kidnapping and reckless killings.

Since 1999,  the Nigerian government has been offering amnesty to militant groups; talking about cease fire; paying ransom; rehabilitating and promoting welfare packages for terrorists. All these were even institutionalized through the establishment of agencies such as the NDDC- Niger Delta Development Commission, NEDC- North East Development Commission and even ministries.

It seems that Nigerian government prefers a situation where the state assumes a 'caretaker role of terrorists' instead of addressing the reason(s) for which the group sprouted in the first place. If not so, how come the government makes use of iron hands against political agitators and eventually turn around to be welfaristic towards the same agitators when they have already become public enemies?.

A critical appraisal of government performance in handling the problem of insurgency since 1999 could lend credence to what has been described by some analysts as 'a systematic encouragement of militancy activities by the government of Nigeria in order that government officials could make more money through huge budgetary allocations for insecurity being a national problem'. A comparison of military rule to the era after 1999 will substantiate this claim. The military, despite its command nature and autocratic model of governance still, to a reasonable extent, listened to civil society groups. Though it wasn't a norm for people to take up arms against the military during its heyday, it is also a truism that the military did not in any way encourage militancy or insurgency, either for political gains or financial rewards. 

We have realized that the Nigerian state in all ramifications is such a typical example of the Marxian instrument of oppression and a kind of overarching agency that was put in place in order to ensure the continuous domination of the society by some notorious selected few. In fact, the Gaetano Mosca's elitist theory is the best description that captures the Nigerian political narrative since the return of democracy in1999 because power has resided with a clique of privileged classified few while majority wallow in abject government-policy-induced penury.

The very act of suffocating the masses by the government/elites through re-engineering of the socio-economic systems (social inequality and oppression) is directly proportional to all public agitations. It then becomes intrinsic that people ask fundamental questions as to why, what, when and how would they fare. When the state forcefully gag and hunt down agitators as it is seen in the case of #ENDSARS promoters hence, the need to seek options for the sustenance of such political struggle; which invariably could be pivotal to the transformation of legitimate advocacy to militancy or insurgency.

An enigmatic dilemma is in the making in Nigeria but we are not taking it seriously. Why did I say so? Religion and ethnicity does not matter to these protesters. They are in fact, acephalous in nature - no leader. They have a common enemy - bad governance. They speak the same language - change of situation. They use the same weapon - technology. They have the same history - things will get better. Their primary aim is not political power. They are not afraid of death because the economy itself is killing their morale daily. They don't take bribes. Above all, they are capable of transmogrifying to an anonymous enemy of a bad government that can carry out asymmetric warfare in the name of the course they believe in.

It will be in the best interest of the country and the political elites to reasonably adjust the blade of the guillotine they normally use in beheading non-state actors and those with dissenting thoughts. If the government of Nigeria did not desist from using force in quelling political advocacy the masses will be forced to speak in the language the government understands. If the government, through blatant intolerance and suppression of fundamental human rights eventually creates monsters out of the volatile hordes of Nigerian youths, then, we should all be ready to witness the birth of a new pariah state. 

 

The truth is, there is no way the Nigerian army can cope with a generation of tech-savvy militants that might likely emerge from the ongoing behavioural class war. Most importantly, we should also bear in mind that every group, either real or imagined, always has some leftists elements!

 

IRRESPONSIBLE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, PREDATORY POLICING SYSTEM AND THE HOPE OF A PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN A CONJECTURED UNITY. (By kay Aderibigbe)

 

IRRESPONSIBLE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, PREDATORY POLICING SYSTEM AND THE HOPE OF A PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN A CONJECTURED UNITY. (By kay Aderibigbe)

 

Nigeria is an example of a federal country on paper, but it does not qualify as a federal entity in reality. This is because Nigeria does in reverse what other federal countries do appropriately. In fact, like I said elsewhere, 'Nigeria cannot be described as a normal country despite that the UN charter sees her as one, but rather, it is a mere political camp or assemblage of some lost citizens'.

My reasons stem from the crisis of leadership deficit that characterizes Nigeria from independence till now. It is not a matter of an unsuitable system of governance or unworkable types of policy narratives, it is all about failures​ of individuals and groups to deliver on certain roles and responsibilities that they were saddled with. This, being the direct result of intentional compromises that pave ways for systemic failure.

It is the same Nigerian type of institutional inertia, lack of motivation to rendering services after being paid with taxpayers' money and the syndrome of 'public service is no man's work' that has made the Nigerian police force to sink into the abyss of unconstitutional behaviour and unprofessionalism such as: commercial public policing system, protection for the VIPs/highest bidders​ only, victimization of the ordinary citizens, lip-service, bribery, kidnapping, extrajudicial killings and other predatory inclinations.

The rot within the Nigerian police hierarchy has become an institutional norm to the extent that nothing else matters; even, their primary role of safeguarding lives and property. But only money and monetary rewards. In fact, if money has to be delivered via an anti-people or anti-police ethics, the Nigerian police, most especially, SARS will do everything to get the money​. 

The unit within the Nigerian police known as SARS (Special Anti-Robbery Squad), which was set up with the intention of managing a team of capable officers that can confront heavily armed criminals, though, in its heyday did exceptionally, but has in the recent times degenerated into a gang of criminals, and as such, become armed robbers of morals, lives and material items. It is against this backdrop that the Nigerian youths in their teeming numbers decided to take to the streets​ in order to protest the disbandment of the dreaded group. 

This same group of SARS officers was recently disbanded by the current incompetent Inspector General of the Nigerian police in February 2020. The same IGP had earlier ordered the decentralization and reformation of the same group in January of 2019, which did not happen​. The typical manifestation of political irresponsibility and predatory policing system was at play when the vice President of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo ordered that SARS be reorganized in August 2018. This was because the same SARS failed to hearken unto the voice of another former IGP Mr. Ibrahim Idris who once directed that the group be overhauled in 2017.

What is it about political pronouncements and failure of public officials, administrators and appointed personnel​ to deliver on their roles? The problem is that there exists a seriously strained relationship between the state and the people on a sociological context. There is also a distrust between the elites who hold power in trust for the people and the public service on a psychological level. Lastly, there is no nexus between the projects of the Nigerian state, designed by the elites, and the yearnings​ and aspirations of the people.

All the aforementioned factors could be traced to the deficiencies that came with the idea of 'Nigeria's forced unity' and the purpose for which the said unity was coagulated. Despite that emergent realities of post-colonial Nigeria does not attach much relevance to the idea of unity but instead, pure work ethics, democracy, education, liberalization and global reasoning. An average Nigerian politician still blindly lays so much emphasis on the idea of unity to the exclusion of a host of other factors that have experimentally propelled other countries towards development.

Let us consider the mechanism of Nigeria's forced unity and whether it is appropriate for the youths or any group to aspire or clamour for changes despite the fact that our rulers always frown at agitations, civil society movements and new ideological suggestions by the masses.

The 1999 constitution in its first chapter, under the General provisions, part 1, Section 2(1) stated categorically that "Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of Federal Republic of Nigeria". This very assertion is a systematic method of bonding the society together. But can we say the bonding is logically reasonable? Has it been profitable to all and sundry? Is the bonding even necessary in the first place?

According to Leo Dare, in a work reproduced by Peter Ekeh (1985), "we might have to admit that the intentions of the earliest constitutional makers were good, but how do we conceptualize the perennial bondage that was created for the unborn generations by those who prioritized unity over development"? To buttress this line of argument, of what use is unity when suspicion, intolerance, in-built tensions, religious and cultural differences are the underlying factors of political participation? What amount of unity could be sufficient to engender a fair legal system, equal rights, balanced economy and a society where one can boast of a utilitarian government? These questions are part of the national debate today; and we have to answer these questions in order to unravel the mystery behind the bondage of the Nigerian state which seems to remain perpetual.

What can make the bondage of a society legitimate? The moral purpose for which a political rule exists is to ensure that authority is limited and it is exercised in accordance with  popular law. A law simply gains popularity when it is relative, definite, flexible, just and derives its value or strength from the people upon whom it is meant to guide. The law that bonds the Nigerian people lacked the characteristics of a popular law - since its authority is not societally inherent and the law is dependent on a body of power-recyclers (elites), as against the people from whom political sovereignty is derived.

Do people have the moral right to go against the law? Revolts against a law could stem from the fact that people don't feel connected, involved, represented or protected by the mentality which informed the law in the first place. If the state or any of its agencies repress, subdue or crush groups who challenge the compulsory unity of Nigeria for instance, then, the said unity is more important to the government than the people. In the same vein, justifiable resistance according to Thomas Hobbes is a public act of a whole people, and the right is safe guarded by the moral condition that those who resist are responsible for seeing that their action is less injurious to the society (general good) than the abuse which they are trying to remove.

Invariably, the preponderance of attendant effects of the forceful bonding of Nigeria is manifested in the 'I don't care attitudes' of those that are in positions​ of authority because the majority of them feel more responsible to their immediate constituencies rather than Nigeria as a whole. The multiplier effect therefore, is seen in the pattern of our 'conjectural unity' - which poses psychological trauma for the people, and also makes governance administratively​ enigmatic for the participatory public.

For instance, the quota system was introduced into the Nigerian system in order to promote ethnic participation, instead of a merit based recruitment system. This idea is a major setback to Nigeria in all ramifications. So many unqualified administrators in the public service are not supposed to be in power but they are there in the name of Nigeria unity. Some police officers who corrupted SARS for instance, do not have basic human relations education but they are drafted into the force through the idea of state of origin and population representation. 

With the magnitude of institutional decadence that pervaded all facets of human endeavours in  this country, the question is, how do we get rid of the rot that is entrenched in our system even, if all the seven points agenda being canvassed by the protesting youths are addressed? If the current political regime affords us the political space to speak well, it is better we clamour for a complete restructuring or we go back to the old regional type of government. But if they (the political elites) choose to muzzle us out, it is better we revolt at once and undertake a political upheaval that will reset the whole​ system and break the country into pieces one and for all.

If the youths dare play into the hands of these old folks that have mastered the Machiavellian arts, or the youths join forces in ruling this shattered country with the political elites pari passu, we shall certainly fail just like them; and they will label us as 'not being a better set of political managers that can do no good'. The reason is, as long as the quota system is the engine upon which the civil service is being run, it is doubtful if this country can know a better day. (Kay Aderibigbe 2020)

MILITARY CONSTITUTIONAL MENTALITY​ AND THE TRAVAILS OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA. (By Kay Aderibigbe)

MILITARY CONSTITUTIONAL MENTALITY​ AND THE TRAVAILS OF DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA.
(By Kay Aderibigbe)

 

One permanent feature of the Nigerian political life is that elites of various ethnic groups are periodically at loggerheads internally as to what should be the modus operandi of their respective local politics. This, on the one hand is in sharp contrast with the politicians' ultimate motive, which is how best they could nationally coagulate diverse interests for the purpose of perpetual rulership on the other hand. Invariably, such incongruent and wishy-washy political mannerism was the harbinger of the incursion of military into Nigerian politics in the first instance; and it was on the pedestal of the same parochial mentality that the military built their own method of governance as well.

 

The same issue of pecuniary interests of the elites was always at play from republic to republic whenever the hue and cry gets louder from Nigerians and the international communities concerning the transfer of political power to an elected government. In fact, the art of negative statecraft by Nigerian politicians shows how astute, maneuvering and whimsical they could be whenever it comes to ensuring the positioning of their interests.

The actual implication of the above assertion is that, the Nigerian society, in a matter of about three decades after independence has reached an epoch, where those that were categorized by the great German Political Philosopher Karl Marx, as in the "class for itself" (elites), are irrevocably committed to strategically dehumanizing and ignoring those that are in the "class in itself" (masses).

 This very idea of society polarization is evident, and ever present in the ideological underpinning and policy structure of the Nigerian state. Consequently, different constitutions adopted by various dispensations from 1979 till date have been nothing but an imposition of the typical will and methodology of the military rulers and their gangs on the Nigerian people.

The 1979 constitution for instance, represented our first real test at democracy. We failed woefully because the politicians had all the powers to do and undo. One other problem about the constitution is the fact that it was arranged in such a way that it will ensure allocations of political offices to reflect ethnic representation by jettisoning the place of merit. This was done without looking​ further into the possible escalation of the by-products of such peculiarity in our law frame.

The federal character principle that was suffused over our law by the CDC - Constitution Draft Committee of 1978 only did a little in terms of addressing the fears of the minority groups, but actually​ brought about a chauvinistic, redundant and dysfunctional public service system. This is just one aspect out of the myriads​ of setbacks the constitution brought upon the country after the second republic.

Nigeria's stillborn third republic would have made use of Babangida's 1989 constitution had it been the June 12, 1993 election was not annulled. But political observers opined that the country would have been plagued by the same regular political crisis because those who fed fat from the purse of the previous government are likely to be affected by the policies of the SDP - Social Democratic Party of Chief MKO Abiola. Unfortunately for Nigeria, the 1989 constitution was a copy and paste​ of the 1979 constitution, except that the Political Bureau of 1987 under Professor Samuel Cookey gave Nigerians the platform to decide on the platter of two party system for the first time.

General Sani Abacha inaugurated the NCC - National Constitutional Conference on Monday, 27th of June 1994, with the aim of arranging another constitutional framework for Nigeria. Twelve months later, the Justice Adolphus Karibi-White led conference submitted two reports: volume I and II to the SMC - Supreme Military Council. Abacha later used Prof. Awalu Yadudu, his legal advisor, to manipulate the reports and produce his own version of the draft constitution because the military dictator believed he would eventually succeed himself, and also perpetuate himself in power no matter what.

It became incumbent upon the Abdulsalam Abubakar's administration to provide a constitution for the return of democracy in 1999 as such, the Abacha's draft constitution was adopted. Some political Analysts argued that "the need to accept the 1994 draft constitution in 1999 was a child of necessity because we had little time to prepare"; while some opined that "any adventure into discussing​ another brand new constitution as at the time of Abacha's death may result in an automatic and indefinite change of hand-over calendar by the military boys who had no genuine intention of handing over in the first place".

Both lines of thoughts were right as at May 29, 1999, but the fact that we refused, failed or continue to be circumstantially incapacitated to have taken any meaningful actions in order to change or rewrite the faulty constitution after twenty one (21) years reveals that "we are an unserious people, being governed by irresponsible rulers who neither have foresights nor the will to save the country from its chaotic existence".

The resultant effects of a haphazardly concocted constitution being managed by mentally lazy set of government officials is what we witness everyday when questions arise on the issue of restructuring, true federalism or resource control. Since we do not have a constitutional means to working​ out these important political questions, hence, it looks as if we are talking about rocket science. The matter has been made worse since 1999 by different sets of Nigerian legislators who intentionally, in the name of the attainment of the wishes of the political elites, periodically ensure that the constitution remains rigid, unclear, contradictory and incapable of being employed for the purpose of addressing any important 'national question'.

The dilemma of the type of constitution we operate is that the federal government will continue to be more powerful, omnipresent and all-encompassing at the detriment of the constituent units; but at the same time will continue to be too busy, weakened and ineffective to attend to all the 68 items it encapsulated in its exclusive legislative list. Invariably, the people will continue to agitate, the society will continue to be fragmented and the relationship between the state and the people will continue to deteriorate.

Nigerian politicians owe us the debt of writing a constitution that can out rightly return this country to a modernized regional structure; break the centripetal yoke of the present system; empower the 'people' to stamp out corrupt practices; delete the federal character mentality; and above all, set a new path through which the beauty in the plurality of our society can be explored by anyone for the purposes of healthy internal socioeconomic development.

 Unless the military type of constitution that was foisted on the people is expunged from the political fabrics​ of the Nigerian​ state, the country will eventually collapse at some point when politicians have exhausted all the legitimate and illegitimate channels through which they exploit the people, and when the people can no longer absorb the excesses of the politicians.

LOOKING AT SOME CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION AND THE POST-CORONAVIRUS WORLD ECONOMY

LOOKING AT SOME CHALLENGES OF GLOBALIZATION AND THE POST-CORONAVIRUS WORLD ECONOMY

By Kay Aderibigbe

By the time we are able to conceptualize terms such as deterritorialization, interconnectedness and social acceleration we shall then appreciate why "the processes of change which underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together and expanding human activities across regions and continents" was referred to as globalization (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and perraton 1999,15).

Human activities, with it concomitant resultant effects, have remained the subject of inquiry in almost every field of study at one time or the other from the time immemorial. This brought us into better thinking, which invariably invigorated globalization (an enhanced borderless and cross-cultural relationships in all facets of human endeavour). In the same vein, human activities became relatively better as a result global relationships. 

Whatever happens in a particular metropolis for instance, could directly or indirectly affect the people of another remote area within a short period of time. Moreso, since both the intended and uncalculated activities of nation-states are not unconnected spartially in the modern time; we can therefore say that man is not only globally homo-politicus but also, homo-economicus, homo-socialis, homo-spiritualis and homo-scientificus.

Undeniably, botherless-world - economically, socially, and in terms of foreign political policies is characterized with complexities in such a simultaneity with domestic irreconcilable realities in the face of compulsory or indispensable interrelationships among nations.

Originally, supra-national institutions (IMF, IBRD, World Bank and etc.) that came into being after 1945 signified the commencement of an era where world actors (in any material manner) could coexist peaceably and flourish, but the merits of such intermeshing via domestic and international ideals are the offshoots of a 'global world' whose rule of play is characterized with acute inequality, secrecy and beclouded by unwritten lawlessness.

Consequent upon this, the world gradually tilts from the post-Cold War unipolar to multi-polarity, which is good in a way, because of the economic influence of Asians - Indian, Koreans, Japan, Iran and China; and also detrimental, if considered from the angles​ of rules of engagement and interest articulations. World leaders could not claim to be nescient of the uniqueness of the kind of problem that would ensue when the platform with which differences​ in propositions could be sorted is somehow fragmented and could also be described to be systematically becoming inertia. The above explanation is what was termed "the gridlock of globalization" by David Held (July 3rd, 2018). 

Recent events in the areas of climate, energy and poverty for instance, have pointed to the ambivalence of major actors in critical times when they tend to legitimize the norm instead of bringing about a 'new normal'. The underlying factor in some of the cases is the immediate material interest which is likely at loggerheads with the thinking faculties of the decision makers.

The connection between the unequal relationship that is identical of the present day world order and the continuous acceptance of the deleterious effects of the lopsided globalized world is the bourgeoning material urge of the major actors and also, the need to protect the position of those ''known polars'', which could mean "time buying" or "time saving" depending on what is at stake.

Trying to understand the challenges of globalization from this perspective will reveal that, even, the extension of domestic liberal democratic tenets to the international economic system as espoused by some scholars cannot do much because of three reason: one, sovereignty is pure in relation to states, two, power is relative and states are relatively possessive of the idea of power, and lastly, globalization is not an end in itself but rather, a means to an end.

Since sovereignty, power and globalization are interwoven to the extent that one or two of the three must be jealousy guided in order to attain another one, it then becomes self-evident that actors in the international milieu simply adopt method(s) that must have been internally considered appropriate for their respective states before they venture into any agreement. This is the main reason there will always exist challenges of all sorts irrespective of the style the international economic system adopts under the present arrangement, whether in relation to trades or services.

Globalization is not only restricted to trade in commodities as many have put it. We also have services, ideas and virtual information, all these are reliant on people as the determinant factor. Even the trade in focus is amazingly too voluminous, as such, making supply chains indispensable, which is one of the risks staring us in the face. Tourism as a type of service for instance, has the risk of paralysing the institution of arts in times such as "the great lockdown" as this when tourists cannot leave their home countries or go about. Information as a brand of product from any supplier could also be useless when the consumers are incapacitated because of a pandemic like coronavirus. These are some of the reason Ian Golding, a professor of globalization at Oxford University, said "risks have been allowed to fester, they are the underbelly of globalization" (The butterfly Defects, How Globalization Creates Systematic Risks And What To Do About It, 2014).

How then does globalization affects the present world economy and what should we expect after coronavirus must have subsided??

The type of globalization that is in vogue is heavily reliant on unrestricted and unmeasured interconnectedness. For me, what actually makes globalization dangerous to the various domestic economies of the world is the volume, extent, rate, speed, dependency and the ease with which so many life-involving activities are carried out at profit-making intentions. 

It is axiomatic that the world is far more expanded and connected ideologically, in terms of trade, than what we can see physically on the maps. One thing that such issue has brought to bear is the fact that those who supply more of what is needed around the world simply become more relevant and at the same time more dangerous whether we accord such status to them or not. According to Prof. Beata Javorcik, the chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, for instance, he said, "when we look back at 2003, at the SARS epidemic, China accounted for 4% of the global outputs, now China accounts for four times as much, 16%. So that means that whatever is happening to China affects the world to a much larger extent". (BBC Business Report, "Will Coronavirus Reverse Globalization? April 2, 2020).

The world has come to a point where inflation, unemployment, scarcity, diseases, fashion, cultures, riots and all sorts of physical and virtual elements could be imported or exported from one country to another in the name of globalization. This explains why Covid-19 is more rapacious than Covid-2 of 2003. In fact, if actors in the international environment do not identify and treat with utmost seriousness​, the menace of uncontrolled dependency that we have sunk into as a global village, the next disaster that will happen to one or more of the major players in the international economic system is likely going to have a more devastating effect on us all than the credit crunch of 2008 and that of Covid-19 put together.

As it stands now, economies have started nose-diving into recession. The U.S, Japan, South-Korea, India, Germany and France to mention a few have already started coming up with bailouts that could be deployed to cushion the effects of drops in their expected economic growths. Last year, IMF forecasted 3.3% growth of the world economy but a total reversal is what has happened just in the first quarter of the year. CNN even puts it as 180° upturn of the world economic forecast. 'The Fund' is preparing for a 5.9% decline of the world economy, while the EU economy is expected to shrink by 7.5% at the end if the year.

In the same vein, unemployment in the USA is expected to jump to 10.4% while economic growth may shrink by 5.3%, 6.2%, 6.5%, 7.2%, 8% and 9.1% in Japan, Canada, U.K, Germany, Spain and Italy respectively (IMF Quarterly Economic Report, March, 2020). 

The implications of the percentage shrink to the British economy for instance is that, the bank of England will be selling bonds worth £200b to the state. Tax relief of about £30b will be granted. There will be an interest-free loans for a period of 12 months for medium scale businesses and the state shall step in to settle almost 6 million workers up to 90 days, in wages and salaries after a subsidy of £100b must have been injected into the economy. (British Treasury Quarterly Reports, 2020).

How many countries could boast of the economic capacity to draw up $6 trillion economic bailout fund like the USA? The response by the British government or the EU's €500 billion economic package is unattainable for the less-developed areas such Africa, Pacific and the Latin America. What this connotes is that the unequal economic features of the world system that was normalized by the old order is being made worse by the current pandemic and will definitely remain pronounced during the post-covid-19 era.

Another important problem is the fact that those developed economies that served as the sub-structure or originator of the major world supplies are even 'systematically stratified' among themselves or should we say they consciously or unconsciously divided the bulk of world production within themselves by apportioning who produced what, when, how and in what quantity?

The above assertion remains sacrosanct to the understanding of the acute shortage of medical supplies for instance, during the peak period of the pandemic. This is because it looked as if certain items could not be sufficiently sourced from some places unless the order comes from China.

Due to the adverse effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on various economies around the world, we have come to realize that there is a great imbalance in the current bases of world production, e.g., China alone supplied almost 70% of medical materials and intermediate health equipment. That is in fact, something to worry about. We can also, vividly point out new positive trends in the sourcing of local raw materials, the idea of work from home, tasking of the local financial markets, and as well as the adjustments of nation-state budgetary allocations to be in tandem with the obtainable realities. The lessons learnt from the above is that major players in international trade should rely less on what is happening elsewhere in order to determine what happens to them domestically.

The applicability of those new values or lessons for instance, can be useful, in that, economies who are mostly reliant on loans could actually plan (if they are indeed sincere and serious with development and their people) without buying those economy-wrecking loans. Apparently, it is bitter to digest, but China as a major supplier of essential produce for example, made a lot of profit during the pandemic while the rest of the world is still languishing in the trauma of Covid-19. The same China is a major creditor country while those indebted to her will still have to repay the loans with interests despite the great loss they all suffered as a result of certain catastrophe caused by the same China.

Another lesson is that the developed nations such USA, Germany, UK and etc, who have reached the high age of mass consumption according to W.W Rostow's stages of development, should formulate policies that can help promote their economies without moving their production bases from their domestic terrain. If we like we can it re-shoring or international capital plough-back. What actually matters is the need to strategize, by reducing to the barest minimum, the risk of globalization when orchestrating how to maximize returns/profits alongside reducing the cost of production.

The reality is that, one of the smoothest routes to the current imbalance in the structure of global production as it played out in the first quarter of 2020 was caused by the profiteering mentality of some capitalists, who in their own capacity, failed to assiduously gaze through the socio-economic whirpool or ambitions of the host communities that presented them with the guarantee of profit by not considering the warranty of unforeseen circumstances e.g natural disaster, war, plague and pandemic such as Covid-19.

As a matter of fact, many issues need to be raised and addressed in order that the world might not toe the path of the pre-second World War in the name of globalization. The salient issues revolve around five cardinal points: One, the type and mannerism of leadership that is needed at the global scene; two, the idea of regulation and moderation of activities; three, the question of inequality and poverty of the third world; four, the issue of ambition and power tussle which is capable of throwing the whole world into chaos such as the case of Covid-19 and what to do if such arises, and lastly, the review of some major pre-Covid-19 economic agreements, which if left alone could undermine whatever is being aimed at after working assiduously on the first four issues I highlighted above.

In conclusion, whether the pandemic remains with us longer than expected or not, many jobs will still be lost and some people will go on furloughs because many companies are already affected. Governments will draw up contractionary budgetary arrangements. Investors, will as a matter of national security or necessity, re-shore and put larger parts of their money within reach domestically. Individuals will change some of their consumption patterns. In all, the same global system that brought about enormous profits, development and pandemic will be indirectly re-shaped; but it is better such review comes into conceptualization via a global platform that is devoid of lawlessness and chaos.

THE VEROCIOUSNESS OF CORONAVIRUS: EXPOSING THE DEFICIENCIES OF CAPITALISM AND THE INEVITABILITY OF DIALECTIC MATERIALISM

THE VEROCIOUSNESS OF CORONAVIRUS: EXPOSING THE DEFICIENCIES OF CAPITALISM AND THE INEVITABILITY OF DIALECTIC MATERIALISM. 

(By Kay Aderibigbe)

Various socio-economic challenges have confronted different epochs in history; e.g, the First World War 1914 - 1918, the Spanish flu 1918, the great depression of 1930s, the Second World War 1939 - 1945, the recent Financial crisis of 2008 to mention a few. Some happened to invigorate the era while some took place to debilitate and invariably transform the order of the day to something else entirely. That is why we cannot discuss history without materialism or recoursing to economic order. In the same way, we cannot talk about pandemics without juxtaposing it with the economic values of the system that is in vogue at the time.

Coronavirus is both socioeconomically and politically adhesive in the sense that one cannot isolate the virus without highlighting the economic pros and cons of the international order of the day (globalization). It is apparent that​ the battle against Covid-19 in the last two months is unfavourable to many nations; and it is likely to continue to be so, at least, for the time being, according to experts.

The virus (Chinese virus), which emanated in Wuhan, China, has infiltrated over 190 countries and the most badly hit are the capitalist societies of the global North. Why did the virus spread uncontrollably in the western world like wild fire? Why so many deaths? What happened to WHO? The big pharmas? What of the secret bio medicines of America and Europe? Where are the higher institutions of leanings of this world, the great laboratories and the Doctors without borders?

Questions as seen above may not be lent to straight-jacket answers because Coronavirus, in some quarters has been tagged to be a function of trade war. The effervescence of Coronavirus resonates across the  globe while majority of the capitalist societies had gone asleep in their comfort zones due to the positive terms of trade and favourable balance of payment they enjoyed over time. Locally, these capitalist countries of the West had liberalized virtually all facets of life to the extent that the state cannot unilaterally act in defense of the populace unless via bail outs, and it could only happen in a case of emergency as this. (Andre Gunder Frank, 1992, p.64)

For instance, the big pharmaceutical companies do not deem some health situations so exigent unless it can serve their own profiteering urge. In order to disguise from being profit-driven, many of these research undertakings do more of body edifications and artificial medicology for ambition sake. In most cases, they plough back some of their profits into promotional activities such as pageantry and sports while they neglect the real life-threatening issues. (Noam Chumsky, 2020).

I will blame capitalism for the mess brought upon humanity by Coronavirus because China told WHO precisely, on the 31st of December 2019, that an untraceable disease with features of pneumonia was in town. A week later, it was said to be Coronavirus by the Chinese scientists. These same people made us understood SARS in 2005. If these people (Chinese), are ahead because they knew something that the rest of the world do not know, how come the capitalist nations of the West cannot boast of a near-remedy to the 'supposed modification of the already-know disease (SARS), which can be likened to Covid 19'?, After all, Coronavirus in its original form is not new to humans?

Why is the WHO in a state of higgledy-piggledy over the issue of ordinary face masks? The mannerism of WHO is symptomatic of an institution that is at variance with the realities of the day; unprepared for pandemic and incapable to nip in the bud a large scale health crisis of this nature. The body languages of WHO, US government, EU, UK and the rest of the West when Covid 19 broke out showed vividly that they have at their disposal, a relatively​ lesser information on how to deal with it head on if the need arises. Yet they slumbered in their follies, hoping that the Chinese government cannot operate on such a level in the name of whatever might be their reason(s) probably in retaliation against trade barriers or sanctions.

The resultant effects of the sheer neglect of predictive scientific preparedness on the path of the capitalist nations is what can now be seen in a long queue of national carriers waiting for China to load them up with PPE (personal protective equipment), as well as ventilators and technical tips on the genetic compositions of the novel Coronavirus. The crisis has even taken a new turn of late in that, nations that are badly hit with the virus are outsmarting one another through outbidding and strategically hijacking of cargoes. All these mess happen in the west while the originator of the deadly virus is on another fantastic step of building the 6G network. What a diversionary motive!

This is how worst it could get when a political ideology relaxes and becomes too comfortable with its own features and achievements while the world undergoes drastic changes. Life within the west will change after this pandemic, no doubt. Political shakes will erupt and the dialectism will be critical because the base of what is wrong internationally is simply the material existence of man in relation to its environments, and how to sustain such through a position, which must have been rationally chosen, to be tenaciously adhere to (Agbaje EBA, 2009).

Right in the midst of the survival battle against the Coronavirus comes the conspiracy theory of G5 and its effects being substituted for Covid 19. For the sake of clarity therefore, Coronavirus, (a distinct fabrication of biological nature) is a weapon of trade war between the Western capitalist nations and the Chinese communist state, likewise​ the controversies surrounding the concept of  G5. What is 5G? This means the fifth generation of wireless communication technologies supporting cellular data networks. Its essence is for the transmission of greater quantum of energy per time. The millimeter wave frequencies of 5G are above 24 GHz reaching up to 72 GHz. (Wikipedia). The radiation effects of this band could be injurious to human beings but cannot kill recklessly because our dear sunlight is far more powerful in terms of UV radiation and we are still alive and healthy.

There is no way the installation of 5G can kill as many people the same way Coronavirus has been killing people in the last three months. Any campaign against 5G is basically undertaken by the misinformed religious people mostly Christians, who doesn't want to be taken unaware by the biblical Antichrist. Secondly, the hue and cry could be sponsored by the capitalists, just to discredit China, who launched 5G through Huawei. This perspective could be slightly valid because the economic advantages of 5G is so sweet that any entity that is in charge of such wireless technology has an edge in terms of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, bio medicines, aerospace, satellite communications, autonomous vehicles and a host of other definitional developmental issues of the 21st century.

This very gap is what the neoliberal world must try to, and it is sure they will definitely try to bridge it. Whereas, some people had jumped the gun by assuming a religious interpretation of dialectic materialism in order to find a correlation between pure science and the revelation of a forecasted future. There is nothing bad for the end-time watchers to be vigilant, but the issue at hand will lead to more socioeconomic struggles between the West and the Chinese communist government in the nearest possible future because the Western capitalist bloc cannot afford to: (i) look up to China for technological facilitation/approval (ii) allow only China to control the capital flight accruable from 5G (iii) leave the security architecture of the world in the custody of China because it is dangerous.

In conclusion, various moves by the West to meet up with their communist counterpart after the battle against Coronavirus, which is in itself exhausting, will either make or mar the fate of capitalism; because the people upon whom the structure is being operated must have been traumatized to the extent that they will boldly ask some fundamental questions regarding the potency of neoliberal capitalism. Invariably, we await the transformation of noeliberal tenets to be more rigid, efficacious and daring; or become quite flexible that it will eventually be absorbed by a new political ideology.

STATEHOOD AND THE CRISIS OF SOCIAL CONTRACT IN NIGERIA: A CASE OF AMOTEKUN. By Kay Aderibigbe.

STATEHOOD AND THE CRISIS OF SOCIAL CONTRACT IN NIGERIA: A CASE OF AMOTEKUN.

By Kay Aderibigbe.

 

The Nigerian state, since inception in 1960, has been grappling with the contents, scope and definitions of certain do's and don'ts that revolve around who gets what, when and how. Consequently, different ideologies have continuously been infused into the federal paraphernalia agreed upon at the London constitutional conference of 1953. But the most problematic characterization of Nigeria's social contract idea is that the constitution keeps tilting towards centripetalism, instead of maintaining its initial centrifugal mannerisms that can help the federating units grow and blossom at their respective pace.

Due to numerous reasons, and obviously, the overloading of the exclusive legislative list (68 items), the federal government has failed considerably in discharging its primary duties of securing lives and property as enshrined in Sec 14 of the 1999 constitution. This very act of incapacitation on the path of federal government has become quite acute, most especially in the last ten years; thereby, prompting the six governors from Western Nigeria to come together, after months of deliberations, and launch what has been described as a supplementary effort to the conventional national security outfit with the code name 'Amotekun'.

Amotekun as a security ideology has been bitterly criticized and declared illegal by the federal government through the office of Attorney General of the Federation Mr Abubakar Malami. The reason for such condemnation according to the AGF stems from the fact that the outfit runs contrary to constitutional provisions in the second schedule, under items 17 and 45 of the 1999 constitution. Whereas, there is also a widely believed insinuation that a staid suspicion exists in the core North, whose indigenes dominate the present-day federal government, on the modus operandi of Amotekun.

The emerging reactions from different quarters concerning why the federal government made a move to outlaw Amotekun have polarized the country into there groups. One, the group of Western Nigerians who believe there is an urgent need to do more in terms of securing the West and their sympathizers who believe in restructuring. Two, the group of federal government who condemned Amotekun on the ground of illegality and those core Northerners who believe that Amotekun is embedded with sinister objectives. Three, the group of middle-range rational thinkers who are neither persuaded nor dissuaded by ethnic sentiments but by facts, fairness, realities and pragmatism.

All the groups have spoken as audibly as possible but I want to use this piece to echo the voice of the last group to the best of my ability. An empirical analysis of the concept of Amotekun will reveal some sound judgments about its making; the inherent advantages and its​ intrinsic flaws. Likewise we shall be able to juxtapose the essence of Amotekun with the functions of conventional security apparatus of the state and how it does not in the real sense undermine or amount to duplicity as espoused by some.

To start with, one should ask if Amotekun was a well-thought-out idea? We could say yes because the Western Nigeria is in dire need of an appropriate security after years of kidnappings, killings and robberies in daylights when people go about their normal businesses. We could as well say no because there is more to security than just the willingness to provide security. Economic factor, such as, funding (remunerations​ and maintenance), political factors such as communal relations, and psychological factors such as the scope of operations, training/orientation, and succession plan must be considered in setting up a security outfit of such large scale.

In the case of Amotekun, we are talking about a security outfit that consisted of a large number of uneducated and untrained personnel, but who are versatile in policing the terrain earmarked for its operations. It is not a bad idea to bring up such an arrangement in the face of necessity but how can we be so sure that this is not another OPC, or bandits in the making? We should be careful not to breed a Leviathan we may not be able to control. From the angle of viability therefore​, in one word, since the Nigerian state is broke and the federating units are also poor, the progenitors of this noble idea should work more on the convocation of investment plans that can: foot the bill of a training institute for Amotekun; take care of its welfare; monitor its operations; candidly checkmate its excesses and sanction any erring member(s). Unless this is done, the same Amotekun we are happy about today will likely metamorphose into the highly detested OPC, the Nigerian police and a host of other security agencies that have become public nuisance to the Nigerian society.

The question of legality raised by the federal government, and the insistence of the governors of Western Nigeria to forge ahead with Amotekun​ has transmogrified into a political pregnancy which is capable of bringing forth anything; but only time can tell. Can one say the establishment of Amotekun is unconstitutional? We can say yes because the creation of such an outfit is under the exclusive competence of the federal government according to the 1999 constitution. While we can also say no because there are other security outfits such as Hisbah police in the North West and Civilian-JTF in the North East, whose establishment cannot be traced to the constitution but are still performing security functions under this same all laws-knowing federal government.

Though the existence of other security outfits in the North does not legitimize Amotekun in the real sense while a critical and philosophical appraisal of the constitution will find loopholes in our conventions and as such, negates the claims of the federal government. Let's take for instance, Lagos State laws forbids anyone from erecting street gates. But the activities of hoodlums and miscreants made it necessary for people to clamour for street gates all over the places and it has become a norm. Another example is a case where the federal government through the Office of Inspector General of Police licensed private security outfits to carry arms and function as defenders of the state despite the fact that the constitution does not expressly permit such activities.

As far as the case of Amotekun is concerned the question of legality shouldn't be the bone of contention. After all, the country is under-policed while the business of crime strives effortlessly. Since Sec 11(2) of our constitution encourages the government to ensure the peace, orderliness and good governance of its people, I believe the federal government should ask questions about the viability, operational scope and the political dimensions of this outfit called Amotekun​. For instance, if a guarantee pact can be signed that the outfit will not be manipulated. This is because Amotekun is a supplementary program to the conventional policing system. Instead of rivaling or frustrating the endeavour, the federal government should support the outfit with a caveat or absolve Amotekun into the conventional police in order to provide succor to the people of the West. This way, the federal government will receive praise for restoring the strained relationship between the people and a government that has been described as dormant since 2015.

In conclusion, the very hue and cry about Amotekun should be politically managed because we do not want to witness a face-off between Western Nigeria and the federal government. The case of seizure of Lagos State allocations for 14 months by Obasanjo's government in 2014 for instance, though illegal, should remind one of how a dictator in a civilian garb could act irrespective of what a competent court says.