By Jaye Gaskia
Perhaps it is
appropriate and quite significant that as we set about embarking on the next
100 years [century] of Nationhood, we want to start with a National Dialogue.
If the intention and actual practice is to enable us discuss and reach a
consensus on the trajectory we want to travel over the next century, then this National
Dialogue, in this year of the centenary of the amalgamation of Nigeria, would
have made or would have had the potential to make a significant and epochal
difference to our lives as a people and as a nation. On the other hand, if the
intention, purpose and actual practice is to orchestrate a mere deception of
the people, with a view to distract our attention from the serious issues that
are fundamentally impacting our well being and existence; then it would have
been an unfortunate and quite expensive waste of time.
Back to the
National dialogue, and the important and urgent necessity for national
discussion and national discourse. Let us first of all start by exposing the
myth that is being bandied about with respect to national discourse, to the
extent that it being consciously pushed that Nigeria has never been discussed.
This is a historical fallacy, an consciously fabricated untruth, calculated to
pull the wool over our unsuspecting eyes.
At every
significant stage in the evolution of our country, in the evolution of the
entities that now constitute Nigeria, long before contact with and conquest by
Europe; at every decisive stage, Nigeria has been discussed. The decision to
proclaim the Northern and Southern Protectorates was discussed by the colonial
authorities before the proclamations; likewise the decision to amalgamate the
two protectorates into a single colony of Nigeria on January 1st 1914.
And ever since the
amalgamation, all through the various constitutional conferences leading up to
independence, including the consensus on the date for independence; Nigeria was
discussed and debated. And this time it was not only the colonial authorities
that were engaged in the discussions; it was the colonial authorities and some
Nigerians, representatives of the emergent ruling elite class who were actively
engaged in these series of National Dialogues which went by the appellation of
constitutional conferences. The outcome of each of these constitutional
conferences were new constitutions, leading up to the independence
constitution.
Likewise since
flag dependence, at every decisive turning point in our history, Nigeria has
been discussed; when we were going to make the transition to a republic Nigeria
was discussed and the 1963 constitution was the outcome; on the eve of the
civil war, Nigeria was discussed at Aburi, and in several conferences called to
prevent the slide to war; and almost all military regimes have convened
constituent assemblies to write new constitutions for successive republics.
What is more under the IBB dictatorship there was the National Political Debate
process, just as a National Political Dialogue was convened under the civilian
presidency of OBJ.
So the problem
really has not been the absence of national dialogues, or national platforms to
debate Nigeria; the problem has instead largely been that of the class of
people producing the delegates to the conferences and dialogue processes, as
well as the agenda of discussion at those conferences. The Nigerian ruling
political elite have always discussed Nigeria and convened platforms to discuss
the country; if the outcomes have been negative and have not significantly
improved the lives and well being of ordinary citizens and our country as a
nation; if the outcomes have been injurious rather than enhancing to the
moulding of a common Nigerian Nationhood and citizenship; then it is not
because national dialogues have not been held, it is because these dialogues
have been convened and constituted by delegates from the gluttonous, light
fingered, self centred, thieving , inept and treasury looting ruling class.
The series of
national conferences and dialogues have failed to transform our lives,
facilitate the building of a modern nation state with common patriotic
citizenship, simply because they have been organised by and for a pillaging
ruling class whose only agenda at every such opportunity has been exclusively
around discussing how to better share the national cake amongst themselves; and
yes all in our names; Our grief for these treasury looters has always been a
call to Loot!
The point being
made here is very simple, yet it is the point that this inept ruling class
wants concealed. The point is that Nigeria has been discussed, and even
over-discussed by its incompetent and greedy ruling elite class, since the
amalgamation of 1914; and the outcome has always been the same. They have each
time prioritised their selfish material interests over our collective national
interests; prioritised their individual greed over our collective basic needs;
and prioritised their kleptomania over provisioning our basic welfare needs.
The historical truth, because it is a fact, is that we cannot continue to apply
the same remedies that have historically failed to our pressing problems and
somehow hope to have fundamentally different outcomes.
So going forward
how should we proceed? What might we do differently? If the promised National
Dialogue in the year of the centenary of amalgamation, and on the eve of
decisive general election is going to be any different from the talk-shops of
the corrupt ruling elite of the past; if this dialogue process is going to
enable us lay the foundation for the next 100 years; then it is up to us take
over the National Dialogue process space, to invade that space, and actively
contest to dominate it.
For this dialogue
to be able to turn out to be ennobling for our people, enabling for our nation;
then we must seek to do things differently. And in seeking to do things
differently we must be ready to battle the various constellation of powers of
the ruling class to a standstill. We must be ready to wage a long battle, we
must be ready to confront our fears, and challenge the authority of the
treasury looting ruling class and all its factions and fractions.
We must insist
that mode of representation will be different; that this mode will be in our
own interest; we must insist on changing the historic composition of the
national dialogue, by ensuring that the representatives of the subordinate and
exploited classes; the representatives of the impoverished and marginalised
segments of our society are not only delegates to the conference, but that
since their constituency is the majority of the population, they should also
form the majority of delegates.
We must insist
that the issues to be discussed are about our wellbeing and not about sharing
the national cake; we must insist that the priority for us is eradicating
poverty, creating gainful employment and productive jobs; combating
homelessness and meeting the housing and infrastructural deficits in the
shortest possible time.
We must insist
that delegates must be mandated representatives of clearly identified social
constituencies; that the National dialogue must be a real national dialogue in
the sense that delegates come to the conference with mandates, and must always
go back to their constituents to give feedback, and in particular to change or
modify their mandates. In this way the whole of the nation would be
participants in the national dialogue process. We do not want delegates who
will claim to be representing us, but who can change their minds and enter into
binding agreements on our behalf without consulting with us and renewing their
mandates.
Finally we must
insist that the outcome of the national dialogue can only be ratified by a
referendum of all eligible voters.
If we do not
ensure that the national dialogue is fundamentally differentiated from the
previous ones by organising it in the ways proposed above; then all we would
have will be a repeat of the pervious dialogue processes, partially fulfilling
the aspirations of segments of the ruling class, and totally failing to meet
the aspirations of impoverished ordinary citizens and the subordinate classes.
The way and manner
we conduct and organise the national dialogue in 2014, the outcomes of these
dialogue and the decisions we make in 2014 will go a very long way in
historically shaping the life of our nation and the well being of our citizens
over the next 100 years; in much the same way that the decisions made in the
dialogues which led to the amalgamation of 1914, and the flag independence of
1960 have helped to shape our historical evolution over the last 100 years.
This year will be
decisive for us in historical terms, not because of the symbolism of the
centenary, but because of the decisions that we will make in the unfolding
processes in the course of this year - through the national dialogue and
through the general elections.
The only way we
can ensure our mass intrusion unto the historical stage, the only way we can
ensure that we Occupy the public political space and thus become the dominant
force in the national conference process, and the decisive force in the general
elections, is to organise and mobilise ourselves, build alliances and networks,
take concrete street and work place action, and prepare for the long drawn
process. We must be prepared to once again Occupy Nigeria, in the spirit of the
January Uprising, in order to force our agenda unto the political stage; and
ensure our grand and mass entrance into and dominance of the national dialogue
platform and process.
If the next 100
years is to be fundamentally different from the last 100 years, if it is to be
in our interest and not in the interest of our thieving ruling class, then we
must be prepared to take collective, overt class action. This is our historic
opportunity to Organise and Mobilise to Take Back Nigeria.
(Follow me on Twitter: @jayegaskia & @[DPSR]protesttopower;
Interact with me on FaceBook: Jaye Gaskia & Take Back Nigeria).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please restrict your comment to the subject matter.