VOICE OF DISSONANCE AND THE NIGERIAN POLITY (1999-2016)

To keep Nigeria as one is a must, how had Nigeria been kept as one? How and what method had/has been used to keep Nigeria as one? Why are Nigerians living as sisters in discord since her existence? What can we do to re-write the ugly story that had taken and is still taking place aiming at keeping Nigeria one at all cost?

Answers to these questions above are multi-facets depending one’s focusing angle.  But to me, the greatest disservice done to Nigeria has always been from those who want to keep her one at all cost. Those that propounded the above aphorism rather from those who want her to be Balkanized! ‘At all cost’ to them means to silence any dissenting voice that questions the ‘fraudulent unity’ in diversity of the (gi)ant of Africa, called Nigeria; no matter where the voice is coming from. 

These people are the political elite. They are ‘united’ in diversity to perpetuating the fraudulent Nigerian unity. They called themselves ‘patriots’ and are ready to clamp down on any dissenting voice from any angle of the nation. They own the media house and had made their wealth through the fraudulent Nigerian structure, therefore they have turned Nigeria as their estate meant to be exploited and can ‘kill’ and annihilate to keep the ‘must’ in the Nigerian unity.

Because of the questionable structure of Nigeria, any power shift from one region to another always results in ethno-religious voice of dissonance from her independence to the present day. However, from 1999 to the present, the voice of dissonance that these elites thought the civil war had silenced kept on rearing its ugly head to impede the development of Nigeria. 

The power shift from North in 1999 to South created ‘Sharia’ crisis in the North as its voice of dissonance. The idea was to frustrate a southern president. Religion was used as a tool of this dissonance. Despite OBJ being a southerner, within the South-South geopolitical zone, another voice dissonance ranging from civil agitation of resource control to militancy which gave birth to 13% derivation was also in vogue. To assuage the North and South-South, OBJ brought a Northerner and a Niger-Delta as President and Vice to assuage the feelings of these voices.

However, death struck and jeopardized that marriage of convenience. The dissenting voice via Kanuri nationalism (Karnem-Bornu Empire) resurrected in the North East using religion also as its tool but now much more violent than the former one.  Thunder, fire and brimstone were words of this voice and this quaked the ‘united’ elite interest of the ‘patriots.’ They gathered together and shifted power back to the north so as to guarantee the wealth generation of their estate.

However, they did not apply OBJ methodology. While the North Eastern dissenting voice was going down, the Eastern counterpart catches fire and rains fire and brimstone on the oil facilities. From these evidences, one could infer that power shift from North to South or vice versa is not the problem of Nigeria.

 Next time, we will discuss the disservice done to Nigeria by the “must unity group”

Ndeewonu!

Security Approach to Peace vs Peace Approach to Security: An Evaluation of OBJ/PMB vs Yaradua/GEJ Administration of Peace in Niger-Delta

Security approach to peace is a belief that the moment one floods security personnel in a volatile region, there will be peace in that region. In the process, the security personnel use the available maximum force to supress anything whatsoever that breaches the peace of that region. In the suppression of what is considered abnormal, those who are actually not involved in the ‘crime’ might end up being the casualties. On the other hand, peace approach to security is a belief that the moment peace is given at whatsoever cost; it will lead to security of a volatile region. Those that believe in this ideology always dialogue with the volatile group/ region and compromise certain things for peace to reign! They look at the cause of the agitation and try to soothe or solve it.

Nigerians have witnessed these two approaches in securing peace in the Niger-Delta. The first approach is always the ways of the ‘Khaki turned Agbada’ presidents while the second approach is in tandem with Civilian presidents who lacked the military mentality. OBJ bomb Odi Town and militarised the Niger Delta. The militants as they are being referred to made sure that the barrels of oil pumped daily reduced geometrically. As the soldiers were busy fighting and seeking the militants, the militants were busy bombing the pipelines to the point that major oil companies like Shell partially pulled out from oil exploration in Nigeria.

The end of OBJ brought Yaradua, a civilian, lacking the military intelligence. He tried the second approach and came in with a peaceful dialogue called ‘Amnesty!’ In a short while, this peaceful approach brought security back to that volatile region and the presidency was able to explore crude for a period of eight years. Pax Niger-Delta?  Yes? But there were pockets of violence! But not enough to ground oil exploration.  They managed to deliver gas to gas plants, to generate up to 6 thousand megawatts of electricity. 

However, another ‘khaki turned civilian’ came to power. The military mentality came over again. The idea of conceding certain things to have peace which leads to security is touted as being ‘weak!’ The might of federal republic comes to play again.  The compromised reached were cancelled. They were declared ‘wanted’ by the mighty federal power. When they flouted these orders, their place was flooded with the military personnel to search and arrest them. They moved back to the status quo and power drops, the barrels of crude drops and keeps on dropping still they have not seen them! Are they invincible? 

Which of these styles do you think can help manage peace in Niger-Delta?