|
Talking About The Nigerian Revolution By Kola Ibrahim For some months now, a debate started by an intellectual section of the bourgeois intellectuals, has been raging about the possibility and necessity of a revolution in Nigeria that will change the political state of the country. This call was again echoed by some section of the opposition. The human right community has also joined the campaign for a Nigerian revolution. But it is one thing to argue for a revolution, it is another to do so with sincerity and clear-cur definition about what a revolution means taking into cognisance the political-economic interest of the people raising such issue. The most vital aspect is the role of the labour movement and the level of the consciousness of the labour leadership. The major basis for the call for revolution by a section of the bourgeois class is the concentration of power in the hands of tiny layer of the most conservative section of the capitalist class within the framework of the limited capitalist democracy. The emergence of civil rule in Nigeria has given many capitalist politicians hope of assessing political power through power rotation as witnessed in many advanced and semi–advanced democracies where two (or three party) system operates. Unfortunately, the most conservative section of the ruling class represented by the ruling PDP was able to hold on to power despite its unpopularity for more than eight years. The so-called opposition (the other section of the capitalist ruling class) after losing all hope in all the state structures the electoral system, judiciary, etc, are looking for an opportunity to ride on the crest of mass anger to power. Firstly, this other section of the ruling class represented by the AD and the ANPP (formerly APP) which held some regional powers at the beginning of this civilian experiment provided a basis for the popularity of the ruling party. The opposition parties which claimed to be progressive, despite the widespread support for their emergence, disappointed the poor masses which brought them to power. In fact most of these opposition parties initiated some of the anti-poor neo-liberal policies later massively implemented by the central ruling government vis-a-vis retrenchment, privatization, attack on workers' union, commercialization, among other neo-liberal policies that deprive thousands of working people, basic living standards. Take for instance in the south-west, most of the state governments that claimed to be social democrats (Awoists) introduced diametrically opposite of what they claim to represent. Rather than create jobs, tens of thousands were axed in Osun, Oyo, Ogun and Lagos among others. Social infrastructures were at their lowest ebb while massive social and industrial investments witnessed during the '60s and '80s in the west were non-existent (even the remaining legacies like Oodua Investment were sapped up and mismanaged). In Osun state under Bisi Akande (now AC National Chairman) over ten thousand jobs were axed with a whole working family (father, mother, and even children) retrenched. Labour movement was attacked. Yet, there is no serious investment in social infrastructures or the economy as education, health etc. were in their worst state while industrial investment were left in the hands of non-existent private sector. In Lagos State under Bola Tinubu, struggles for improved wages and against retrenchment of thousands of workers led to the death of a vibrant worker and retrenchment of labour leaders including Ayodele Akele. In Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo and Oyo States, the same policies were introduced and implemented. These policy and ideological changes of the so-called Awoists led to their complete rejection by the masses except in Lagos State (being an economic centre) where general hatred for the Obasanjo/PDP central government overshadowed the anti-poor policies of the AD government, coupled with unprecedented use of monetary inducement and political patronage by the Bola Tinubu government (which were repeated in the 2007 elections). It is vital to state that the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the so-called progressive opposition is not accidental; it is a reflection of the changing global situation exemplified by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Stalinist states. During the Cold War period, in an attempt to stave off social revolutions in many countries of Europe, America, Asia and especially Africa, the US and European Imperialism adopted a welfare state which gave the working poor an improved living standard through funding of education, health, full job provision (by the state) among others. This found echo in many African states (especially where the emerging nationalist capitalist class like in Nigeria were not prepared to challenge Imperialism) which led to many pro-welfare politicians and political structures emerging. This explained the existence of welfarist ideology in South-western Nigeria (and even some parts of East and North). This gave unprecedented popularity to the Obafemi Awolowo-led progressive regional government, when counter-posed to the semi-progressive governments in the East and conservative in the North (which was carried over till the second republic). However, the collapse of the Stalinist states and subsequently the end of the Cold War gave capitalism globally the boldness to roll back the gains of welfare states in order to protect the capitalist profit. This uni-polar state led into the incorporation of the third world into the orbit of international capitalist exploitation through the politics of New World Order and capitalist globalization; and the establishment and strengthening of capitalist trade organizations (WTO, IFC, etc). No country could exist outside this orbit without a social revolution against imperialism. Therefore, many so-called social democrats, because they are not fundamentally against the capitalist system, could not explain the process simply renounce the welfarist states – from Schroeder of Germany to Mitterrand of France, Blair of Britain among others. "Welfarists" in Third World cannot be exceptions. Even many so-called left intellectuals and activists who could not explain what was happening in the Soviet Union – which is result of the absence of democratic management in the Soviet planned economy (that led to massive wastage and mis-direction of priority) coupled with failure of international socialist revolutions, all of which led to final collapse of Soviet Union and Stalinist Eastern Europe – relapsed into human "rightism" or defence of neo-liberal capitalism. This is the ideological basis of the failure of Awoism and welfarism in south west, which coupled with crass opportunism of the so-called Awoists (who were also looking for cheap wealth) led to their unpopularity and consequent political victory of the conservative central government over the so-called opposition. The arch-conservative was able to sustain its power through massive propaganda, use of brute force, patronage and corruption, among other. The ruling party was able to manipulate all the structures of civilian state to entrench itself in power. It should be noted that the civil structures – the tiers and arms of government, the law and constitution were structured to ensure the survival of the fittest while denying the masses the right to political power. Or how else could one explain the fact that the so-called Nigerian constitution that ask government to provide basic social facilities did not make them enforceable while poor people are denied the right of forming their political party through obnoxious provisions of the constitution. In fact, the process of making and amending the constitution is structured in such a manner in which it is the already strong ruling class (from the military makers of the 1999 constitutions to the "elected" legislature and the executive) that will have the right to do this. All this, coupled with the dual character of the opposition gave the ruling party the encouragement to implement anti-poor policies and privatise public wealth. But there is limit to the extent to which the ruling party can ride roughshod on the people; there is a limit to how much the masses can bear their scrupulous pro-capitalist, neo-liberal anti-poor economic policies, which has ensured unprecedented wealth for the one percent rich few who have cornered over 80 percent of the nation's wealth, led to their massive rejection in the 2007 elections. It was rejection of these anti-poor policies and a quest for political alternative that made the working poor to vote en mass for the opposition. But this is not to mean that the poor masses were ready to stake their lives for the so-called opposition who represent nothing different from the arch-conservative ruling parties; therefore the votes were only protest votes not a vote of confidence for the opposition parties. This explains why the ruling party emboldened by the lack of viable alternative were able to rig the 2007 elections massively and violently. The opposition members on the other hand, aside the fact the masses were not actively supporting them, are also afraid to even raise the masses to their feet after the rigged elections (when there was a general anger against the rigging) because they fear that such a step can go beyond their wish such that the masses who might have learnt from the anti-military struggles will request for far-reaching demands that can put opposition's interests in jeopardy. How will anybody expect the masses to risk their lives for the Bisi Akande (or Bola Tinubu who stood for the same anti-poor policies when they were in government), Atiku Abubakar (who only became the opposition when his economic and political interests were attacked by his compatriots in PDP) and Muahmmadu Buhari (an unrepentant anti-democrat)? It is when it is clear that they (the opposition parties) could not get power through the structures of the state that started their call for a revolution. But when they talk about a revolution, they are not calling for a revolution where the masses will have independent power or that will lead to a socio-economic change. They are talking about a revolution that will restore them back to the vantage position they were able to reach during the June 12 (anti-military) struggles which they can then use to negotiate power. This was how they (along with their so-called revered ethnic leaders) manipulated the June 12 struggles to seek for political power from the military men while the masses were on the street. However, this is not to mean that all those calling for a revolution are doing so for pecuniary and selfish reasons. Some, especially the intellectual section, in a quest to ensure the survival of the capitalist system are calling for a "minimal" revolution that will restore some political changes and give a facade of democratic society. This call for a revolution is a pre-emptive attempt by the rational section of the capitalist class to avoid a social uprising that will end capitalism altogether. But the limit of their perspective is shown in manner in which they advocate a Nigerian revolution – a revolution that will restore democratic system and true federalism. But the problem the working masses are facing cannot be resolved by federalism. For instance, despite huge amount of money that had accrued to every tier of government for the past one year, no substantial improvement has come the way of the working masses. The one year of the current administrations at all levels has shown that these elements cannot be different from the past. Take education, health, social infrastructure, cost of living, workers' welfare and job creation, there is no basic improvement. Despite the huge resources, only the rich are benefiting as billions are budgeted sustain the profit interests of the big business (most of whom are also in politics) while hundreds of billions are dedicated to the capitalist politicians as salaries and emolument. While the working poor are groaning under increasing cost of living, the best the servant-leader could do is to impose a new regime of electricity tariff on the masses while giving billions for the big business in the name of stimulating non-existent private investment in the electricity sub-sector. It was the same private sector, along with the corrupt political class that looted billions of dollars that would have transformed the deplorable electricity state of the country. Also, a new regime of fuel prices is to be implemented in a couple of weeks when the masses are even finding it difficult to survive on the current rate of fuel prices but this austerity measure is not extended to the business class who are given a whooping N17 billion by the servant-leader Yar'Adua. This is clearly a failure of the neo-colonial, neo-liberal capitalist system and not that of federalism. Of course, the current civilian system is faulty and need a serious reform but these reforms will not translate to better lives for the working masses unless the capitalist economic system is removed. But this is exactly what the capitalist ideologists are avoiding. In fact, the same policies will be implemented if the so-called opposition parties are to be in power today. It is important however to point out that what the opposition and the bourgeois ideologues are clamouring for should be a traditional demands of the labour movement, which in the Nigerian context is the pole of attraction for the working masses. This is clearly shown in the massive seven general strikes the labour movement led against some anti-poor policies of the Obasanjo government. But, despite these huge potentials, the labour leadership in Nigeria prefers to avoid raising an independent, working class political banner through this, which will serve as a genuine alternative to the rotten politics which the opposition parties are playing. Even, the labour leaders avoided openly embracing a Labour Party formed by some labour activists. Thus an ironic situation now emerged where clearly pro-capitalist politicians (who could not achieve their political agenda in the ruling parties) are now using the Labour Party to seek political power while Adams Oshiomhole, the erstwhile labour leader contested under a completely pro-capitalist political party, AC. This has led to a situation in which the Labour Party has been hijacked by the capitalist politicians while the state chapters have either become redundant or appendages of various capitalist politicians. The other radical political parties like the National Conscience Party (NCP) and Democratic Alternative (DA), among others are either being hijacked by the right-wing elements or are politically inactive. The overall result of this is that the working masses are denied political structure of their own thus leaving their fate in the hands of various sections of the capitalist political class. One would have expected a serious labour leadership to build a mass working people's party with a clearly genuine democratic socialist ideas (of public ownership of commanding height of the economy coupled with a democratic control of the economy and the political system by the working and poor people themselves at all levels, which will allow genuine planning based on people's interest). Such a party will stand for massive funding of free, qualitative and functional education, healthcare, job provision (with adequate living wages and pension), cheap, efficient, environmentally-friendly, agricultural system, public works – transport system (road, rail, water and air), public housing, rural development, communication system, potable water system, etc – and energy system (solar, wind, bio-waste, etc), which will rapidly develop the country and improve the living standard of the poor. This will inspire massive interests of not only the working masses but also the youth, students, artisans, peasants, etc. Despite the huge resources to achieve all this, the capitalist ruling class, in the quest for profit will never provide them. This explains why the public take-over and democratic control of the society resources becomes more necessary to ensure the implementation of thee far-reaching programmes. Such a party, through democratic control from the grass roots to the national level, will link its programmes with the day-to-day struggles of the working people (in strikes, rallies, protests, pickets, etc) and thus build a rank-and-file base for the party. It will also be easy to build a political alliance with the left-wing sections of some radical parties. With a massive working people's participation, it will be dangerous for the any ruling party to rig an election won by such a party. At this stage, it is either the capitalist class surrender power peacefully or risks a social uprising. This is the clear path to building a truly Nigerian revolution. This however does not imply that the road will be smooth or that this process is a special formula that can be adopted in a day and yield result in a year or two. It is a long-term programme meant to inspire a political discussion and debate among the pro-labour activists and labour leaders with a serious working class political plan. There will be setbacks, even schism within such a party (as various trends – ultra-left, right-wing, etc will emerge) while the ruling class will even create moles within such a party. The examples of many countries with workers' parties (which are now more pro-capitalist than even the main capitalist parties – New Labour in Britain, PS in France, PT in Brazil, etc) which have fallen back to capitalism can be cited as a basis to ignore a call for a workers' party. But it is a known fact that most of these ex-workers' parties, while having a mass, working class base, were (are still in some instances) controlled by a pro-capitalist leaders, (with a top-down system) most of whom are only serving as a balancing force for capitalism. With a working class, bottom-top democratic policies of a truly mass workers' party, the main course will still be maintained. But the most of the labour leaders are not even ready for debate on the political role of labour movement. Even, the industrial policies of these labour leaders are such that they prefer to fight for piece-meal demands of workers while the fundamental issues are left unaddressed. For instance, the same labour leaders that condemn retrenchment are not against privatization and commercialization which are the basis of this retrenchment. The only demand of most labour leaders (either at local, sectoral or national level) is that the labour issues should be addressed whenever any public utility is to be privatised or concessioned. But privatization and commercialization are means to cut cost and provide the big business with huge profit through attack on workers' rights. Even, when labour leaders condemn retrenchment, their ultimate demand is that workers should pay their terminal entitlements, not that they should not be retrenched. In many states and industries, the labour leaders are mostly conduit pipes to force government or managements' anti-worker policies on workers. This set of labour leaders cannot be expected to develop interest in independent working class alternative, unless pushed by the working people. Currently, the central labour unions, despite the attacks on the working masses by the current government, prefer a strategic partnership with the same government. Despite all this treachery of labour leadership, the working and poor masses still follow the labour leadership in any struggle. This is not an endorsement for their treacherous policies, but a product of the evolving mood of the masses. In conclusion, it is clear that the working masses will again rise and struggle against the anti-poor policies of the Yar'Adua government and its clones in states, and such struggles will again bring the issue of a revolution into focus as they will realise that various section of the capitalist class cannot resolve any of the problems confronting humanity. The Nigerian revolution needed is not the one that will place the power in the hands of another section of the capitalist class, but in the working and poor people of Nigeria who create the wealth but are denied the fruit of their labour. It is the task of the pro-labour and genuinely progressive and pro-democracy activists to start campaigning for a working peoples' political platform. They should campaign that the labour movement should call the summit of labour organizations, pro-labour and pro-democracy organizations, socialists groups, progressive students' movement, etc., where the political issues will be discussed. The problem with the masses is not lack of political understanding but the absence of a genuine leadership.
KOLA IBRAHIM OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY (OAU), ILE-IFE, NIGERIA
|