INTEGRATING CONFLICT SENSITIVITY
INTO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN NIGERIA
.jpg)
By
Prof. Steve A. Nkom
Department of Sociology
Ahmadu Bello University
Zaria.
Paper Presented at the two-Day Northern
Peace Summit organized by:
CENTRE FOR CRISIS PREVENTION AND PEACE
ADVOCACY in Conjunction with: African Youth for Conflict Resolution and
Prevention (AYCRP) on the theme: LINKING
DEVELOPMENT AND CONFLICT TRANSFROMATION IN NOTHERN NIGERIA. Held on the 10th
and 11th of January 2013 at Arewa House Auditorium, No. 1 Rabah
Road, Kaduna.
INTRODUCTION
WHEN Fr. Paul Marx, a
scholar and widely-travelled apostle of Human Life, visited Nigeria in 1988 two
things struck him the most. The first was the number of beggars he saw on the
streets. Beggars besieged his vehicle whenever he went: at the motor-parks,
along the major roads, at traffic light junctions, at points of traffics hold-up,
at the entrance of banks, mosques, churches and other public places! Since he
had no seen this number of beggars anywhere in the world, he began to surmise
what the total population of these beggars would be like. He came to the
conclusion that these beggars were enough to form another country probably
larger in population than some of the African countries.
The second thing that
struck him was the apparent intense religiousity of Nigerian. The churches and
mosques were all filled to the brim worship periods. Revivals, crusades, love
festivals, healing services, koranic recitation competition, and other
religious celebration could be seen or heard everywhere, their venues often
overcrowded and bursting at the seams. The media was awash religious
programmes: tafsirs. Sunday worship mid-week meditations, outreach, television/radio
evangelists of one kind or the other! Religion was on display everywhere. Yet
there was so much dishonesty, corruption, cheating, crime, injustice,
prostitution and insecurity. How could one reconcile this apparent religious
fervor with the observable abundance of crime, injustice and lack of humanity
everywhere? How could people be so intensely “religious” and yet be so lacking
in honesty, sincerity and virtue? Except if they have turned religion into a
smokescreen, a tool of manipulation, an element of business or a real “opium”
of the oppressed?
If Paul Marx had come
today, almost 25 years later, the grinding poverty, the collapse of public
infrastructure and the level of fear and insecurity in the land would have left
him with no doubt that this society has gone astray. Just like Paul Marx saw
it, Nigeria remains a land of incredible contradictions. If asked to name five
things which Nigeria must fix before the country can move forward, most
Nigerians will include the following: (i) bad leadership, (ii) poor governance
including the muzzling of democracy, (iii) poverty and the lack of development,
(iv) insecurity and (v) corruption. While Nigerians have become used to the
perennial problems of corruption, poverty, bad leadership and poor governance,
the recent state of fear, insecurity and pandemonium associated with
kidnapping, Boko Haram and other forms of armed violence have become most
threatening to the personal and collective safety of the average citizen.
THE CRISIS OF INSECURITY:
Security encompasses
freedom from fear, intimidation and other threats, real or political from
whatever source, which undermine the safety, welfare, basic rights and property
of the people, or which threaten the territorial integrity of the state or the
proper functioning of its organs of governance. Without security it is
difficult to lay the foundations of good governance. Security has become a
major problems in Nigeria. It has been difficult to guarantee security in most
aspects of people’s lives. There is now a pervasive sense of insecurity
everywhere. Armed robbery, kidnapping and assassinations have become a national
worry. Terrorist bombing and attacks have added a dimension that was previously
unknown. Communal and religious violence have remained unabated, probably
because people have come to believe that the government is incapable of
defending then and that it is been worsened by corruption, misappropriation of
resources and lacks of accountability probity and moral uprightness.
THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
OF INSECURITY
Security is a
pre-condition for development. Without security, investments cannot be
guaranteed and foreign investors will be unwilling to inject capital into the
country. Insecurity disrupts economics activity, threatens people’s sense of
well-being and often results in injury or death, thereby negatively affecting
manpower and productivity. Sustained insecurity may lead to the break-up of
families and communities, forced migration and the need to re-establish lives
in strange and alien environments, or even a suspended existence in refugee
camps.
An examination of the economies of the twenty-five
countries worst affected by conflict from 1960 to 1995 led to the following
general findings about the economic consequences of insecurity and war:
§ Economic
growth and aggregate output were almost always negatively affected, sometimes
dramatically so; with the agricultural sector usually particularly badly hit,
especially if people were forced to move in the course of the conflict. This
evidence is borne out by econometric estimates which suggest that economies in
conflict on average grow 1-2 percent more slowly than peacetime economies.
§ Exports
were invariably negatively affected. This resulted from the general fall in
production, a shift towards domestic markets, and disruptions in international
markets. Nonetheless, import capacity often held up, financed by aid and
private credit, with the result that foreign debt spiraled. Foreign exchange,
however, tended to be diverted towards military expenditure and essential
consumption goods, leading to a shortage of foreign exchange for economic
inputs.
§ There
were sectoral shifts with a switch to subsistence and informal activities
including simple manufacturing production, production of previously outlawed
commodities (notable drugs) and trading (particularly in smuggled goods).
§ Consumption
per head inevitably fell with poor capital GDP, though generally not
proportionately.
§ Government
revenue as a share GDP mostly fell countries in conflict; government expenditure
invariable rose more than revenue, and budget deficits widened financed by a
combination of foreign and domestic borrowing, and increased money supply.
§ The
share of government expenditure going to the military invariably rose, and
mostly the share of social expenditure fell. Public provision of social
services fell in most cases dramatically in those cases where government
revenue collapsed.
§ There
were invariably heavy development cost as each type of capital was subject to
destruction (including physical plant, land, human resources social and
organizational capital), and new investment was reduced. Government investment
and large-scale foreign and private investment fell quite sharply. Investment
has been found to decline especially sharply when the conflict is extensive.
The
generally negative impact on economic growth, capital assets, and social
services and outcome supports the view that serious conflict has negative
impact on development.
THE
DEVELOPMENT CRISIS
Development
is probably the most popular concept in the world today. Every government tends
to justify its existence and to define its primary pre-occupation in terms of
the pursuit of development for the benefit of the people. Most international
agencies –the UN and its various agencies OAU, ECOWAS, the Commonwealth
etc-have as one of their main agendas the promotion and advancement of
development. Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have sprung up at
different levels-community, district, national, regional and international
levels-to help advance and improve the success is not left behind as the
operations and investment strategies of even the most profiteering companies
are said to be furthering or quickening the pace of development. Why is
everybody eager to out-do the other in beating the drum of development?
THE
POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT
Development
has in the contemporary world become the latest religion, the opium that is
used to keep the masses every hoping that the “promised land” is near at hand
provided they continue to preserve and work hard. Every annual budget, every
plan, and nearly every policy or programmed of the government and other
agencies are elaborate steps designed to unlock to unlock the fruits of
development for the people’s comfort. Policies are launched and re-launched;
laws are passed and social programmed enunciated, very often without exact
answers-beyond the amounts spent-as to their precise contribution to the
welfare of the ordinary people. Development is therefore a game of public
relations. The legitimacy of governments and other agencies depends largely on
the ability to use development as an effective relations gimmick.
Being
the aspiration of all nations, development has become like a paradise; it is
the desire of every community and people. Just like paradise which you cannot
enter without first dying, development has its pains, sacrifices and costs.
Just like death is often left out when discussing paradise, so are most
discussion of development silent on the pains and costs of the development
process. Just like everybody has his or her own ideas of paradise with nobody
having a complete road map of how to get there, so does development mean
different things to different people with no precise road map on how to get the
desired destination. There has, in response to this predicament, been a
tendency on the part of many to copy the stereotyped models or road maps of the
countries and nations without remembering that nobody’s road map exactly fits
the circumstances of the other; therefore, every people and nation must
discover their own unique road map and follow it.
How
can we go about fashioning the exact road that fits the circumstance of our
history, culture, resources endowment and political make-up?
BUT
WHAT DOES DEVELOPMENT MEAN?
The
challenge before us, therefore, is to try to fashion out a preliminary road map
to development, no matter how crude, it may not give you exact certainly but it
at least gets you moving. The first step in this direction is to begin by
tearing down out the layers of myth, public relations and political gimmicks
with which the concepts has surrounded. We should develop a more dependable
understanding of development as a concept.
Development
refers to a multi-dimensional process of improvement and transformation in the
all facts of a society is economic and political wellbeing. Development can be
defined to include:
§ Improvements
in the material wellbeing of the people, especially the poor majority such that
they have access to or can afford the basic necessities of life such as food,
shelter, clothing, health, etc.
§ A
drastic reduction in poverty and its correlates such as illiteracy, high
mortality rates, squalor, malnutrition, and hunger.
§ Fundamental
changes in the composition of a society’s output characterized by shifts in the
structure of production away from agriculture and other low-output primary activities
in favor of industrialization and tertiary economic activities.
§ The
population of the masses of the population in determining the economic, social
and political direction of their society.
§ The
mobilization and utilization of the full human potentialities and capacities of
the population not only as beneficiaries but also active creators
of development.
Undergoing
and accompanying these improvements must be significant changes in other basic facets
of the society including:
§ A
significant upgrading of the creative, scientific and technological
skills and aptitudes of the people through mass and qualitative education,
human resources development and diversified skill enhancing training
opportunities.
§ A
drastic improvement in the managerial culture and capacity of the
society especially the efficient management of human and national
resources, the efficient and equitable distribution of goods and resources, and
the reduction of undue wastage arising from corruption, opportunism and
mismanagement.
§ A
significant improvement in the quality of governance and responsible
use of power including a culture of accountability and responsiveness,
the upholding of the rule of law, the promotion of a development-enhancing climate,
and the institutionalization of acceptable limits to the use of state power.
These
various elements, broken down to appropriate details, will have to design of
our road map for development.
THE
CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
The Problem of Leadership:
Every
Nigerian will readily agree that the source of most of our problems as a nation
lie in bad and corrupt leadership. Our country is the world which imports
refined petroleum products for its domestic use because its refineries do not
work. Ours is a country which has had to import palm oil from Malaysia, a
country which it donated the first seedlings few decades ago. Ours is a country
yet to celebrate even a single day of uninterrupted power supply. Ours is a
country described by the World Bank as suffering from crippling poverty in the
midst of plenty. Ask every Nigerian what is responsible for this unfortunate
scenario and the accusing fingers will immediately point to the issue of bad
leadership.
Our discussions and our pans for a
better tomorrow must therefore begin with the questions of leadership. Nigeria
has in the last four decades been saddled with leaders who have been preoccupied
with greedy personal enrichment at the expense of the people. These leaders
have shown little respects for the rights, dignity and welfare for the ordinary
citizens or the masses. Contrary to what obtains in all civilized countries,
our leaders have shown scant regard for the wishes, opinions and support of the
ordinary people as the real basis for their mandate to rule. They have behaved
exactly like greedy foxes put in charge of chickens. Service to the people has
been far from their priorities while in office. Consequently, needed
improvements in infrastructure, in service delivery, and in the overall welfare
of the people have been ignored. In fact, our leaders at all levels of
government have tended to emasculate the people by pursuing that have further
deepened their impoverishment and marginalization.
For the sake of simplicity let me use
Mahatma Gandhi’s “seven deadly vices” of leadership to characterize the ruling
class in Nigeria. These vices comprises: (1) the pursuit of wealth without
work; (2) the pursuit of pleasure without conscience; (3) the quest for
knowledge without character; (4) the narrow pursuit of business without
morality; (5) science without humanity; (6) the pursuit of religion and worship
without piety or sacrifice; and (7) the aggressive pursuit of politics without
principle (cited by Adebola, 2000). When Gandhi issued the warning that these
deadly vices ultimately destroy any nation, it appears he had Nigeria in mind.
The
most fundamental challenge facing us a nation lies in the need for a leadership
re-orientation, or the emergence of a new style of leadership.
What Type of Leader Do We Want?
There
must be a turn-around in the style of leadership if Nigeria is to move forward
Nigerians must move away from the passive culture of merely lamenting the woes
and wrongs of ours leaders. We must move to more active role demanding and
insisting on the types of leaders we want and style of leadership we reject.
The turn-around begins with a simple but fundamental question: what kind of
leader do we want? Is it:
1.
The leadership of the greedy
fortune-seeker whose main interest is self enrichment and self-aggrandizement?
This leader will spend his days in the office just grabbing left, right and
centre. Or is it:
2.
The leadership of the sectional bigot
major preoccupation in the office is to fight for the narrow interests of his
kith and kin, his immediate community, or his section of the country or the
society? This kind of leader invariably fractionalizes the society in a game of
divine and rule; and denies the society the opportunity of coming together in a
united collective action strategy which alone guarantee progress. Or is it:
3.
The leadership of the “smart”
politician, the schemer whose primary interest revolves around how to win next
election and therefore struggles for attention, for visibility, for publicity,
and for maximum political advantage? This kind of leader is not concerned with
service but with the manipulation of the political process for maximum
advantage. This leader cannot be the champion of any long-term collective
agenda for the progress of his people. Or is it:
4.
The leadership of the statesman, the man
of vision who has a plan for his people and who is preoccupied with a better
tomorrow? Such a leader focuses on services to the people, and how to remain
relevant to the aspirations of the people. The primary preoccupation of this
leader is the next generation and the construction of a new better future for
the people.
The Politics of Exclusion
For
most of our leaders, Nigeria does not refer primarily
to the people or citizens who make up the country but to the land and
natural resources contained within the territorial boundaries called Nigeria.
Their eyes are focused exclusively on these natural resources and endowments
which they hope to grab for their own use to the exclusion of the mass majority
of Nigerians. People who belong to this orientation tend to prefer politics and
practices which elbow out other Nigerians so that they can get a bigger share
of the cake. The result is the multiplicity of policies and practices of
exclusion which we have witnessed and are still witnessing in Nigeria. Our
leaders who are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and honestly
husbanding these resources and natural endowments for the common food of all
Nigerians have abandoned this sacred mandate and instead transmuted into greedy
foxes feeding fat on the chickens they were appointed to look after. Their extravagance
and recklessness have known no bounds, and they have in the process destroyed
ant sense of public morality and responsibility in the country.
Apart
from the marginalizing and impoverishing the people or sections of them, these
politics and policies of exclusion only tend to succeed via the strategy of
divide-and rule. This predatory ruling class, lacking any serious commitment to
the genuine development, progress and stability of this country, has continued
with the politics of exclusion, ethnic and religious manipulation, kleptomania
and impoverishment of the people in order to sustain itself in power. It is in these
policies and practice of exclusion, manipulation and impoverishment that we can
locate the fundamental roots of the violence and insecurity that have
overwhelmed this country at this point in time.
Unfortunately,
the ruling class in Nigeria has, in its strategy of playing the ostrich, continued
to blame the insecurity and pandemonium in which we find ourselves on the
multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural character of Nigeria. The impression
is given that the fragile and unstable nature of Nigeria lies in its ethnic,
religious and regional differences which can, in the face of the slightest
problem, ignite a vortex of ethnic, religious and communal violence and mayhem.
Taking
a critical look at argument Mathew Kukah insists that: Contrary to what has become a popular manthra among us,
differences do not necessarily lead to conflict, but it depends on the degree
of differences and the capacity of the ruling elite to mange these differences
……… If the ruling elite lacks elite lacks the mental capacity and political
will to address itself to these problems or to make the sacrifices that are
required, then these difference can become part of the gunpowder for war and
death among the contending parties “(Kukah. 2003:6). Those suggesting or clamouring
for the division of Nigeria along ethnic, religious or regional lines as a
solution to the country’s perennial conflicts and political violence have,
therefore, misunderstood and trivialized the real nature of the problem.
Genuine Power-Sharing as the way
Forward
Power sharing revolves around the
creation of an acceptable framework or institutional arrangement that enables
the various groups and segments of society to have a say stake in the control
and distribution of power, resources and values inn the society. This ensures
that the different groups and stakeholders develop a commitment and a stake in
the peaceful co-existence of the society as an entity. In the absence of a
meaningful power-sharing arrangement differences (whether ethnic, religious,
cultural, linguistic or even kinship) can develop into cleavages and
disagreements that trigger off conflicts, violence and even a total breakdown
of the social fabric of society (Kukah, 2007).
The challenges of power sharing in a
complex, dynamic and plural society like Nigeria make visionary and enlightened
leadership an uppermost necessity. An essential element of an acceptable
power-sharing arrangement and the litmus
test of its sustainability is the acceptance of peaceful mechanisms,
rather than the resort to violence, as a way of resolving conflicts and
disagreements over power. In a country where politics is dominated by
intrigues, greed, corruption and sectional or religious bigotry, there is often
reluctance on the part of those who control power to want to share it with
other. They find it difficult to surrender even a morsel of the delicious pie
of power to other groups. This is at the centre of the bitter and violent
“do-or-die” battles for the control of power which one finds in Nigeria and
other African countries. This is one area where the abysmal failure or
ineptitude of the Nigerian ruling class has had the most devastating
consequence for the society.
In
Nigeria it is obvious that the ruling class is not pursuing the path of enlightened
management of diversity but the old colonial strategy of divide-and-rule which
accords with its predatory style of governance. Consequently, very little is
being done even at the level of funding research to generate a clearer
understanding of the complex and changing nature of Nigeria’s diversity. Many
members of the ruling class are still at a more primitive level than Awolowo
who, based on his level of understanding at that point, described Nigeria in
1946 as a ‘mere geographical expression’. Many are unaware of how far our
ethnic and cultural map has changed since then.
The old primordial entities of tribe,
tongue, religion, and religion have changed so fundamentally in character and
content that the ethnic and religious empires that many of our politicians still
carry around in their heads are gradually becoming empty shells. Yet they have
not invested in the kind of research that will shape any evidence-based
knowledge or understanding of the emerging architecture of contemporary
identities and diversities. For how long shall we journey without maps or
navigate the complex sea of managerial capacity to tackle contemporary social
conflicts and security challenges. Even the ethnic, religious and regional
cracks which this class has been exploiting to remain relevant and to sustain
itself in power are gradually slipping out of its control
.jpg)
Post a Comment