NIGERIAN RULING CLASS AND ITS EXHAUSTED POSSIBILITIES - Musa Bashir

NIGERIAN RULING CLASS AND ITS EXHAUSTED POSSIBILITIES

by Musa Bashir 

Musa Bashir

One of the tasks of our colonial masters was creating a united Nigerian colony; this was true during the colonial era and remained true in the post (neo-) colonial era. Because the country is composed of different ethnic groups and nationalities, the question of its unity is inevitability one and the same as the National Question. The imperialist solution to this National Question was a socio-economic system of federalism in the spirit of exploitation that defines capitalism. This federalist system is based on two principles:


1. 1. Concentration of wealth at the center and


2 2. Sharing this wealth among the ruling class according to an ethno-regional formula.


Under this system, a supra-regional center called the federal government became the most lucrative institution and this created the first basis of intra-elite conflict i.e. the struggle to control the center. Another basis of conflict among the ruling class is the specifics of the ethno-regional formula according to which the central wealth is shared.


This imperialist federalism thus possesses both centripetal and centrifugal elements. The former is the lucrative center and the promise of having a decent share of the national cake; this draws members of ruling class close to one another and contributes to the national unity. On the other hand, the struggle over the control of the federal government and disputes over the specifics of the sharing formula push the ruling elites away from one another and threaten national unity. This contradiction of federalism has been a defining feature of ruling class dynamics in the First Republic and the era of military dictatorship (punctuated momentarily by the second republic and Shoneka’s reign) as well as the PDP era. At a micro-level, the contradiction reveals itself as the settler/indigene conflict.


The various manifestations of the federalist contradictions include:


1. 1.The 1953 Kano riots


2. 2.Dispute over results of 1962 and 1963 censuses


3. 3.1962 declaration of state of emergency in the western region and the trial and imprisonment of Awolowo for treason charges


4. 4.The coup and counter-coup that saw the end of the first republic and the assassination of Sardauna, Balewa, Akintola and Ironsi, among others


5. 5.Massacre of Igbos in the North


6. 6.The ethnic civil war


7. 7.Coups and counter-coups of the military era


8. 8.Rise of groups agitating for the rights of nationalities indigenous to Niger Delta region such as The Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP)


9. 9.June 12 elections controversy and the pro-democracy movement it triggered


10. 10.The birth of PDP with its zoning and rotation policy


11. 11.Sharia movement in the North and rise of Boko Haram insurgency


12. 12.PDP’s zoning policy controversy, rise of Jonathan to power and 2011 post-election violence,


The above list is not meant to be exhaustive. In addition to these macro-level conflicts, the contradictions of imperialist federalism manifest themselves at micro-level as the numerous indigene/settler conflicts and include:Tafawa Balewa (1991), Zagon Kataf (1992), various clashes between Hausas and Biroms in Jos. Others include: in Delta State between the Urhobo, the Igbo and the Itsekeri; in Osun State between the Ife and Modakeke; in Benue state between the Tiv and Idoma; and in Taraba state between the Jukun and the Kuteb. Only that it is good to note that some of these indigene/settler conflicts go far back to the pre-colonial times and are only made worse by colonialist federal system.


The conflicts created by contradictions of the federalist system have already became too painful for many Nigerians. There is a widespread belief among many citizens that we just cannot continue like that; something drastic needs to happen. The imperialist federalist system has proven to be an inadequate solution to the national question. So let us see if the current ruling class can solve this problem:


First it is helpful in our analysis to realize that federalism lies in a continuum of systems of governance; at one extreme is the unitary state and at the other extreme is a confederation; in between lies federalism. The options of the ruling class are to either move right towards a unitary state or left towards a confederation; this means either a stronger or a weaker center. There is no third option. Let us take these two options in turns and see how the ruling class can handle each.


A stronger center


A stronger center or unitary state means weaker regions and states. But a basis of intra-elite conflict is a lucrative center; growing the national cake will only lead to heightened conflict and competition. It also means tremendous powers for the ethnic group that manages to control the center and this may trigger rebellion. Many believe that was what triggered coup against Ironsi after he announced unprecedented powers for the federal government. The distrust between the ruling elites of various nationalities will prevent a consensual move towards a unitary state; so a move rightwards is ruled out.


A weaker center


The other option is to move in the direction of a confederation weakening the center thereby removing one of the bases of intra-elite conflict and competition. This option sounds nice but a concrete analysis of our political landscape will prove that it is no less impractical than the first option.


A weaker center means shrinking the national cake by allowing individual regions/states to retain resources locally. Such an action will create winners and losers among the ruling class; those from resource-rich regions will have more and those from resource-poor regions will have less (at least in the short term). This will prevent an elite consensus; the future losers will oppose the move vehemently and the future winners support it chauvinistically. Without an elite consensus, this path cannot be taken. Unless if it will be imposed by the future winners. But such enforcement requires a strong center dominated by the future winners. What this enforcement may look like in practice is, for example, a Niger Delta President, like the current one, to enforce local control of resources defying his party and ignoring the House and the Judiciary. We all know he is going to be impeached and if he is backed by a section of the military, there would be civil war.


Thus it is clear from our analysis that the ruling class (bourgeoisie) cannot take the country out of its crisis because it can neither move right towards a unitary state nor left towards a confederation. These are the only options available to national bourgeoisie, options they cannot take; this leaves them in a state of exhausted possibilities. The bourgeoisie class is in a degenerate state and cannot solve the contradictions of its own class let alone solve the problems of other classes. Unable to solve the National Question (which is essentially a bourgeois question), the bourgeoisie class is even less capable of carrying out the democratic task or development of productive forces.