HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN NIGERIA: OLD AND NEW

HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN NIGERIA: OLD AND NEW

BY

MA’AZU MOHAMMED YUSIF
Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano


INTRODUCTION

The question of human rights has to be analysed and understood in a historical context. The trace of human rights abuses in modern Nigeria is as old as the formation of colonial state. The structure of state power and the economy determine how rights are respected and the extent of violations of the rights. Even International Human Rights Conventions are equally not independent of state power as they have to be ratified by National state to become laws recognised for implementation.

The emergence of groups and organisations who struggle for protection against human rights abuses dated back to early colonial period. However, the concept as it is used today took its form in the wake of the formation of Nationalist parties, and later by various shades of political groups both of liberal and Marxist orientation, and recently Non Governmental Organisations of gender, environment, humanitarian, community and developmental nature.

The level of the abuses at any moment is conditioned by multiplicity of interests, both internal and global. From the mid-1980s, as a result of economic crisis and the rising waves of the current globalisation to conquer and invade Nigeria, human rights abuses became very dramatic in political, economic, social, cultural and civil dimensions.

Thus, the mid-1980s to date appears as the Nigeria’s greatest moment on the formation and activities of Human Rights Organisations, committed to the pursuit of civil liberties, the rule of law, human rights and generally democratisation of Nigeria’s polity.

These organisations are formed massively. Some exclusively with programme on rights of human being while others with a combination of other objectives. Unlike in the past, these became real movement(s). However, these Human Rights Organisations, inspite of their new features, are not new. They are more or less a transformation of the old into a new setting and a new society.

The earlier groups in the current dispensation emerged as fronts of some left formations in the country. Therefore, they joined struggle for human rights with struggle against imperialism and capitalism. Further movement into neo liberal globalisation has produced new relationships between state, society and the economy, reorienting the conception of the activities of these organisations.

The new society clearly changed the original perspective of these Human Rights Organisations. The reality is that this transformation carried most if not all the anti-imperialist individuals into neo-liberal politics, but that alternative to the neo-liberal political and economic system is no longer debated, where it is debated is not from anti-capitalist position. For example, we never care about economic and social rights and when we struggle for civil rights hardly examine the national and global economic and power structures which reproduce denial of rights of human beings. Just it comes and goes like John Holloway’s “changing the World without taking power”

The argument is that the earlier Human Rights Organisations in the latest development of the Civil Society are conceived and formed as mass organisations of radical political formations and therefore exhibited the political orientation and strategy of these groups, in a nutshell of social revolution.

The trend however, has changed. Whereas the Human Rights Movement(s) remains the only credible outfit for defence of democracy and protection of human rights, yet it becomes constrained by limits created by neo-liberal system.

This essay will propose that there are three generations of Human Rights Groups in Nigeria – from colonial to date. Then I will throw some tentative questions and propositions on transition and transformation from the second to the third generation. Although the gap between the second and the third generation is very short, nevertheless within a very few years the changes occurred.

Subsequently, the argument will bring out some similarities and differences between the old and new Human Rights Organisations. In concluding this essay, we pose some theoretical questions and provoke further discussions and debate on strengthening and or re-examining the tactics and strategies of the “new” Human Rights Organisations.

Conceptualising and Defining Human Rights Movement
Speaking from international perspective there has been a dramatic increase in the interests of social science scholars in studying social movements. Such areas as Anti-Globalisation Movement; Human Rights Movement; Environmental Movement; are prominent.

A survey of the literature on social movements would reveal new insights on theory and practice as well as issues on the subject. Unfortunately, in relative language there is little scholarship on movements or social movements in Nigeria. The few we can trace are not debating the issues from emerging theoretical perspectives.

This has deprived US from building a position on the meaning of movement. However, in developing a broader perspective we may start from the premise that a human society has a perpetual relationships of conflict and that the emergence of movement is an expression of society in collective actions to transform the conflict into peace.

In order to understand a social movement we have concurred with definition of social movement by Gore in his study on India. Where he said “All movements for change involve a new insight, a new perspective, an extension or redefinition of an existing system of beliefs and values which may begin with an individual or a small group of individuals and who then try to spread their way of thinking by mobilising a following of like-minded individuals who further this spread of new perceptions, new values, new practices” (Gore 1993:1).

The above definition emerging from Gore’s way of giving meaning to social movement contains what the small groups of individuals in Nigeria’s Human Rights Movement are doing i.e. mobilising people for democracy and actualisation of economic/political justice and freedom.

By way of concluding the discussion on the meaning of social movement, we may say that if we would ignore other theoretical discourses, especially from Marxist perspective, we may agree that a social movement is founded when a small or large number of people come together in order to alter the existing social order or promote change by any means either peacefully on by violence.
Coming to the issue of Human Rights Movement we do not want to get into the controversy surrounding the meanings of ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movement. Therefore, we would work within the above broad conception of movement or social movement.

At this juncture, what is Human Rights. According to Iain M. and Alistain M. (2003) Human Rights represent a special sort of “inalienable entitlement attach to all persons equally, by virtue of their humanity, irrespective of race, nationality and membership of any particular social group. They specify the minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life”. These rights encompass civil and political rights and others such as social and political rights which impose some obligations on Government, as well as such rights as peace, development and humanitarian assistance (Ibid. 251). Some of these rights may be claimed by individuals or groups of individuals.

In order to give National and International significance to these rights they are catalogued by the United Nations as United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and in many other International Covenants. They are also found in many other documents including in the constitution of every democratic society. In some other societies the claims are found and appropriately protected from accounts of rights in the societal values.

Nigeria has ratified all the UN instruments on Human Rights. All the democratic constitutions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has a chapter on protection of human rights, and there are many judicial verdicts in defence of the rights of people and groups of people.

From the fall of the second republic in the early 1980s through the 1990s, human rights violations became very common. Indeed, in the 1980s Nigeria became a “No Human Rights society” (Yusif M.M. 1989). This gives rise to emergence of contemporary collectivities to defend and protect individuals and groups from human rights abuses. Thus born, the current Human Rights Movement in Nigeria.

Human Rights Movement in Nigeria: A History
Human Society is in its nature made up of continuous social contradictions and conflict. Various expression of these contradictions appear in many ways, one of which is the emergence of movements of gender, human rights, environments, trade unions, etc. These are all collection of interests to better development in the society. Thus, Gore rightly observes that ‘movements are not idiosyncratic events which just happen’ (1993:15) and that ‘since conflicts always exist, potential for a movement to arise also exists (ibid. 17).

In the case of human rights, respects and or violation of the rights of human being are determined by the nature of the state, pattern of accumulation, the relationship between political forces and sometimes by external influences which may dictate the exercise of state power. ‘Thus, a history of state formation ought to allow enough scope for narrative of how violations of rights dialectically interrogate the practices of power’ (Baxi, in Mohanty et al (ed.) : 1998 : 339).

In Nigeria there are three generations of Human Rights Movements each corresponding to particular state formation and the movements practices. The first is periodised from colonial state to mid-19980s characterised by state capitalism and emergence as well as activities of radical political movements. This means that the human rights issues are moved not by exclusive Human Rights Organisations but, by important political individuals and varied leftist and socialist organisations who incorporate struggles for human rights in their programme of actions. The issues of rights they incorporate in their objectives include:
Ø In the colonial period the struggle for Right to Independence of nations and self-determination acquired the status of basic human rights.
Ø The ideology of social revolution in the programmes of these groups challenged the foundation of class oppression and propagated visions of equality and freedom as cherished values for social reconstructions.
Ø The struggle for democracy rights had become the principal trend in this country.
Ø The phenomenon of military dictatorships, authoritarianism, oppressive labour laws, poor conditions of work in multinational corporate enterprises, etc. are some of indicators of human rights abuses fought by many political organisations during this period.
Ø The rights provided in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the 1966 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and the one on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were exceptionally recognised and protected during this period.
Ø Furthermore, the rights of women and children as provided in the United Nation Declarations of 1967 and 1959 respectively were defended.

The “second generation” of Human Rights Organisations began to form in mid-1980s. Precisely in 1986 when the Civil Liberties organisation (CLO) was set up by a group of Lawyers. This generation is marked by a short period of transition from state interventionist economy to neo-liberal system. The period began with deep economic crisis, the outcome of which is the marketisation of the economy, under IMF – World Bank Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) which is followed by repression and attacks on human and democratic rights of the people. Counter-forces simultaneously showed up to resist the new development in the society and economy. The Human Rights and pro-democracy organisations are some of these forces. In addition to Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), a host of other groups were formed. These include Community for Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADL), Democratic Action Committee (DACOM), Democratic Forum (DF), Gani Fawaheimi Solidarity Association (GFSA), National Consultative Forum (CF). Others are Medical Action Group of Nigeria (MAG), Human Rights League which becomes constitutional Rights Project (CRP), Trial Lawyers Association of Nigeria (TLAN). Some Trade Unions like ASUU and NUJ formed Human Rights Committees.

In the context of Nigeria in the mid-1980s when particularly the above mentioned Human Rights and Democracy Organisations were formed, they appeared as “Mass Movements” of some left or coalition of left organisations pushing the political line of their mother movements.

These Human Rights Organisations had played important role in National Democratic struggle in Nigeria. Most of these organisations in coalition with Trade Unions, students movement, women organisations, pro-democracy movements, etc. came together in November 1991, to form a broad based front which they named Campaign for Democracy (CD) to stop the Military Junta of General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida from its tactics of postponing of disengagement from politics.

The strategy of these organisations both individually and as a coalition is the “integrated” approach to human rights. Therefore, it is not only civil and political rights that are the main concern of “human rights”, but also economic social and cultural rights. These rights are joined into a national framework of struggle for National Democracy whose objective is “the military must go” and give place for a formation of a broad-based National Government of the Civil Society Groups of Human Rights Organisations, pro-democracy Movements, Trade Unions, Women Organisations, etc.

In order to achieve their objectives both individually and as a coalition, varied methods including agitation, campaigning, demonstrations, pamphleteering, leafleteering, etc. were employed in protest for violation of human rights and in wider struggle for National Democracy.

As the period of the campaign for democracy ended with break up and virtual suppression and silencing of the various organisations, another effort was made of regrouping and forming another coalition of some Human Rights Organisations, Pro-democracy Movements, Trade Unions, Students Association, etc. which is named United Action for Democracy (UAD). The objective of the UAD in broader sense is to end military rule and transfer power “to a Transitional Government of National Unity, composed of elected representatives of mass democratic organisations”, and for the first time there is a statement of opposition against neo-liberal capitalism when the UAD called for “Abolition of all anti-people economic policies, including the structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and in its place, an improved better and abundant socio-economic life for the masses of our people (UAD, 1997).

The UAD seems the last effort to renew the unity of all the groups to confront Nigeria’s political and economic crises collectively. The death of Abacha and Abiola in 1998 and the programme of transition to civil rule terminated the political crisis of transition from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ society. Consequently, this leads to change of character, orientation and strategies of the Human Rights Organisations. Thus, we enter to what I prefer to call “Third Generation” of Human Rights Organisations and practices.

The third period started with defeat of the agenda against neo-liberal capitalism and National Democracy led by representatives of pro-democracy and Human Rights Movements. In this context numerous other organisations at local, community, state and national level are proliferating with varied programmes such as gender, child protection, democracy, development etc. The pioneer ones and all these new and scattered groups sink into the neo-liberal programme. While they provide the only opposition defending democracy, rule of law, civil and political rights, yet they have no alternative to neo-liberal economy, so they become like a “shock absorber”, a “social cushion” for the neo-liberal agenda to expand and to continue to live among the people.

The Theory
The Contemporary Human Rights Organisations are what I named “Third Generation” Human Rights Movements in Nigeria. However, they are the same “Second Generation” Organisations that have found themselves in a new society with different political and economic setting. They have found new role and ‘have come to prominence at a time of overall crisis of political-economic systems and ideologies.

The theory to throw light on this problem is related with the theoretical issues raised by Frank and Fuentes (1987) on Social Movements in Contemporary World. My argument reformulated from their thesis is that the “New Human Rights Movements are not new notwithstanding that they have some new characteristics”. These new features are as a result of what Touraine (1992), (a famous scholar in the field of social movement) may called a changing “representation of contemporary society”.
The implementation of structural adjustment programme (SAP) in Nigeria, successfully transforms a modern notion of Nigerian society and economy characterised by state protectionist policies to a neo-liberal one. These changes are the outcome of liberalisation and marketisation of the economy which redefined the ways in which people relate with the state and in all their other relationships.

In the New Society; the state in particular is “rolled back”, as the state duties or responsibilities towards citizens and civil society becomes “dull and sluggish”. On the other hand, the state becomes hostile and undemocratic in order to attain its goals. On this count the state becomes increasingly powerful on almost every aspects of the citizens public and private life. And yet there is widespread ideological propaganda of individual freedom and autonomy, acceptance of pluralism of social and cultural practices, etc.

This ‘New’ society is in a nutshell contains all the following.
There is increasing distance of the state from civil society, while the civil society performs many functions of the state
Theoretically there is freedom of everything, therefore it is called an open society but in reality is a closed society.
Social movements of all sorts are emerging replacing classes as agents of conflict and conflict resolution. Hence other identities cutting across the confines of classes become more important.
There is exclusion of other social and political forces that are not of neo-liberal tendency.

Consequently, there are only ‘new’ types of movements and collective social actions different from of the ‘old’ society. Nevertheless, in the Human Rights Organisations as in other pro-democracy and similar movements, the transition from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ was not as simple as we think. It was marked by resistance, ideological division and even break ups. In the Campaign for Democracy (CD) for example, the Broad Alliance had virtually broken over disagreement on strategy which was on whether to shift to the ‘new’ method of work or to retain the ‘old’ in the ‘new society’. In practical politics the question came as one group wanted alliance with the military over June 12 elections while the other is opposed to that. As a result some great political forces pulled out and this led to the collapse of the unity and hence, the death of the movement. A similar ideological division over the right of men to participate in Women in Nigeria (WIN) paralysed the organisation and weakened it permanently.

The Character of the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’ Human Rights Movement
In the last twenty years there has been a substantial increase in the interest of Nigerian social scientists, journalists and Non-Governmental Organisations in studying Human Rights issues. The Human Rights Organisations in particular, have produced volumes of research reports as books, journals, magazines, etc. Most of these studies have emphasised violations of human rights by the state.

These, however, neglects theory, method and conceptualisation of human rights abuses in Nigeria. In particular, I am not aware of any discourse or debate on the nature of the Human Rights Movement, its relation with transformation of society as well as its conception of collective action. However, I must concede that the only academic discourse one may find does not go beyond the American scheme of the “Civil Society, Human Rights Organisations and Democratisation”, showing their great role in building democracy.

If we make a comparative analysis of the character of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ Human Rights Organisations it is possible that we could be able to re-conceptualise and comprehend Human Rights Movement(s) in Nigeria.

In the natural course, of their formation they are the same, but in their later development they come to be different from what they were. Their sameness can be seen in the following ways:
In both cases their objectives are to mobilise the people against human rights abuses and for push towards democracy.
Both the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ of the major Human Rights Organisations are formed and led by the radical and Marxist elements of the former left formations in Nigeria. In other words the societal transformation did not alter the leadership of the organisations
The aims and objectives of the organisations remain the same from the original formation to the transition to ‘new society’.

One needs to recognise that because of changing global scenario and societal transformation from early 1990’s to date there developed remarkable differences between the second generation and what has become the third generation human rights movement(s). These include the following:
It is important to start with strategic priority of the movements. The strategy of the ‘old’ is “National” including construction of National Democracy while the ‘new’ is just of a current global scheme of human right struggles.
The actions of the ‘old’ was both for defence and protection of economic and social rights but the ‘new’ ones only civil and political rights.
The ‘old’ ones played class politics as in the alliance for campaign for democracy in 1993 while the ‘new’ ones are non-class agents. Consequently the ‘old’ ones involved themselves in the ideological question of ant-imperialism, anti-capitalism, class struggle and social revolution while the ‘new’ ones are no longer taking and discussing about these at all. They are only concerned with issues pertaining to feminism, environmentalism, civil liberties, peace, etc.
In the ‘old’ society the Human Rights Organisations entered into alliance with Trade Unions and other class organisations in order to achieve their goal but in the ‘new society’ this strategy is neglected.
The ‘old’ Human Rights Organisations relied on their members for both human and financial resources while the ‘new’ ones have become sophisticated for mobilisation of especially financial resources.
The strength of the ‘old’ ones is because they were membership organisations with internal democracy in the conduct of their affairs but perhaps for logistical reasons the ‘new’ ones have to gradually do away with this.
Many of the ‘old’ Human Rights Organisations are floated as mass organisations of some of the left formations in the country, but it seems that in the “New Society” they have broken their affiliations with these parties and have become independent. In other words the ‘old’ ones were not autonomous while the ‘new’ ones are autonomous.

In view of this analysis, one would be able to see that the emerging ‘new society’ has resulted in unconsciously fundamental changes of collective actions manifested in Human Rights Organisations as it is the case in other Social Movements.



Conclusion
The New Human Rights Movement in Nigeria, inspite of everything it is doing is not able to generate what Moharty (1998) has called a “creative society”, even in the sphere of democratisation and defence or protection against human rights abuses by the state. While they attacked human rights violations of local dictatorships they rarely denounced the external allies and patrons of the local forces. Most significantly, there is no consistent rejection of the neo-liberal agenda, which is the background of violation of human rights.

Indeed, in Nigeria, as in many other countries where the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are proliferating, the old’ radical Social Movements are declining. The left political formations are being crashed. Following the bandwagon of Neo-Liberal Agenda.

Whereas the confusion of the left is associated with many factors such as its latest history, the political practices of the local ruling-class, the downturn of the economy, the middle-class political currents, etc; yet the situation is still cheerful as the left can refound itself with greater unity than the division, sectarianism and revisionism which characterised its latest history. The ‘new left’ when it is refounded is not to return to old tactics and strategies but through debates and consultations to fashion out another political practices consistent with present reality.

References
1. Bjorn Beckman (1993) “The Liberation of Civil Society; Neo-Liberal Ideology and Political Theory” Review of African Political Economy No.58
2. CDHR (No date) Constitution of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights
3. CLO (No date) Introducing the Civil Liberties Organisation
4. Falana, Femi (1997), “Civil Liberties, Human Rights Organisation and the Rule of Law” in Ibrahim Jibrin (ed.) Expanding Democratic space in Nigeria, Dakar; Codesria.
5. Frank A.G. and Fuentes M. (1987). Nine Theses on Social Movements Internationally; News letter of International Labour Studies, No.34
6. Gore, M.S. (1993). Social context of an ideology: Ambedkar’s Political and Social Thought. New Delhi; Sage Publications
7. Heinrich Boll Foundation (N.D) (Un) Civil Society? State failure and the contradictions of self organisation in Nigeria. Nigeria Office in Lagos
8. Iain M. and Alistair M. (2003). Oxford: Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: University Press.
9. Iain Brownlie (1971). Basic Documents on Human Rights. London: Clarendon Press-Oxford
10. Lloyd M. Sachikonye (1995). “Democracy, Civil Society and Social Movements; An Analytical Framework”. In Lloyd Sachikonye (ed.). Democracy, Civil Society and the State; Social Movements in Southern Africa Harare; Sapes Books
11. Mahmood Mamdani (1995). “Introduction”. In Mahmood Mamdani and Ernest Wamba-dia-Wamba (ed.) African Studies in Social Movement and Democracy Codesria Book Series
12. Mohanty M. Partha, N.K. and Olle Tornquis (1998) Peoples Rights: Social Movements and the state in the Third World, New Delhi. Sage Publications
13. Momoh, Abubakar (1995). “The Military and Human Rights”, in Adejumobi, said and Abubakar Momoh (ed.): The Political Economy of Nigeria under Military Rule; 1984-1993. Harare; SAPES Books
14. Olufemi A. Akinola (1994). ‘Etatism, Disengagement, and Capture: NGOs in Nigeria’s Democracy Projects’. In Omo Omoruyi, et al, Democratisation in Africa; African Perspectives Vol. Two
15. Philip G. Cerny (2000). “Globalisation and the changing logic of collective action”. In Jeffry A. Frieden David A. Lake (eds.). International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. London and New York: Bedfund/St. Martins
16. Shadrack, B.O. Gutto (1993). Human and Peoples’ Rights for the Oppressed: Critical Essays on Theory and Practice from Sociology of Law Perspective. Sweden; Lund University Press
17. Plotke, D. (1990). “Whats so New about New Social Movements”? Socialist Review Vol.90 No.1
18. Touraine, Alai (1985). ‘An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements; Social Research, Vol.52, No.4
19. ___________ (1992). ‘Beyond Social Movements, Theory, culture and society, Vol.9, No.1
20. UAD (1997): ‘Let us Unite to End Military Rule Now: Lagos: Communique issued at the end of the inaugural meeting of the United Action for Democracy
21. Wilkinson, Paul (1971). Social Movement. London: Pall Mall Press
22. Yusif, M.M. (1989). ‘Human Rights in Nigeria’. The Triumph, Kano, March 10, 11, and 13.