The Unexpected Revolution from above has Failed

The social division over April 2011 Nigerian General Elections became obvious. Although there is no organised structure to unseat the dominant ruling party at all levels of Government – Local, State and Federal, there is mass opinion to vote out at least the president at Federal level.

Perhaps, never in the political history of Nigeria have people ever come out with enthusiasm and defined political calculation to vote in the elections. Indeed, Nigerians have become sharply divided, especially between the two major contestants of the seat of the presidency.

One of them popularly called "Mai Gaskiya" is the candidate of Congress for Progressive Change. His common statements to the people during campaign is that he held public offices but was never found of stealing public funds. He always added that corruption is caused by indiscipline and so he is going to bring discipline and turn back all the injustices in socio-economic and political relations between the people.

The other who represents the Peoples Democratic Party, of the dominant Nigerian elites and the incumbent president, is seen as the carrier of poverty, corruption and mismanagement of government resources, as well as all other social evils among the poor Nigerians.

These two have built community of supporters which could be defined in class terms but used dangerous ethnic and religious mobilization to add more followers for their agenda – but towards the presidential election the religious was diminishing, showing it is struggle over social and state power. In one of the campaign slogans which entered my SMS line on April 15^th, 2011, it said "Don't be deceived. The contest is not between Christians and Muslims; its between people who looted and keep looting the treasury and honest men who want a better Nigeria (emphasis mine).

Now, the question to pose is where is the revolutionary aspirations could be found? From the presidential campaign of the popular alternative candidate it seems as if the blue print for making a revolution – against capitalism? - is first to start with good management of resources, then everything will follow. Yes! It is possible. Fidel Castro started the Cuban Revolution with organized program and movement against corruption but emerged to power after the institutions of the corrupt practices were destroyed and from there he carried the revolution. In the case of Nigerian Presidential candidate, he wanted to inherit and preside over these institutions to change them. Is this possible? It is not impossible within the framework outline below.

Or is it the Buhari Project Nigeria which is going to be the basis of the change? If examined critically, the Buhari Project Nigeria 2003 did not embrace any agenda against capitalism. But many eclectic policy proposals of state interventionism white at the same time not rejecting neo-liberalism; public control of the economy but not against private ownership; nationalization of some enterprises but not against foreign capital participation. Most fundamentally, there is no mention of democracy anywhere in the whole document. By 2007, however, Buhari's electoral platform in ANPP did not even carry the 2003 promised project for Nigeria.

Meanwhile, since now he contested on the platform of "the congress for progressive change"; he would most probably start with a more objective four point cardinal programme of the party which it said would be achieved during its first tenure in government.

Whichever of these, it is going to be an unexpected revolution. Whereas these may not seem effective as an alternative, but with wider democratic space, people could be made to make contribution of ideas to open discourse that would facilitate tremendous new possibilities for revolutionary change. Any way is this alternative candidate disposed to this kind of method?

The above observed, but this is not the time of analysis about the "revolution". Now, we may ask, in view of these, who would be the winner of the election is the question of power relations locally and globally.

The reality of politics in Nigeria or anywhere else is an expression of economic power. This economic power, especially in developing countries is not independent of global trajectory of economic interests. Subsequently, the present trend of globalization of capitalism, and the growing less importance of the national elements of capitalism, make the global power relations more paramount.

When some Nigerian News Papers (e.g. Vanguard, April 5^th) observed that "INEC does its job with US's help", is a point for theoretical reflection instead of to be thrown overboard as if is a piece of finished pie. In a country like Nigeria, of important strategic interest to varied global forces, in local change of leadership, both local and global interests would become mutually reinforcing on each other to find a convenient result of acceptable leadership to them.

Furthermore, the structure of modern capitalism today concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer elites, whom in the case of Nigeria, all are located within state institutions or enjoying the patronage of the state. The system is also chracterised by concentration of political power in the hands of those who control the economic resources.

By the same logic this ultimately operates against democracy because the rules and nature of the game may exclude the less powerful of the political elites or systematically weaken them.

This would give rise to fame, both new and old transnationally-oriented political elites and "midas" (the new riches whom you don't know how and where they made their wealth) whom in most cases have taken over control of the national resources and the state institutions.

These political elites who also combine as economic, military and big business elites are by simple arithmetical calculations more numerous in Peoples Democratic Party. They are Chief Executives of all Federal Government Ministries and Agencies; directors in big multinational corporations including the oil companies; big contractors etc. Of course some few of them are sympathetic of other political parties.

It is very clear to all Nigerians that the official and unofficial financial commitment of April elections is a history. The president himself – Jonathan Goodluck made a seemingly controversial statement after voting in his village when he said "Nigeria cannot afford a re-run election because it is going to be too expensive for the country to handle". What of the unofficial expenses and the various contributions by foreign organizations and agencies. All these put together can develop Nigeria in one year to become like Brazil, India, South Africa or even China. Is that not so?

Ordinarily, in the context of this complex relationships who would have won the presidential election. I think it is predictable.

However, political relationships could be reversed. In the context of the history and configuration of forces there is need of;

1. A patient political work to build a counter hegemony against the existing dominant political class
   
2. To accomplish No. 1 above to a desired goal there is need of erecting an alliance of political elites with a clearly new agenda for development of Nigeria.
   
3. To agree on an active political party with a national vision, without any religious and or regional identity.
   
4. The program of the alliance is to be carefully thought out with a strategy of confronting neo-liberal capitalism.
   
5. A media mouth piece of the party with dedicated ideologues to educate the people on principles and the issues concerned rather than on religious, regional or personal characteristics of the political elites.
   
6. Again, for a guaranteed and sustainable progressive change there is need to go beyond "Gaskiya" strategy. This question of to search and or only to approve "Mai Gaskiya" as candidates of CPC at various levels in the April elections resulted in confusion and corruption.
   
7. Without conscious mobilization of the people, the CPC candidate's popularity rose rapidly in the North of Nigeria. This shows that the people are ready for change, and so to sustain that, there is need of a clearly defined political program to mobilize them.
   

M.M. Yusif

Department of Political Science

Bayero University, Kano – 18-04-11