Organising for Change: Look WITHIN & beyond FOI Listserve
Otive, TA & All,
On getting the postings of OI and TA, I went back to the Concept Note, TA's submission, my submission and all the email exchanges in the process leading to March 21. I then put down the first line above. It however struck me that I would not have the time to make the statement I will now make then, since I had to pay attention to practical engagements including making my own inputs into materials for the new minimum wage campaign starting on Wednesday and a programme that took me through the whole of yesterday.
I consider the issues involved, flowing from Otive's as very important with regards to the post-March 21 inertia and, as he put it, 'beyond the FOI listserve', bearing on our capacity as intellectuals and activist to move our society closer to its transformation. It is in this light that I make this submission.
Before going on though, in the course of going through the emails, I could not but get to wonder at the silence of persons who had made such passioned and committed interventions on the discourse, after we heard the alo (go) without any word on the abo (return). Thus in a way, this submission is also directed at the following at least: Linus, Ayo, Sam, Edem, Eugene, Olumide, Oyebisi, Jaye, Osita, Hilary, Chibuzo, Dogbon, Iwuanyanwu, Utasha, Fasakin, Ken, Odewale. Even if as Otive's email does in my view suggest, that they all decided to just waste their time (time they could have used in watching Toma and Jerry, if nothing else, apologies to Oyebisi) emailing or attending the Conference, knowing that nothing could come out of it, they should as well at least have the sense of historical responsibility of saying so and let us all know that that chapter of dreams and vision was nothing but a mirage, 'a floating illusion, to be pursued but never attained'. I must state though, that, I do as well welcome and commend the more recent interventions by Chinedum and TA, seeking our walking our talk.
TA: you were right to a great extent about this: Historians tell us it does not take a crowd to ignite the fire of revolution. That is a terrain I am sure BA is quite conversant with which may have informed his insistence on March 21. What I would add are three things, starting from the very primary fact that matter does not just have weight and occupy space, it is as well in constant motion. Thus it is in this sense not just the quantum of persons but more importantly what they do, which movement they build, the nature of their motion i.e. genuinely transformative or merely masturbatory. Second is that while a minimal number could find and ignite that fire, it takes the mass in motion (that is fanning the flames of that ignition of ideas and organization), to make a revolution. The simple truth is that the pathway of spark to conflagration is always a contested and basically uncharted one. Theory and history together serve as a compass, but no revolution ever started with its own map.
On this: If 56 people attended, can the efforts just come to a waste without others outside the country who were enthusiastic about that meeting knowing the official outcome? Once again I agree with you, but I will also ask, why have those of us outside and those 56 (as well as others in the country who for whatever reasons could not attend), not call for the circulation of the official outcome? If we demand accountability from the executives and legislators whom we have no direct hold on and who -despite the presence of some of their representatives here - might really never care to read even a single line of our vituperation here, is it not then absurd that for almost two months we have chosen to remain silent rather than seek accountability for a Conference we were all part of getting summoned in different ways and which was supposed to be just the first step in a project for social change in Nigeria?
While I have nothing against "a meeting of 'genunie progressives' as Aturu recently suggested", I do think that is begging the question. This was the crux of my recent exchange with Biola and I will expand on it below here, as I now come to the submission of Otive.
Comrade Otive, I do hold you in high esteem, for two reasons which inform the nature of this response. The first is your sense of honesty, which informed my position in the wake of your submission with regards to Ribadu's dismissal. The second is the view you have held publicly in the last couple of years that as socialists, we should not cling to the earth of the subterranean even where and when this is negates rather than promote our cause. It was in this light that you matched with us under the Abuja Socialist Collective banner at the May 8, NLC/TUC procession last year (and also sold copies of Working People's Vanguard) and at the World Socialist Forum IC meeting earlier, you publicly affirmed your world view and identified with that platform.
I am strongly of the view that your posting below, is riddled with factual, political and theoretical inconsistencies and contradictions with great consequences for our collective commitment to the struggle for social change.
First on the factual issues
While in really in our private correspondence you stated thus: "I am very conscious of the limitations of the FOI initiative but it is just to stir up action. A more nuanced analysis and organisation is needed and we will do our best". In your posting on the meeting holding as scheduled, you several times pointed at the discussions being "rich", "robust" and so on and so forth; what could be 'more nuanced analysis' than that (at least as far as the impression anyone not there and who is yet to see the record of proceedings could conclude)?
You also now say that: The minimum gain that I expected from the meeting did not even happen. But earlier on March 21, you were of the view that: the meeting was a "success" in your very last paragraph! If then you felt as you now state, why give the impression that it was a success? Could something that fails to make 'the minimum gains....expected' be considered by any stretch of logic as 'a success'?
To say that: The Abuja March 21st meeting was poorly attended, when 56 people attended I would say, drawing from our history is factually wrong. How many of our political organisations, at any level whatsoever had had up to that number at their inaugural (and even for most, subsequent!) meetings? How many people were at the formation of CD, in 1991, or UAD on May 17, 1998, for example?
On people and tasks -at least up to that point in time- this position: After the date was set and people were asked to present papers and act as rapporteurs, people did not come forward, flies in the face of what really transpired and was captured thus in your earlier report which showed that of all the people saddled with tasks there, only Comfort was absent; and she was represented by two persons! And if we are to assume that you refer here to before the Conference, you could also take the pains of going through the postings leading to the Conference. Every one that served actually came forward! We even had more than required, which was why Hilary was on stand by, and there to be called upon when Odewale informed the serve at short notice that he would not be at the meeting.
But it was not to be. This statement to me is a loaded one with an implied acceptance of some some extra terrestrial forces or powers beyond us pre-destining the emptiness in even conceiving of the idea. It is a statement that gets even more bothersome when placed before the facts that it is our very own inertia and lethargy -the curse of all slaves that choose to live in fetters, irrespective of what they say as Aristotle clearly points put-, through the 'agency' if one could so call it of our inaction and letting the grass grow under our feet that is making what could be to turn out more and more as an '...it was not to be'. the fault is not in the stars; it is in us!
The political flaw lines
We must pay attention here about politics as Kolagbodi put it that: 'the game is a game of power...trial of strength..'.
I find it funny that people are now complaining about the diversity of the list serve's membership and using this as an excuse for nothing happening after March 21! Different people, including you, Biola, and a host of others pointed this out in the process leading to the meeting. In the concept paper you even went ahead to categorise 'the diversity of the forum' as one covering the 'abolitionists', 'transformists', 'reformists' and 'conformists' and you summed up by asserting that But one thing that unites all except the conformists is the need for change. A close reading of your March 21 report would suggest that the emergent consensus on ideas and strategy was definitely not one reflecting the ascendancy of the 'conformists'. Of course in every political organization there is internal struggle over ideas and strategy. When progressive forces however seem to be in the ascendancy and then they surrender without so much as a fight in defence of their ideas and strategies (not just surrender but in even a less dignified manner, slink into the shadows of the valley of emptiness and inertia) and turn around to make 'diversity' a straw man, then there is grave cause for concern!
I am happy you noted Carol's 'mobilization skills'. She has never claimed to be radical not to talk of being revolutionary. She even cried out against the platform's carrying 'revolution' on its head. But she seems to understand Engels much better than all our Marxists on the serve better when he stated that 'an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory'! The fact is that with action, more and more people are mobilized into a cause, the converse is a natural atrophying and subsequent death of ideas and of organizations even when they have been formed.
Do I see the higher proportion of persons at the Conference not being the more active members on the serve as a minus as you see it? Definitely not! On the contrary this is a very welcome development because it hints at expansion of forces seeking change. My main problem with all our earlier efforts in recent times, is that it has always been only us talking to us.
With regards to the efforts involving trade unionists which you hinted at then and now, I can not but smile. But what I can say is that the more serious efforts by the more political elements in the trade union movement back home right now, is a struggle for the soul of our labour party. But be that as it may, especially as you still assert that I am aware of several efforts, what concrete things have they done or are doing? One could infer from the train of hints at such efforts you keep giving that they started last year. The Ekiti debacle was an audition not just for the forces of the establishment (be they in PDP or AC), but as well one for forces for change. Even at the level of statements, what did any of these platforms that have been strategizing in the shadows, so to speak do? The only kinds of political organizations that keep strategizing for change in the shadows even when the masses are being sucked into the political with contestations of, by and for power on the agenda in any form, are arguably, those with the intent of the route of putsches to power who however feel the time is not right for such action which no matter its lofty aims, holds the masses in disdain.
The theoretical dimension of your position.
There are two or three key points on this which I will respond to. These include this masquerade of diversity; the consequent sectarianism which it is leading to of organizing the 'true progressives' as if the one stopped the other and not rather enriches it and the issue of spaces of and for struggle. These three issues are intertwined.
First about this diversity thing. As I argued above, it was not something that we were blind to before March 21 and stands as an excuse, no better than an empty sack would. But beyond that, is the issue of diversity not being mystified? Even within the circles of 'true progressives' would we not have diversities? While it could be argued that the locus of diversity would then be different at least, is it not a statement of fact that even within sub-sets of the progressive circle, i.e. the socialist sects, there are persons and organisations that will choose not to sit with other persons or groups, basically because of diversity of perspectives? Th fact of the matter is that, diversity is not only perfectly normal it is actually healthy! What have been the consequences of forging monolithic unities with the experiences of what some described then as 'actually existing socialism'? Besides, to draw a reference for our pastors, does Jesus assertion of the physician not coming for the healthy but for the sick, not point at how diversity should be a strength and not a weakness? Is it actually diversity hat has stalled things thus far after March 21 or the inertia of persons all of whom belong more or less to radical traditions?
This 'diversity' myth actually takes our comrades harping on it to the door of sectarianism, where the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is open to our own eyes alone, rather than forged in the real life of struggle, practice alone being the criterion for truth. Our position on 'diversity' and the sectarian politics it leads to are as far from a dialectical approach as sleep is from death, if you ask me. I would rather believe that we could create a momentum which will join with other progressive forces for change. It is iron that sharpens iron. It is very unlikely that if we can not pull off getting something on despite the enthusiasm that led to March 21, with that presently hanging idea of a platform, it is very unlikely that even calling our progressive sects together would make any difference! It is more likely that a man who actually sired more children in faraway lands would have a litter at home. This is why Yoruba said that the child of the impotent man is always faraway in London or somewhere! On the converse, a fresh layer of people who want change, even revolutionary change but who have either not been hitherto identified as part of that yet mythical category as well of 'true progressive', could be forming even within this list serve. Some have spoken, some would have been part of the non-'active members' within the 56, some could be silent awaiting an expected momentum to realize themselves and probably put in more genuine efforts than our tired 'generals'. The membership on the serve is not one of a clear cut separation between 'radicals' (or even as 'revolutionaries'!) and reactionists, conformists and elephant-shooting lackeys of the state, NO! Without our intending to or realizing it, we insult the sensibilities and potentialities of such persons that we place as being less 'comraded' or 'progressived' (apologies to Hilary, Feb 11 posting), by this rather loose description of all-comers which Biola used and which is implied in all the arguments by 'progressives' for our own thing as if the revolution is or could be another La Cosa Nostra project!
Revolutionary change particularly from a socialist world view is about the self-emancipatory action of the oppressed and obviously we can not shave the head of people in their absence. When we look at spaces of struggle then, we can not but come back to diversity as a strength, an opening, a necessity as against being a drawback, or basis of inadequacies. Of course, groups should be organized, different circles, different efforts at different spheres need to be thrown up to generate that momentum for change. This is the lesson of all revolution since 1789 France. After, all the discussions preceding March 21, to now come back to an FOIC serve is just for FOI and thus we should seek the messiah from outside Nazareth is, with all due respect, merely spiced bunkum. Edem on Feb 9 in calling for another list serve, did actually captures the political needs of beyond and within the serve, at the same time, better.
While Marx and more so Engels did grudgingly accept the term 'Social-democratic' for the earlier mass Marxist parties starting in Germany, Lenin in his What is to be done? did give it a deeper meaning even though through practice and not in a laboratory of meetings, he would propose the change of the RSDLP to the Communist Party. The social democrat, he pointed out is not only Jacobin and democrat at a the same time. Social democracy entails engaging in and making every space of the social a site of struggle. Factories, schools, list serves, communities, even churches and mosques! Is it now that we should be saying FOIC should only be on FOI?
Conclusion
In summing up,for now at least, my position is simply thus, the excuses given thus far for the post-March 21 inertia do not only not hold water, but lead to theoretical generalizations that are antithetical to a scientific revolutionary spirit and politics that would more likely lead the forces for social change in Nigeria to oblivion than any closer to the transformation os society. I repeat my call for the March 21 documents and for practical action to be taken forthwith on these. Osita on February 11 noted that 'doing nothing is not an option'...but that is exactly what we have been doing since then!
Of course the efforts we are talking about can not be considered as the end all or be all of the struggle for change, that would be foolish. We should look beyond the FOIC, yes! But we should also look within it and consummate that started or intended to have been started. If it will fail, it should not be due to our surrendering without even a struggle to bring to life all our talk, talk! If we do, what moral right can we have to keep on shouting about then fighting within the broader society to change it?
In making my point clear here, I have particularly engaged your positions Otive, not your person. If it this seems to have been done with some fervour, it is because I am convinced that the views you expressed deserved such.
I thus call on you to reflect on your positions...even if in the final analysis you have a right to what you think on these issues. I however remain very much, with
Warm regards,
Baba Aye
Post script: Attn Don Kenobi,
I did find you piece thus quite amusing:
"No no no.
Disagree with you T. We all have a share in the blame. I planned to come down from the states but developed cold feet last minute. Let's own up to our part and resolve to do better next time.
Ps
Cold feet = cowardice.
Fear of police brutality. I blame myself. No one else"
You have a right to disagree with TA and anyone. Anyway, you have been honest enough to state your own reason for being absent from the meeting even if that does not say anything about a dummy at least, for the proposed web-site.
My take is simply that in issues like this, you could be kind enough to say you have your own share of blame which is cowardice and cold feet, rather than generalizing on blame shares and stocks.
I also think, the issue is not just about 'next time' but a process in which next meetings etc, are all tied to our having a record of what was done at Rockview and what is being presented to be done after Rockview.
Thank you.
Baba Aye
______________________________________________________________________________
From: Thomas Agbonkpolor
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 1:46 PM
Baba Aye, Otive & Co,
Historians tell us it does not take a crowd to ignite the fire of revolution. That is a terrain I am sure BA is quite conversant with which may have informed his insistence on March 21.
The issue goes beyond poor attendance etc that Otive would give as the excuse for the apparent non-performance of those saddled with issuing the communique and resolutions. It still revolves around the point I made in the notes I sent at the pilot stage of that meeting: Do people believe change is needed? If 56 people attended, can the efforts just come to a waste without others outside the country who were enthusiastic about that meeting knowing the official outcome?
This is where a meeting of 'genunie progressives' as Aturu recently suggested comes in. In my own case, I don't expect people that have invested so much in the Yar'Adua and the PDP charade either as philosopher- king or Keynes academic scribblers (that word again!) to champion change. Let me join others in asking for the communique to be released forthwith for all it is worth.
T
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: otive igbuzor
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 3:39 AM
Dear Baba Aye,
Thanks for your posting and insistence on March 21st meeting and the way forward. But I think that you are putting too much importance on the March 21st meeting. I played a key role in that meeting because I thought that it will bring up a momentum. But it was not to be.
I have been involved in efforts at transformation of Nigeria from the 1980s and I am conscious of the organisational requirements for change especially in a country like Nigeria. You will recall that in our private correspondence in the built up to the March 21st meeting on 13th Feb., 2009, I wrote to you: "I am very conscious of the limitations of the FOI initiative but it is just to stir up action. A more naunced analysis and organisation is needed and we will do our best." The minimum gain that I expected from the meeting did not even happen.The Abuja March 21st meeting was poorly attended. Most of the "active members" of the forum did not attend. Very few people outside Abuja attended the meeting. After the date was set and people were asked to present papers and act as rapporteurs, people did not come forward. It took the mobilisational skills of Carol to get people into different roles. There was little comment on the concept note and programmes. When the time for the meeting drew near, comments on it died down. It is very cheap to write e-mails. But it takes more than internet connection and idle time to write e-mails to organise for change especially in a country like Nigeria.
In any case, I think that the officials that were tasked at the meeting should release the report but organising for change in Nigeria has to go beyond the listserve. The listserve is performing its role: popularising FOI issues and serving as a medium of exchange of information and ideas. But for organising for change, we have to look elsewhere and not the listserve. I had no illusion about this even as I was involved in the March 21st meeting but I thought that we could create a momentun which will join with other progressive forces for change.
But anyone really committed to change should do the necessary: identify like minds, call a meeting and have a programme of action. We will meet and ally with others on the field. I am aware of several efforts. It is a waste of time to be sending posting to a diverse group such as the FOI listserve to play role that they are not prepared for. This is my view.
Yours comradely,
Otive
Otive Igbuzor, PhD
Plot 590 Cadastral zone,
2nd Floor, NAIC Building,
Central Business Area,
Abuja.
On getting the postings of OI and TA, I went back to the Concept Note, TA's submission, my submission and all the email exchanges in the process leading to March 21. I then put down the first line above. It however struck me that I would not have the time to make the statement I will now make then, since I had to pay attention to practical engagements including making my own inputs into materials for the new minimum wage campaign starting on Wednesday and a programme that took me through the whole of yesterday.
I consider the issues involved, flowing from Otive's as very important with regards to the post-March 21 inertia and, as he put it, 'beyond the FOI listserve', bearing on our capacity as intellectuals and activist to move our society closer to its transformation. It is in this light that I make this submission.
Before going on though, in the course of going through the emails, I could not but get to wonder at the silence of persons who had made such passioned and committed interventions on the discourse, after we heard the alo (go) without any word on the abo (return). Thus in a way, this submission is also directed at the following at least: Linus, Ayo, Sam, Edem, Eugene, Olumide, Oyebisi, Jaye, Osita, Hilary, Chibuzo, Dogbon, Iwuanyanwu, Utasha, Fasakin, Ken, Odewale. Even if as Otive's email does in my view suggest, that they all decided to just waste their time (time they could have used in watching Toma and Jerry, if nothing else, apologies to Oyebisi) emailing or attending the Conference, knowing that nothing could come out of it, they should as well at least have the sense of historical responsibility of saying so and let us all know that that chapter of dreams and vision was nothing but a mirage, 'a floating illusion, to be pursued but never attained'. I must state though, that, I do as well welcome and commend the more recent interventions by Chinedum and TA, seeking our walking our talk.
TA: you were right to a great extent about this: Historians tell us it does not take a crowd to ignite the fire of revolution. That is a terrain I am sure BA is quite conversant with which may have informed his insistence on March 21. What I would add are three things, starting from the very primary fact that matter does not just have weight and occupy space, it is as well in constant motion. Thus it is in this sense not just the quantum of persons but more importantly what they do, which movement they build, the nature of their motion i.e. genuinely transformative or merely masturbatory. Second is that while a minimal number could find and ignite that fire, it takes the mass in motion (that is fanning the flames of that ignition of ideas and organization), to make a revolution. The simple truth is that the pathway of spark to conflagration is always a contested and basically uncharted one. Theory and history together serve as a compass, but no revolution ever started with its own map.
On this: If 56 people attended, can the efforts just come to a waste without others outside the country who were enthusiastic about that meeting knowing the official outcome? Once again I agree with you, but I will also ask, why have those of us outside and those 56 (as well as others in the country who for whatever reasons could not attend), not call for the circulation of the official outcome? If we demand accountability from the executives and legislators whom we have no direct hold on and who -despite the presence of some of their representatives here - might really never care to read even a single line of our vituperation here, is it not then absurd that for almost two months we have chosen to remain silent rather than seek accountability for a Conference we were all part of getting summoned in different ways and which was supposed to be just the first step in a project for social change in Nigeria?
While I have nothing against "a meeting of 'genunie progressives' as Aturu recently suggested", I do think that is begging the question. This was the crux of my recent exchange with Biola and I will expand on it below here, as I now come to the submission of Otive.
Comrade Otive, I do hold you in high esteem, for two reasons which inform the nature of this response. The first is your sense of honesty, which informed my position in the wake of your submission with regards to Ribadu's dismissal. The second is the view you have held publicly in the last couple of years that as socialists, we should not cling to the earth of the subterranean even where and when this is negates rather than promote our cause. It was in this light that you matched with us under the Abuja Socialist Collective banner at the May 8, NLC/TUC procession last year (and also sold copies of Working People's Vanguard) and at the World Socialist Forum IC meeting earlier, you publicly affirmed your world view and identified with that platform.
I am strongly of the view that your posting below, is riddled with factual, political and theoretical inconsistencies and contradictions with great consequences for our collective commitment to the struggle for social change.
First on the factual issues
While in really in our private correspondence you stated thus: "I am very conscious of the limitations of the FOI initiative but it is just to stir up action. A more nuanced analysis and organisation is needed and we will do our best". In your posting on the meeting holding as scheduled, you several times pointed at the discussions being "rich", "robust" and so on and so forth; what could be 'more nuanced analysis' than that (at least as far as the impression anyone not there and who is yet to see the record of proceedings could conclude)?
You also now say that: The minimum gain that I expected from the meeting did not even happen. But earlier on March 21, you were of the view that: the meeting was a "success" in your very last paragraph! If then you felt as you now state, why give the impression that it was a success? Could something that fails to make 'the minimum gains....expected' be considered by any stretch of logic as 'a success'?
To say that: The Abuja March 21st meeting was poorly attended, when 56 people attended I would say, drawing from our history is factually wrong. How many of our political organisations, at any level whatsoever had had up to that number at their inaugural (and even for most, subsequent!) meetings? How many people were at the formation of CD, in 1991, or UAD on May 17, 1998, for example?
On people and tasks -at least up to that point in time- this position: After the date was set and people were asked to present papers and act as rapporteurs, people did not come forward, flies in the face of what really transpired and was captured thus in your earlier report which showed that of all the people saddled with tasks there, only Comfort was absent; and she was represented by two persons! And if we are to assume that you refer here to before the Conference, you could also take the pains of going through the postings leading to the Conference. Every one that served actually came forward! We even had more than required, which was why Hilary was on stand by, and there to be called upon when Odewale informed the serve at short notice that he would not be at the meeting.
But it was not to be. This statement to me is a loaded one with an implied acceptance of some some extra terrestrial forces or powers beyond us pre-destining the emptiness in even conceiving of the idea. It is a statement that gets even more bothersome when placed before the facts that it is our very own inertia and lethargy -the curse of all slaves that choose to live in fetters, irrespective of what they say as Aristotle clearly points put-, through the 'agency' if one could so call it of our inaction and letting the grass grow under our feet that is making what could be to turn out more and more as an '...it was not to be'. the fault is not in the stars; it is in us!
The political flaw lines
We must pay attention here about politics as Kolagbodi put it that: 'the game is a game of power...trial of strength..'.
I find it funny that people are now complaining about the diversity of the list serve's membership and using this as an excuse for nothing happening after March 21! Different people, including you, Biola, and a host of others pointed this out in the process leading to the meeting. In the concept paper you even went ahead to categorise 'the diversity of the forum' as one covering the 'abolitionists', 'transformists', 'reformists' and 'conformists' and you summed up by asserting that But one thing that unites all except the conformists is the need for change. A close reading of your March 21 report would suggest that the emergent consensus on ideas and strategy was definitely not one reflecting the ascendancy of the 'conformists'. Of course in every political organization there is internal struggle over ideas and strategy. When progressive forces however seem to be in the ascendancy and then they surrender without so much as a fight in defence of their ideas and strategies (not just surrender but in even a less dignified manner, slink into the shadows of the valley of emptiness and inertia) and turn around to make 'diversity' a straw man, then there is grave cause for concern!
I am happy you noted Carol's 'mobilization skills'. She has never claimed to be radical not to talk of being revolutionary. She even cried out against the platform's carrying 'revolution' on its head. But she seems to understand Engels much better than all our Marxists on the serve better when he stated that 'an ounce of action is worth a ton of theory'! The fact is that with action, more and more people are mobilized into a cause, the converse is a natural atrophying and subsequent death of ideas and of organizations even when they have been formed.
Do I see the higher proportion of persons at the Conference not being the more active members on the serve as a minus as you see it? Definitely not! On the contrary this is a very welcome development because it hints at expansion of forces seeking change. My main problem with all our earlier efforts in recent times, is that it has always been only us talking to us.
With regards to the efforts involving trade unionists which you hinted at then and now, I can not but smile. But what I can say is that the more serious efforts by the more political elements in the trade union movement back home right now, is a struggle for the soul of our labour party. But be that as it may, especially as you still assert that I am aware of several efforts, what concrete things have they done or are doing? One could infer from the train of hints at such efforts you keep giving that they started last year. The Ekiti debacle was an audition not just for the forces of the establishment (be they in PDP or AC), but as well one for forces for change. Even at the level of statements, what did any of these platforms that have been strategizing in the shadows, so to speak do? The only kinds of political organizations that keep strategizing for change in the shadows even when the masses are being sucked into the political with contestations of, by and for power on the agenda in any form, are arguably, those with the intent of the route of putsches to power who however feel the time is not right for such action which no matter its lofty aims, holds the masses in disdain.
The theoretical dimension of your position.
There are two or three key points on this which I will respond to. These include this masquerade of diversity; the consequent sectarianism which it is leading to of organizing the 'true progressives' as if the one stopped the other and not rather enriches it and the issue of spaces of and for struggle. These three issues are intertwined.
First about this diversity thing. As I argued above, it was not something that we were blind to before March 21 and stands as an excuse, no better than an empty sack would. But beyond that, is the issue of diversity not being mystified? Even within the circles of 'true progressives' would we not have diversities? While it could be argued that the locus of diversity would then be different at least, is it not a statement of fact that even within sub-sets of the progressive circle, i.e. the socialist sects, there are persons and organisations that will choose not to sit with other persons or groups, basically because of diversity of perspectives? Th fact of the matter is that, diversity is not only perfectly normal it is actually healthy! What have been the consequences of forging monolithic unities with the experiences of what some described then as 'actually existing socialism'? Besides, to draw a reference for our pastors, does Jesus assertion of the physician not coming for the healthy but for the sick, not point at how diversity should be a strength and not a weakness? Is it actually diversity hat has stalled things thus far after March 21 or the inertia of persons all of whom belong more or less to radical traditions?
This 'diversity' myth actually takes our comrades harping on it to the door of sectarianism, where the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is open to our own eyes alone, rather than forged in the real life of struggle, practice alone being the criterion for truth. Our position on 'diversity' and the sectarian politics it leads to are as far from a dialectical approach as sleep is from death, if you ask me. I would rather believe that we could create a momentum which will join with other progressive forces for change. It is iron that sharpens iron. It is very unlikely that if we can not pull off getting something on despite the enthusiasm that led to March 21, with that presently hanging idea of a platform, it is very unlikely that even calling our progressive sects together would make any difference! It is more likely that a man who actually sired more children in faraway lands would have a litter at home. This is why Yoruba said that the child of the impotent man is always faraway in London or somewhere! On the converse, a fresh layer of people who want change, even revolutionary change but who have either not been hitherto identified as part of that yet mythical category as well of 'true progressive', could be forming even within this list serve. Some have spoken, some would have been part of the non-'active members' within the 56, some could be silent awaiting an expected momentum to realize themselves and probably put in more genuine efforts than our tired 'generals'. The membership on the serve is not one of a clear cut separation between 'radicals' (or even as 'revolutionaries'!) and reactionists, conformists and elephant-shooting lackeys of the state, NO! Without our intending to or realizing it, we insult the sensibilities and potentialities of such persons that we place as being less 'comraded' or 'progressived' (apologies to Hilary, Feb 11 posting), by this rather loose description of all-comers which Biola used and which is implied in all the arguments by 'progressives' for our own thing as if the revolution is or could be another La Cosa Nostra project!
Revolutionary change particularly from a socialist world view is about the self-emancipatory action of the oppressed and obviously we can not shave the head of people in their absence. When we look at spaces of struggle then, we can not but come back to diversity as a strength, an opening, a necessity as against being a drawback, or basis of inadequacies. Of course, groups should be organized, different circles, different efforts at different spheres need to be thrown up to generate that momentum for change. This is the lesson of all revolution since 1789 France. After, all the discussions preceding March 21, to now come back to an FOIC serve is just for FOI and thus we should seek the messiah from outside Nazareth is, with all due respect, merely spiced bunkum. Edem on Feb 9 in calling for another list serve, did actually captures the political needs of beyond and within the serve, at the same time, better.
While Marx and more so Engels did grudgingly accept the term 'Social-democratic' for the earlier mass Marxist parties starting in Germany, Lenin in his What is to be done? did give it a deeper meaning even though through practice and not in a laboratory of meetings, he would propose the change of the RSDLP to the Communist Party. The social democrat, he pointed out is not only Jacobin and democrat at a the same time. Social democracy entails engaging in and making every space of the social a site of struggle. Factories, schools, list serves, communities, even churches and mosques! Is it now that we should be saying FOIC should only be on FOI?
Conclusion
In summing up,for now at least, my position is simply thus, the excuses given thus far for the post-March 21 inertia do not only not hold water, but lead to theoretical generalizations that are antithetical to a scientific revolutionary spirit and politics that would more likely lead the forces for social change in Nigeria to oblivion than any closer to the transformation os society. I repeat my call for the March 21 documents and for practical action to be taken forthwith on these. Osita on February 11 noted that 'doing nothing is not an option'...but that is exactly what we have been doing since then!
Of course the efforts we are talking about can not be considered as the end all or be all of the struggle for change, that would be foolish. We should look beyond the FOIC, yes! But we should also look within it and consummate that started or intended to have been started. If it will fail, it should not be due to our surrendering without even a struggle to bring to life all our talk, talk! If we do, what moral right can we have to keep on shouting about then fighting within the broader society to change it?
In making my point clear here, I have particularly engaged your positions Otive, not your person. If it this seems to have been done with some fervour, it is because I am convinced that the views you expressed deserved such.
I thus call on you to reflect on your positions...even if in the final analysis you have a right to what you think on these issues. I however remain very much, with
Warm regards,
Baba Aye
Post script: Attn Don Kenobi,
I did find you piece thus quite amusing:
"No no no.
Disagree with you T. We all have a share in the blame. I planned to come down from the states but developed cold feet last minute. Let's own up to our part and resolve to do better next time.
Ps
Cold feet = cowardice.
Fear of police brutality. I blame myself. No one else"
You have a right to disagree with TA and anyone. Anyway, you have been honest enough to state your own reason for being absent from the meeting even if that does not say anything about a dummy at least, for the proposed web-site.
My take is simply that in issues like this, you could be kind enough to say you have your own share of blame which is cowardice and cold feet, rather than generalizing on blame shares and stocks.
I also think, the issue is not just about 'next time' but a process in which next meetings etc, are all tied to our having a record of what was done at Rockview and what is being presented to be done after Rockview.
Thank you.
Baba Aye
______________________________________________________________________________
From: Thomas Agbonkpolor
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 1:46 PM
Baba Aye, Otive & Co,
Historians tell us it does not take a crowd to ignite the fire of revolution. That is a terrain I am sure BA is quite conversant with which may have informed his insistence on March 21.
The issue goes beyond poor attendance etc that Otive would give as the excuse for the apparent non-performance of those saddled with issuing the communique and resolutions. It still revolves around the point I made in the notes I sent at the pilot stage of that meeting: Do people believe change is needed? If 56 people attended, can the efforts just come to a waste without others outside the country who were enthusiastic about that meeting knowing the official outcome?
This is where a meeting of 'genunie progressives' as Aturu recently suggested comes in. In my own case, I don't expect people that have invested so much in the Yar'Adua and the PDP charade either as philosopher- king or Keynes academic scribblers (that word again!) to champion change. Let me join others in asking for the communique to be released forthwith for all it is worth.
T
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: otive igbuzor
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009, 3:39 AM
Dear Baba Aye,
Thanks for your posting and insistence on March 21st meeting and the way forward. But I think that you are putting too much importance on the March 21st meeting. I played a key role in that meeting because I thought that it will bring up a momentum. But it was not to be.
I have been involved in efforts at transformation of Nigeria from the 1980s and I am conscious of the organisational requirements for change especially in a country like Nigeria. You will recall that in our private correspondence in the built up to the March 21st meeting on 13th Feb., 2009, I wrote to you: "I am very conscious of the limitations of the FOI initiative but it is just to stir up action. A more naunced analysis and organisation is needed and we will do our best." The minimum gain that I expected from the meeting did not even happen.The Abuja March 21st meeting was poorly attended. Most of the "active members" of the forum did not attend. Very few people outside Abuja attended the meeting. After the date was set and people were asked to present papers and act as rapporteurs, people did not come forward. It took the mobilisational skills of Carol to get people into different roles. There was little comment on the concept note and programmes. When the time for the meeting drew near, comments on it died down. It is very cheap to write e-mails. But it takes more than internet connection and idle time to write e-mails to organise for change especially in a country like Nigeria.
In any case, I think that the officials that were tasked at the meeting should release the report but organising for change in Nigeria has to go beyond the listserve. The listserve is performing its role: popularising FOI issues and serving as a medium of exchange of information and ideas. But for organising for change, we have to look elsewhere and not the listserve. I had no illusion about this even as I was involved in the March 21st meeting but I thought that we could create a momentun which will join with other progressive forces for change.
But anyone really committed to change should do the necessary: identify like minds, call a meeting and have a programme of action. We will meet and ally with others on the field. I am aware of several efforts. It is a waste of time to be sending posting to a diverse group such as the FOI listserve to play role that they are not prepared for. This is my view.
Yours comradely,
Otive
Otive Igbuzor, PhD
Plot 590 Cadastral zone,
2nd Floor, NAIC Building,
Central Business Area,
Abuja.
Comments