TalkNigeria: beyond Dora's rebranding - the 'a nation does not exist sui generis' debate wth Ojo and Iguade

Dr. Val Ojo,

Thank you for yours below. I will try to expatiate on the two (inter-related) points you have drawn attention to, please.

. " The challenge before us, I believe, is in any way and in anywhere we are to organize as collectives for this change."

The main point here, as I try to put it boils down to organization. Primarily in my view, for any and every body keen on changing society, Nkrumah's take on seeking first political power still seems essentially sound despite the incorrectness of his '..and every other thing will be added unto it' conclusion.

An organization is a collective endeavour (it is in this light for example that I use the term 'collectives') and in this sense a political organization, as I see it is one which could be partisan or one that is non-partisan, (they both have their roles, which I shall summarily state my position on below), but which goes beyond the mere sermonizing or agonizing over where we should be or where we are respectively. Organization, politically speaking would entail a myriad of political organizations, some in contention, some in collaboration (it was in this light for example that I put together: ANC with SASCO/UDF (which collaborated with it or where its manifestations), BPC/BCM, which under Biko played the role of 'filling the gap' sort of when ANC had been to all intents and purposes sent to exile) and Sobukwe's PAC (which had been and still is in opposition to ANC).

I consciously avoid foisting my own position and particular location on organisation because I strongly believe that the more the merrier for Nigeria's future if collectives/organisations of people that desire and aspire for change blossom and a sectarian position on this undermines the emancipatory goal of a new Nigeria. This I do without abandoning walking my talk in the manner I do feel synchronizes with my perspective for change. It is in this light that I served in the Democratic Alternative as an illegal party during the military dictatorship and I have been active in the Labour Party since its formation as Party for Social Democracy in 2002 (first at the Ondo State level and since 2004 as a principal national officer).

The practical implications of the above here?

First, while I do believe that PDP is an albatross and might be irredeemable, I did welcome the advice on this serve to (I think...really can't remember, now) Rotimi as a member of PDP to go and serve on its platform. This would be a practical step. And if he is indeed a fine gentleman (which I believe is why such calls, came up in the first place), and similarly minded persons join the PDP, maybe, just maybe, they could play their own role from that turf in our collective pursuit for a NIigeria of our dream....Also there was a cal for a 'more activist' NIDO, this too in the non-partisan axis of collectives would be a practical demonstration a living of what I deposed, for example.

Lest I forget on the partisan and non-partisan as I stated above. While as I have argued elsewhere and which was part of the arguments that led organized labour to forming its party in 2002, there is a limit to how much change people can bring to bear on policy-formulation without having state power in some form or the other. Thus partisan organization is crucial. However, not is it impossible to have every body in parties, it is also essential for activists as part of the broader civil society to function if the Jeffersonian vigilance which is the price of liberty is to be consumated

Summing up on the foregoing with regards to your questions. What collectives do I mean? Partisan and non-partisan activist organizations, which would cut across a broad spectrum, as an attempt to define for all what form the line of their organization's activities should take would not only be futile, it would as well amount to replacing (or at least seeking such), the crass degeneracy of the present Nigerian state with a totalitarian essence. To paraphrase Mao, I would say a hundred flowers (read organizations/collectives) should be enjoined to bloom and a thousand ideas (their programmes, visions, proposals, projects for a better Nigeria) contend.

What "change" are these collectives aspiring to effect?

The answer to this is both simple and complex. On one hand we could and would simply say; the social transformation of Nigeria. However, yet another question then arises, what would the social transformation of Nigeria mean practically? Of course, this would mean different things to different 'collectives'. This is why I stated above that a thousand ideas should contend sprouted by the blooming of a hundred flowers.

There are however, I would want to believe, some basics that could be considered as a common denominator: functional infrastructure (electricity, potable water, roads, etc) ; reduction of poverty level; social security; universal access to quality health care; industrialization of Nigeria; drastic reduction of characteristic and systemic corruption; an equitable resolution of the national question; creation of employment opportunities; making Nigeria work for its people. One could sum up these with the Labour Party and National Conscience Party's mottos: "equal opportunities and social justice" and "abolition of poverty" respectively.

To your second question, please

"There is the need, in my view, to go beyond formulations that skirt around agency in our discussions while the discourse itself negates the building of agency"

Quite simple really, I would say (especially, when you situate it within the thread of the discourse within which it was thus formulated), and thus would summarily address it, please.

Yes, people make history, as men and women. Human history however shows that even the thinker who could be thought of as being a person, actually engages mentally with other thinkers (and quite often, movements as well) from the past or who are contemporaneous. So if we keep talking about yes, 'people', 'Nigerians' must do this or that, without locating that in the need for collectives as we have addressed above, it amounts to blowing hot air or skirting the issue of agency without any meaningful penetration of the matter.

And how does or could this negate the building of agency? That would be a legitimate question.

In the first place, the atomization (please do forgive this 'igilarity' as you would say...but I am quite sure one does not need to be a chemist to understand this. Interestingly as well, while all life could be broken down into atoms (actually sub-atomic particles), compounds are built on molecular collectives of atoms!) of our avowed commitment and expressions of this to change and of our activities is basically in the interest of the forces that are beneficiaries of any subsisting order, as it were. It was of little surprise that Thatcher had to declare 'the death of the social', asserting that there is no such thing as society to justify and as a bedrock of her 'there is no alternative' (TINA) neoliberal credo.

More importantly, when we keep asserting; the people have to change, the people have to bring change to be and all such talk without building any collective organized platform(s) to bring articulate this fantasy, we merely substitute an abstract 'the people' for the 'god' that in pre-modern times was seen as the only one that can change the stations of either persons or the entire population, in life. More like, talking loud, actually saying something but practically doing nothing, if you permit me to paraphrase the James Brown lyrics you referred to in an earlier posting.

I do hope that I have to some extent at least satisfied your queries on my posting which you raised.

My regards,

Baba Aye

***********************************************************************************

Baba Aye:

I read your deposition in response to Wilson Iguade with rapt attention.

Can you please be kind enough to explain and expatiate on these two points you made below.

1. " The challenge before us, I believe, is in any way and in anywhere we are to organize as collectives for this change."

In concrete terms, what exactly does that mean?

What kind of "collectives"?

What "change" are these collectives aspiring to effect?

2. "There is the need, in my view, to go beyond formulations that skirt around agency in our discussions while the discourse itself negates the building of agency"

Here you lost me totally.

What precisely does that mean?

Thanks in advance!

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD



On Sun 04/05/09 10:18 PM , baba_aye@yahoo.com sent:

Dear Wilson,
I do very much appreciate your continuation of this line of discourse for the specific reason that at its crux, in my view, is a question: how do we transform Nigeria?

At the crux of your argument I do find two formulations thus:

=> Nigeria is a label (name) to a land mass and so named to distinguish/ separate that land area (portion of land) from the rest of the world, period - no more no less.

=>it is an INDIVIDUAL that must come true for Nigeria (a land area) for IT (not her) to be a great nation (emphasis, mine: i.e. on 'an')

On the first, I aver that yes, the landmass is a component of that 'thing' that Nigeria (or any other country is). Nigeria however, is more than just the landmass.

If it were merely the landmass, then 'Nigeria' would have changed after Bakassi was ceded to Cameron (incidentally only the CIA fact files of the various maps of Nigeria I checked recently even implies that there is a change in the landmass of Nigeria courtesy of that tiny peninsula's excision). Would the continetal shelf as well be part of that 'landmass' and the airspace?

More importantly, when an American from Wyoming who never left that state says he is ready to die for his America, is it a landmass (which he barely knows) that he is ready to die for? Or when a Brazilian from Potto Allegre who has never gone beyond Rio asserts his love for his country is it merely clay, sand and loam that he loves, or something more? What of when it was said that England's dominion extended as far as the rising of the sun and its setting, was it a piece of land that owned other landmasses? When we talk of the economy of Nigeria, the politics of Nigeria, the geography of Nigeria, the demography of Nigeria, do we not imply that Nigeria (as much as any other country), is more than its landmass

In my view sir, a 'nation' (I feel more comfortable with country really; Nigeria is a multinational country...), comprises its landmass, people and ethos (described by some thinkers approximately as a nation's 'social imaginary'). This intangible dimension, the soul of the country you could say, is rooted in its history and reflects its aspirations. A country's name is thus more than a mere 'label'. Itr is a 'signifier' more of the country's ethos than of its landmass.

Second, I do not think 'at leat one person' can make a change. Even the biblical position is that where two or more gather...not one person because one person can not gather. I keep stressing, 'critical mass', 'structure', 'organization' . Mandela could not have liberated SA as an individual, it took organisation (ANC/UDF/SASCO/ PAC/BCM/BPC, etc). To start from one end of blaming people in general and then vest the cause of change in individuals as individuals is to just blow grammar or at best write something and then case closed. The issue in my view is; if we do not like the present state of our country, how are we organizing to change this? You see, it is easy to cook the most palatable vegetable in the world with mere mouth....without getting into the heat of the kitchen and putting pot, vegetable and fire together it is only in one's dreams that s/he ends up eating such vegetable.

On a final note here though, it is in the light of practical substance to our often masturbatory utterances on people changing our country's fate that I pointed out the March 21, meeting at Abuja. One would have expected that with such great concern for the people to change Nigeria, this would at least have been examined even if critically. What is it about? what openings does it give? what are its limitations? Conversely you could even also point us towards any other effort aimed at moving from posting on the internet from the comfort of our homes and offices here about change, change as if change will just come from heaven possess everybody all of a sudden and then voila! reveal itself to us as a new Nigeria! If Obama had just come out with his 'Change' slogan without any organisation behind i, I can assure you he would have been history now and not the historic figure he now is

So the bottom line of my position, my dear friend is that it is not enough to inteprete Nigeria (rightly or wrongly) as a 'landmass' or something more. It is not enough to invoke the name of the 'people' and somehow expect change. The challenge before us, I believe, is in any way and in anywhere we are to organize as collectives for this change. I of course would not assume that you are doing nothing. You might be, you might not. Discourse is however a very critical part of our construction of the social life we live. There is the need, in my view, to go beyond formulations that skirt around agency in our discussions while the discourse itself negates the building of agency.

Philosophers as Marx pointed out, have interpreted the world in so many ways, the point however is to Nigeria..... the same goes for Nigeria my brother.

I wish you the best of luck.



Baba Aye
************************************************************************************
Dear Baba Aye,

i understand you much much better now than in your prior take and i want to thank you for the enlightenment. as i said the "Chorus" we are singing is deeper than words and most profound in actions. to be clear, i do not disagree at all with your overall principle in your take except that it is still based on at least ONE person (an INDIVIDUAL) that "eventually [stirs] the mass of the population (or at least a significant proportion of it)" for CHANGE.

the point of the Chorus is that Nigeria is Nigeria, Nigeria is a label (name) to a land mass and so named to distinguish/ separate that land area (portion of land) from the rest of the world, period - no more no less. the point is Nigeria being a land mass CANNOT make itself great because Nigeria is a "THING" not a person. the point still remains that NIGERIANS ( the People) make NIGERIA a great nation on this planet, bar none. still on the point, IF NIGERIANS are inept, incompetent, inefficient, ineffective, and lame then and only then is the place, Nigeria, a land where "inept, incompetent, inefficient, ineffective, and lame" PEOPLE reside, period, case closed.

Baba Aye, i am arguing that for us to get to where your point is, the PEOPLE/INDIVIDUALS are involved. my understanding of where your point is, is that PEOPLE MUST lead (emphasis on LEAD), the bottom line is PEOPLE, lead or not. this is why i claim that the "Chorus" alluded to in my prior take as a result of Dr. Ojo's voice to it, is a very powerful chorus. Baba Aye's take is that the Chorus MUST manifest itself in action and we need people to do it. i do not quarrel with this point, i am only saying that manifest itself or not, it is an INDIVIDUAL that must come true for Nigeria (a land area) for IT (not her) to be a great nation. THE PEOPLE MUST make her (not "it") a great nation, PERIOD.

further, it seems to me that you are saying that we have no one to lead "the people" in current dispensation. if so, i definitely will not argue that point. however, whether we have leaders now or in the future - NIGERIA (a thing or a place) will not make NIGERIA a great nation BUT the people of yesterday, today, and tomorrow will. PEACE. love my brother and God bless. Iguade

********************************************************************************



Dear Wilson,
Thanx for yours below, please. I am actually in agreement with you on the fact that people make change and history in general, that of course is very true.

You are also very correct in pointing out the position stated by Marighella, and which I subscribe to.

My position with regards to this two points you raised in relation to this particular discourse is, basically:

=> 'people' in general never spontaneously arise, there is need for a critical mass to awaken a broader awareness. Could the French 'people' have arisen to chopping off their king's head and instituting a democratic republic without the Jacobins and Girondists? without the Congress in India around Ghandi would the people every Indian have just woken up to say Brits go away? what of the civil rights movement in the US without the NAACP, Martin Luther' sourthern council, etc? or coming closer home; Self Government Now without the Zikist National Vanguard, NYM, etc? or the stgruggle against military dictatorship without CD, UAD, JACON, etc?

Our tragedy in more recent times has been the absence of structures of people as a critical mass, to initiate that revival of the Nigerian people.

=> I think it is very iportant that Marighella pointed out that "under any theory..." and not under no theory. The inadequacies of theorizing change in Nigeria is as well, very much a problem for us. It is not an accident that, arguably, the most palpable efforts at delivering dividends of democracy, as they now say, to citizens in any of our republics can be traced to the party of the politician who took the most time to try problematize the possibilities of the way forward for Nigeria rooted in a theoretical framework. I am talking here of Aw, Awoism and its 'democratic socialism' perspectives (lest I be misunderstood; I am not necessarily an Awoist...).

Probably the greater problem besetting 'Awoits' in governance after Awo has been the absence of a theoretical base. We put 'programmes' before theory and questionable 're-branding' before ethical/political values.

Finally: only...person( s) can stage a revolution as have been done on many occasions in the history of humankind. These persons as eventually the mass of the popultaion (or at least a significant proportion of it) need to be stirred, by the practical organizing activities of a critical mass of persons, with a defined (or undefined... but then less clear to itself as a body of what it is and aims for) theory for change.

Thank you,

Baba Aye

************************************************************************************
Baba Aye

i believe one of your favorite quotes as used by you is "..under any theory and under any circumstance, the duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution". -Carlos Marighela

based on the above i ask the most simplest question you can imagine - is the revolutionary a "thing" or a "person" in order that the revolution is made in any theory or under any circumstance?

the answer is equally very simple: PERSON, only a person can stage a revolution as have been done on many occasions in the history of humankind.

your entire argument below revolves or connect to the people, period, case close. this is a very powerful concept and NOT all will get it, i am very sorry to say, bro!

when you figure it out, you feel empowered and your argument is grounded in reality and powerful imaginations. God bless. Iguade


***********************************************************************************

I do agree with the fact that a 'nation', country or state can not exist independent of the people within it that constitute it in a sense.A nation-state can as well not be equated to its territorial landmass or the country as a 'geographical expression'.

The fact that the people comprise the nation as its population however, in my view, does not result in its way forward being found in atomizing this into the people's spontaneous and yet collective re-birth (this has never happened any where in the world to the best of my knowledge). This is where leadership comes in. Grassroots rejuvenation is and can be spurred on a sustained basis only through the agency of 'intellectual and moral leadership' which could come from within or outside the state.

Even if we were to look at this issue empirically, it is next to impossible to get all the persons in a country to wake up at the same time to a re-birth. And if we are to talk of people awakening to such a renaissance on a one-by-one basis, it amounts at best to a wish without it being systemized by any agency. The tragedy of our contemporary history is that the Nigerian state seems quite bereft of the capacity to provide the needed intellectual and moral leadership, be the facilitating agency, that will herald a new dawn for our great country.

The issue goes well beyond Dora as an individual -assuming that , to all intents and purposes she is sincere about this her 'pet project- with the intellectual and moral deficit of those we seemed cursed to still have at the helms of our country's affairs, the chances of any 're-branding' , renaissance, revival or rebirth of Nigeria being a success on their watch is very remote. 'Re-branding' Nigeria, without first re-inventing the context and contents of leadership in our country amounts to putting the cart before the horse.

It is in this light for example that notable Nigerians (including a number abroad) as patriotic citizens of the country -professionals, civil society activits, trade unionists, academics, e.t.c- were part of efforts geared towards enthroning real 'CHANGE' resulting in the Rockview hotel meeting of March 21, at Abuja.

I do strongly believe that the renaisance of Nigeria, at this point in our history at least, lies not within the apparatus of the state as it is today but in mobilizing for and around a platform for change. The active layers of civil society, in the broadest of terms, need to move from merely agonizing to genuinely organizing for the Nigeria of the 21st Century that would meet the aspirations of our dreams and guaranttee the future of our children.

My regards,

Baba Aye

************************************************************************************

i thank Osanobua that another beautiful voice, that of Dr. Ojo, is singing this chorus:

"A NATION does NOT exist sui generis - it is the people that make a nation.
If the people are CORRUPT and INEPT, that NATION is deemed to be CORRUPT and INEPT.

...

It is NIGERIANS that need rebranding - there is NOTHING that can, or need be re-branded about that landmass referred to in maps as 'Nigeria'." unquote.

alleluia, alleluia, alleluia. Ise oooooooo!

Until WE THE PEOPLE GET THIS (above chorus, through our dense and thick skull) WE THE PEOPLE (not "NIGERIA" a land area and name label) WILL NEVER SUCCEED as a PEOPLE thus the area NIGERIA and the name to the area NIGERIA will fail in abyss.

Dr. Ojo, may your tribe multiply in infinite abundance for adding voice to this chorus because it is the right chorus to sing for the people and for success in a place call Nigeria. It is, and will ALWAYS and FOREVER be about the PEOPLE, period. Success in any entity or community on this planet earth is predicated on INDIVIDUALS, period, case close. God bless, Ise o! Iguade
************************************************************************************


Subject: Re: [NIDOA] Nigerians abroad our worst enemy

ALL NIGERIANS need to RE-BRAND themselves - starting with Dora Akunyili who has no clue what she is talking about.
A NATION does NOT exist sui generis - it is the people that make a nation.
If the people are COPRRUPT and INEPT, that NATION is deemed to be CORRUPT and INEPT.
If the Muslims are constantly at war with the Christians, that nation is presumed to be plagued with religious strive, etc.
It is NIGERIANS that need reebranding - there is NOTHING that can, or need be re-branded about that landmass referred to in maps as 'Nigeria'.

Dr. Valentine Ojo
Tall Timbers, MD

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The January Aawkening in Nigeria

Trade unionism and trades unions; an introductory perspective

Tools and skills for trade unions’ engagement with the state’s policy cycle process