In Defence of Internal Democracy in CORE I: two open letters
Response to Osaze Lanre Nosaze's open letter
It is quite unfortunate that not once in the 4,407 words of
Osaze’s letter is there even the slightest mention of the defining issue of
today i.e. the COVID19 pandemic. It shows how disconnected from changing the
world his penchant for interpreting it is.*
Anyway, I have neither the time nor the disposition for a
long-drawn response, for the moment at least. But there are some outright
distortions that need to be clarified and a few issues which I will summarily
put in perspective regarding the claims and accusations made in his open
letter.
1.
On “our phone discussion” and related
matters
- Osaze claims that I or as he puts it, the SWL merely “wanted a CORE meeting held where the question of developing a programme for the organisation would be finalised and an expanded leadership established”. This is a half-truth.
- In the 45 minutes call, I did stress the need for finalising a programme, but made it clear it did not have to be done at this meeting as there’s need for rich discussion. But the lack of a collective life of CORE for months itself has hampered such. There was also the need, as I pointed out, to discuss and formulate action in response to the existential crisis working-class people are now faced with in this era of pandemics.
- He further claims that he had been “hearing whispers for a while about this initiative and that I considered it counter-productive at the least” i.e. of our planning such a meeting. He then added that “it was only after the notice of meeting had gone out by some days that you were now kindly granting me the great courtesy of informing me of the proposed meeting”. This is an outright lie.
- The 44m26sec call ended at 14h26 and I entered a meeting which had started at 14h00 (CET). It was not until after the meeting that that I drafted the notice. It was circulated only after 17h00 (CET).
2.
On the Technical Committee, a CORE
programme and an SWL “Alternative Draft”
- What Lanre claimed to have heard from the grapevine, when we were discussing was that SWL was presenting a draft that “MUST” be the CORE programme. I pointed out that what we circulated was our own input into a debate and which we, like any other organisation in the coalition was entitled to do if they so wished – as furtherance of discussion. I then asked him to name at least one person who might have given such sectarian interpretation of our aim, but he chose not to….or could not.
- I further pointed out that our so-called “alternative draft” was largely drawn from his text (3.5 out of 5 pages!), but which we felt was too turgid as a 49 page document and in terms of its scholastic wordings which seemed more apt as a Marxist-Leninist programme of a Communist Party.
- And I also pointed out that, from discussions with all other groups, virtually all of them thought likewise. CORE as a united front should have a programme which the affiliates subscribe to and not one which merely reflects the thinking of an individual egghead, no matter how correct (or otherwise) he is.
- Lanre uses the word “authority” eight times in his text. Twice this was in reference to CORE vis-à-vis SWL and six times, it was in reference to the almighty technical committee’s authority!
- Interestingly, the committee was not strictly a CORE body. It included groups that had made it clear that they were not part of CORE. In fact, one of them i.e. CWA tendered the resignation of its member on the committee pointing out the fact that it was not affiliated to CORE, almost immediately after the meeting in January. Seni appealed to me that we should not make this public to CORE affiliates not to dampen morale.
- Beyond the technicalese of committees and such like, it is important to learn from our history on united fronts and the formulation of programmes. I happened to have been involved in the emergence of key coalitions such as CD, UAD & JAF – all of which played important historical roles in their different ways. There was none, which had the development of a verbose programme as a precondition for playing the roles they played.
- I won’t be surprised if the foregoing is mischievously taken out of context. For the avoidance of doubts, my position is not a denouement of theory. On the contrary, I don’t only take theory and programmatic formulations seriously, I am strongly of the view that any serious revolutionary should. But the issue is that those other united front formations did not put aside the fight during the IBB days for CD, Abacha days for UAD or Obasanjo days for JAF, for the formulation of a programme (so to speak as even that “formulation” has been quite tedious and one-“manish” in making) as our technical committee chair is doing in the period of the most earth-shaking generalised crisis of capitalism in living memory. It is people like our dear Lanre that Engels had in mind when he said, “an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory”.
3.
Of “shepherding”, organisations and
sundry matters
- There’s another word which Lanre often uses often with reference to the technical committee apart from authority. That word is shepherd/ing, appearing some five times in his text, providing psychoanalytic insight into his real design. The relationship between sheep and shepherds is not one of democratic discussion. It is like that of the gray headed self-renowned thinker who knows enough to guide the political sheep. Otherwise, why would he think that organisations don’t have the right to circulate their drafts without these being under his shepherd’s stick. Unfortunately, “sir” we are not yours or anybody’s sheep.
- His shepherd-like mentality in relation to the CORE affiliates also comes out clearly in his consideration of the coalition as an “organisation-in-formation”. No sir, a coalition is a broad organisation of organisations. And coalitional organisation discipline comes from democratic discussions within and between the organisations in the united front and not through some obscure shepherding.
- What would appear bizarre is that persons without visible organisations in a coalition are those keen on ensuing that organisations in the coalition are bound by discipline they formulate. I think the problem is that Lanre wants to use others to achieve what he has failed to do on his own – build an organisation. You might condemn the shortcomings of other organisations. You might write all the best texts in the world. But the taste of the pudding is in the eating. Even the programme he wants to foist on the coalition despite a general consensus that it is not apt reflects this. Go on and form a party or organisation or whatever on the basis of your “scientific” programme. We will be happy to work together. And you also have the right, and indeed duty, to not only write, but equally to organise. But don’t think you could by stealth mould a coalition which includes organisations with their vibrant lives into the craven image of your mind.
- In a longer discussion I had with Seni before calling Lanre (and by the way, for months I had been trying his (i.e. Lanre’s) line both via WhatsApp and directly, only to realise that for a while he’d been offline in all ways). And in that discussion I reminded him of an anecdotal discussion between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin when planning the Yalta Conference as WWII drew to an end. The former two wanted to have the Pope there for his ideological role as head of probably the most powerful church on earth. And Stalin asked them how many people bled in the Pope’s name on the killing fields of the war? Members of SWL were harassed, beaten, and detained in not less than four states during the 5 August #RevolutionNow launch. And in three of these, they were charged to court.
- This was while Lanre was nowhere to be found and could not even be accessed on his phone on D-Day despite being Chair of the National Action Committee. For him to be talking about subversion of CORE at this point in time cannot but be considered as like rubbing insult upon injury.
4.
The “tyranny of structurelessness” and the
mischief before 5 August
- One of the things I pointed out in the invitation is that no one ever appointed Seni and myself as co-conveners. What I didn’t go into was the why and how of that happening.
- In January last year, we’d pointed out the need for a protem committee by whatsoever name called to Seni at a time that barely three groups were meeting as what then was TIB-AMPA coalition. Seni was like “I don’t like all these kinds of bureaucratic structures it is the work that is important”.
- Shortly after I left the country, I received a report from the SWL National Secretary that he later raised the need for such in the middle of a meeting where such was not on the agenda. SWL comrades immediately raised the fact that this was not on the agenda and the matter was put aside. And I called Seni that this was not a way to build trust. But we moved on with him playing the role of de-facto convener/coordinator, being the one on the ground.
- A National Action Committee was constituted with Lanre as Chair when TIB-AMPA by then known as CORE began campaigning for 5 August as D-Day to launch #RevolutinoNow with the first of what was intended to be a series of #DaysOfRage. Shockingly, four days to that launch, I received an email from Lanre with a lengthy programmatic text titled “Manifesto of #RevolutionNow”.
- Whilst the text opened with the phrase: “the Coalition for Revolution (CORE), organisers of the Days of Rage programme of popular protests with the slogan #RevolutionNow, is committed to the revolutionary transformation of Nigeria” every other thing in its body spoke to it being the document of a “Revolution Now movement” as a new body.
- Be that as it may, I decided to take myself as mistaken and that it was actually a manifesto for CORE he was proposing. I shared it with my organisation, as I informed him I would do and which was only logical. I also opined that: “a coalition’s manifesto is something that requires discussions within the coalescing organizations on one hand and consensus between those different organizations on the other. It’s thus not something to be rushed.”
- What was his immediate response? “You describe the document as a proposal for the manifesto of the Coalition for Revolution (CORE). For what it may worth in your estimation, the intention -- I would even say, the fact -- is to the contrary. I discern a clear distinction between CORE and #RevolutionNow. I am certain the distinction is evident to you too and will not arrogate to myself the duty to point it out to you.”
- There was a whole load of heated debates back and forth, during which I pointed out that this was not the first time he was playing such mischievous cards. He then backed down claiming in what was so clearly a two-faced manner on his “distinction between CORE and #RevolutionNow”, now saying “I drew the distinction in the same way one would distinguish between, say, an NGO and any one of its projects. The organisation owns and runs the project but is not reducible to it and neither is the latter the former”.
-
We managed to draw away from that moment, but it
became absolutely clear to both Seni and I that he could not be trusted with
power or constituted as a technical (or political) authority – yes, pun
intended! It was precisely to check this his kind of ways that Seni suggested
at last that some form of convening authority be made explicit and shared i.e.
by two conveners.
It is not tenable to continue with this non-democratic
approach if we want CORE to grow and play the role it has great potentials to
play in the coming period of momentous struggle which is fast on us. That is
the whole essence of calling for a meeting which would ponder on the current
national and global situation and as well democratically constitute a broad and
inclusive leadership.
The emergent leadership could go ahead in a transparent and
vibrant way as against some shepherding technicalities to come up with a
definitive programme and constitution. This does not shut anyone out from
either being in the leadership or being part of the robust discussions towards
collective formulation of a programme of the coalition.
That is where I stand.
Baba Aye
15 May 2020
Post-Script: This response is written in a personal
capacity and not on behalf of SWL.
* Osaze did actually mention the pandemic in his letter. This response to his was written in a hurry (whilst at a meeting) and lost sight of that. Editing what is in it is however out of the question. That would be politically dishonest, to say the least. But this error is admitted for what it is - an error borne out of a context where it was written in a rush without going through it again vis-a-vis the letter it was a response to.
*******************
An open letter from Osaze Lanre Nosaze
Dear comrade Aye!
Revolutionary greetings!!
I trust that this letter finds you and your family in
excellent health in this time of pestilence. Perhaps more than any other
development in the recent history of Nigeria, the present coronavirus crisis reveals
the depth of the incompetence of the domestic bourgeoisie and the gravity of
the social disaster that has been their dominance over these past sixty years.
However, this can only be a surprise to those who have buried their heads in
the sand over those decades and refused to recognise the truth of Frantz
Fanon’s prescient conclusion that the post-independence bourgeoisies of Africa
cannot develop the continent and can do nothing but mark time while they
engorge themselves on the blood of the labouring masses. That the bourgeoisie
has revealed itself to be such a monumental failure as a ruling class in the
face of the current crisis only shows the analytical veracity of Fanon’s
thought in The Wretched of the Earth and his other works. The tragedy of the
situation, though, is not that the Nigerian ruling class has so openly and
shamelessly betrayed its historical mission. It is rather that the labouring
masses have yet to develop the capacity to break the yoke of their dominance
and toss the entire class into the dustbin of history, where they have properly
belonged from the start. And we do not need to search far and wide to find the
reason for this incapacity — we only need look in the mirror. For, above all
else, it has been the failure of Nigerian socialists to organise themselves as
an effective force in the social conflict that has hampered the radicalisation
of the struggles of the working classes and left them under the dominance of
bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideologies, from the outright conservative and
reactionary to the reformist and faux-radical.
This brings me in fact to the subject of this open letter to
you, i.e., our telephone discussion on 5 May 2020.
You may recall that we were almost an hour in that discussion and had to suspend it because you said you had a meeting to attend. That discussion centred on the meeting which you informed me you and your organisation the Socialist Workers League (SWL) had called for 17 May to adopt a programme for the Coalition for Revolution (CORE) and to expand its leadership. I will address the substance of that discussion in a while, as well as our differences in it. In the meantime, it is necessary to explain why I am writing you this open letter given that the discussion in question was not a public one but — on the contrary — a private one between you and me. First, although you promised to call me again later so we could conclude the discussion I have waited for a week now without hearing from you. I looked forward to resuming our discussion in light of the utmost importance of the matter and hoped we could resolve our differences on it before any more damage was done. That was not to be, however. I have waited in vain for your call. Second, I realised on giving more thought to the issue that this could not be considered properly as a private issue between you and me. On the one hand is the fact that you and the SWL had already taken a public action by calling for a meeting, fixing a date for it, and rallying individuals and organisations to attend. On the other is the fact that the last meeting of the expanded CORE coalition on 11 January 2020 had appointed a technical committee to shepherd the process of developing a programme for the organisation-in-formation and defining its organisational structure. I was most privileged to be appointed by the meeting as the co-ordinator of the committee, for which reason I cannot treat any matter touching on its work — as does the subject of the meeting you have called for 17 May — as a private matter between you and me. I have the responsibility as the committee co-ordinator to treat such matters in my formal capacity and to protect the integrity of the process entrusted to the committee. Third, with the date for which you propose to hold your meeting fast approaching the window is closing for us to resolve our differences concerning it and to remedy what confusion or other harm your proposed meeting may do to the said process. For, needless to say, the fact that you have taken the public action of fixing a meeting means that the matter is not any more in the character of a private issue between us. Your action has caused some confusion or worse among a number of persons and organisations involved in our long-running effort since the #RevolutionNow action of 5 August 2019, which effort has been to build a broad Left coalition that would bring us closer to re-constituting the Left again into an effective force to radicalise the struggles of the working masses in the country in their confrontation with the imperialist-bourgeois ruling bloc. The confusion caused by your public action calls for a public remedy to clear the confusion and set the process of coalition-building back on track. That clearly is not a matter for private discussion. It demands a public addressing of the issues involved. These, my Comrade, are the reasons I chose to do this public letter to you.
Our phone discussion
To aid comprehension by those who may read this open letter,
I will commence by setting out the substance of our telephone discussion on 5
May and the essence of our differences. You informed me that after considering
the discussion document I forwarded for the CORE programme, the SWL had
produced an alternative draft in response to it. The SWL, you said, wanted a CORE meeting held where the question of developing
a programme for the organisation would be finalised and an expanded leadership
established. You said the SWL had consulted widely among CORE affiliates while
developing its alternative programme and that the document was thus a
representation of the consensus among them on what the CORE programme should be.
You informed me also that you had acted in your capacity as a co-convener of
CORE to consult with these affiliates on a date for a meeting to settle the
question of the programme and to elect an expanded leadership for the
organisation. The date agreed upon for this meeting, you said, was 17 May and
you hoped I would be in attendance.
In my response, I told you I had been hearing
whispers for a while about this initiative and that I considered it
counter-productive at the least. It was not that I did not see the need for
a CORE programme or for a properly constituted leadership for the organisation.
On the contrary, I said, I have pushed the need both for these reforms and for the
development of a proper structure for the organisation, beyond the simple
question of an expanded leadership. I reminded you of our exchanges on these
matters in the lead-up to and in the wake of the 5 August #RevolutionNow
action. I reminded you also of the paper I had published on the related
question. My issue with the SWL initiative, rather, was that it was a
subversion of a process already on-going to develop a programme and
organisation structure for CORE. I informed you — not that I needed to, since
as co-convener with Seni you were abreast of all developments in the
organisation — that the 11 January meeting of the expanded CORE coalition had
set up a technical committee to develop a draft document for CORE’s programme
and organisation structure, as well as to manage the process of the collective
discussion, amendment, and adoption of these documents. Affiliates were to
submit their comments and responses to the committee, which would shepherd the
process of harmonising differences and producing a final document for adoption.
I told you that what was expected of the SWL within that framework was to
submit its alternative draft to the committee and not to usurp its role and
place in the process, which was what your action amounted to. I pointed out also
the anomaly of you alone issuing the call for a meeting and determining the
date, time, and participants, without working with the committee or your
co-convener Seni. Indeed, it was only after the notice
of meeting had gone out by some days that you were now kindly granting me the
great courtesy of informing me of the proposed meeting. It was impossible
in light of these facts, I told you, to see the SWL initiative as anything
other than an attempt to takeover the process of formulating a programme and
structure for CORE and to determine the outcome in the SWL’s favour.
That is the essence of our telephone discussion. I have
given much thought to it since then and have become more convinced of the error
of the SWL initiative. To re-iterate the key points of my critique of the
initiative:
1. In light
of the decisions of the 11 January meeting of the broad CORE coalition on
developing a programme and structure for the organisation-in-formation,
only the technical committee it set up to shepherd the process has the
authority to manage the process to develop that programme and structure, unless
that authority is taken away by the same body properly constituted. All
affiliate organisations are required to participate in the process, not to
usurp it.
2. The SWL
initiative in calling a meeting on this matter for 17 May is needless as well
as subversive of the process. This is because the technical committee has not
demonstrated any incapacity to manage the process; even if it has, the onus is
on the body that set it up — not on the SWL — to rescind its authority.
3. Not only is the SWL initiative needless, it has the potential to do grievous harm to the process by causing confusion and disenchantment among participants in the process.
The organisation-building and coalition-building processes
I will attempt below to flesh out these points. Before that,
though, permit me to layout the background to this entire issue of developing a
programme and structure for CORE. One of the long-standing principal problems
afflicting the Nigerian Left on the eve of the #RevolutionNow action on 5
August 2019 was its appalling lethargy and impotence in the face of the
progressive barbarisation of the conditions of the working classes and the
corruption and indolence of the bourgeoisie. Whereas the aggravation of popular
conditions and the worsening structural crisis of Nigeria’s neo-colonial
capitalist formation demanded and made possible the massive socialist
radicalisation of popular struggles towards the revolutionary self-liberation
of the popular classes, most socialist elements of the Left could not bring
themselves to engage in anything more than condemnatory commentaries on the
ineptitude and venality of the ruling class. The required socialist
radicalisation demanded, and the existing objective conditions made possible,
the integration and active participation of socialist elements in the struggles
of the popular classes in a consistent, persistent, organised, and disciplined
manner over the long-term. What most socialist elements of the Left could
offer, however, was episodic and shallow participation in those struggles that
played out in front of television cameras. In these circumstances, what made
the Coalition for Revolution of great importance was, on the one hand, its rejection
of both the lethargy and predilection of the Left for episodic and
television-show radicalism and, on the other, its commitment to the
radicalisation of popular struggles and the building of close working relations
with the oppressed in their conflicts with the imperialist-bourgeois ruling
bloc. It was obvious, however, that to perform these functions effectively CORE
needed to have both a clear revolutionary programme and a durable organisation
peopled by experienced and disciplined cadres. It was clear also that the
radicalisation of popular struggles and the organisation of the revolutionary
self-liberation of the working people was not something CORE alone could pull
off, that it required a revolutionary movement, a network of organisations working
in cooperation towards common revolutionary goals.
The correctness of this perspective became obvious during
and in the immediate aftermath of the 5 August action. I will not bore you or
other potential readers with the details of the events surrounding the action,
as they were well reported in the media. I will rather turn to the conclusions
the leaders and cadres of CORE drew from the outcomes of the action. The
principal one of these was that our inability to sustain the action for any
length of time and to force the ruling bloc to attend to our demands was due in
the final analysis to the fact that we had neither sufficient internal
organisational capacity nor sufficient participation from other Left groupings,
the student movement, or the labour movement. Another was that this
insufficiency of participation by these groups and movements was due in large
part to the precipitous character of the action, i.e., that we had not prepared
sufficiently. There have been arguments since the 5 August action around these
and other conclusions, but I believe true revolutionaries cannot be
vain-glorious but must admit their shortcomings and errors and work to overcome
them.
It was to achieve this self-correction that the CORE
leadership commenced a two-prong programme of development. This was, on the one
hand, to develop a programme and durable structure for the organisation. On the
other, it was to work towards building two coalitions, one with avowedly
socialist groups and another with progressive civil society organisations. In
both cases, these coalitions were to enable the co-ordination of action by
participating organisations in pursuit of common goals in order to enhance our
collective effectiveness in the social conflict. The coalition-building process
began in late August 2019 with a series of meetings held by CORE with socialist
and civil society groups. Those meetings continued at diverse intervals from
that time until the meeting on 11 January 2020 at which a technical committee
was established to produce a draft programme and organisation rules for the
expanded CORE coalition. The committee membership comprised six comrades
representing participating organisations in the expanded coalition, including
one from your organisation the SWL, with yours sincerely as the co-ordinator.
Before this meeting, however, a 28 December 2019 meeting of
CORE leaders and cadres had taken up the long-standing discussion on
formulating a programme and organisation structure for the organisation. That
discussion, commenced soon after the August #RevolutionNow action, had touched
on diverse aspects of the task and repeatedly returned to the necessity of
completing it in order that the organisation might have a clearly defined
perspective both in the coalition-building efforts and in its own work among
the masses. It had dragged over the months due in part to developments related
to the arrest of our cadres in the August action, the various protest actions
after August, and the work of stitching together a consensus among Left groups
to initiate and sustain the coalition-building programme. It was therefore at
the meeting of 28 December that we finally got round to taking a decision on
the matter; and that decision was that yours sincerely should produce a draft
programme and organisation rules for discussion.
This was the state of affairs at the time of the meeting of the broad CORE coalition on 11 January 2020. On being informed that CORE was already in the process of developing a programme and organisation rules, the meeting decided yours isncerely should complete the process in collaboration with the committee and that the committee should shepherd the process of taking inputs from participating organisations, organising the discussions on the documents, and finalising the production of the programme and organisation rules. The draft was completed in late February 2020 and distributed for review by participating organisations.
Authority of the Technical Committee
I have gone to these lengths to describe the rationale and
dynamics of the process by which we arrived at the state of affairs before the
sudden initiative by the SWL. This is so that those readers who may not be
aware of these details might be better informed and therefore better able to
judge as to the necessity and usefulness of that initiative. For it is valid to
question why the SWL should suddenly embark on this initiative, the practical
impact of which is to subvert a long-standing and painstakingly built process
of which it has been part from the start. I do not use the word “subversion”
lightly. Your public action of calling a meeting to perform the duties assigned
to the technical committee — without authorisation by the committee or consent
by your co-convener of CORE — constitutes a usurpation of the committee’s role
and an attempt to takeover the process. I cannot see how else to construe it.
The fact is not in doubt that, as a culmination of a long process started soon
after the 5 August action of 2019, the meeting of the broad CORE coalition of
11 January established the technical committee to oversee the production of a
draft programme and organisation rules for the organisation-in-formation.
Neither is it in doubt that participating organisation were only required to
submit their inputs to the committee towards a debate to finalise its social
platform and organisational structure; they were not authorised to assume these
responsibilities themselves. It is indubitable then that in unilaterally
setting up a meeting for this purpose for 17 May, both you and the SWL violated
the decision of the meeting.
Anyone who has been part of this process and has paid
attention to developments and issues in its course or who is aware of the facts
involved would find it hard to find a rational explanation for the SWL
initiative. Could it be that neither you nor the SWL was aware of the purpose
and terms of this process? How could that be when you and me have had frequent
discussions before and since the August 2019 action, discussions in which we
talked about precisely those purposes and terms? Moreover, Seni always informed
me that he also has kept you up to date on developments and issues in the
process. It could not be then that you and the SWL were unaware of what was
going on. Could it be that you and the SWL reject the decision setting up the
technical committee or the terms of reference of its work? Again, I do not
understand how that can be when the SWL was represented in the committee and
even requested the substitution of its original representative with another. To
the best of my knowledge, at no time did the SWL raise any issues with the
committee, its membership, or its terms of reference. Indeed, there was an
occasion in which I discussed with your original representative on the
committee and asked whether the SWL was ready with its input to the
programme-formulation process. That was about two or three weeks after the
programme draft had been distributed to participating organisations and
individuals. His response was that your organisation was working on its
response and would submit it as soon as it was ready. At no point in the
discussion did he indicate or suggest that the SWL had any issues with the
committee or the programme-formulation process.
In other words, at no time did the SWL question the task or authority of the technical committee. How come now you are trying to usurp its role, undermine its authority, and takeover the process? The SWL is a valued participant in the programme-formulation process, but it is only one of many participants and at no time did the broad CORE coalition grant it the authority to overturn its decision of 11 January and substitute itself in place of the technical committee.
What is the SWL's rationale?
As I have said above, it is difficult given these facts to
understand the rationale of the SWL initiative for your proposed 17 May
meeting. Is it perhaps that you thought the processes of producing the
programme and organisation rules and building the coalitions were moving too
slowly? Let us grant this for a moment for the purpose of this exchange,
without however accepting it to be true. One would think if you thought the
processes too slow that your proper recourse should be to communicate this to
the committee and urge it to expedite action on these processes. I am not aware
however of any such communication from you, whether privately or otherwise. Did
you perhaps send your concerns to the CORE co-convener Seni? I am not aware of
that either.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the processes have
indeed been long. That has been due in a certain extent to the lock-down
occasioned by the current coronavirus crisis. But that is not the main reason.
That reason has been the need to manage the processes in a manner that carries
everyone along and allows us to establish a solid foundation for both CORE and
the broader coalition. The history of the Nigerian Left is replete with failed
efforts to build coalitions and broad organisations such as we have been trying
to build since the August 2019 action. Key factors in this history of failure
include undue haste in pulling together these organisations without ensuring
there was agreement on the fundamentals of goals, strategies, and structure.
They also include bad-faith actions in which one or another participant in the
process tries to gain control of it in order to determine its outcomes in their
own sectional interests. There were also problems of wrong methodology in which
the question of organisation was reduced to a question of who holds what
position and has control of power and resources, the kind of approach you seem
to be pursuing with your proposed 17 May meeting.
It was necessary from the start if we were to avoid
repeating these mistakes to shun the attitudes and practices that caused them
in past attempts at organisation-building. It was necessary to be transparent
on issues of theory and practice, to demonstrate good faith in relating with
all participants, and to ensure that we have a common understanding of the
issues and problems involved. These are the principal reasons why the
participating organisations in the present process have been allowed sufficient
time to digest the draft programme and to produce their responses. The
Technical Committee appreciates that these participating organisations have
their internal structures and processes through which the discussion of the
draft has to go. This takes time, especially as the lock-down and the financial
hardships involved have hampered the holding of meetings and decision-making in
organisations over the past four months. For instance, it has taken the SWL
about three months to produce your own response. While waiting for
participating organisations to produce their responses, both your co-convener
Seni and I have kept in touch them to encourage them to conclude their internal
processes as quickly as possible. A number of them are still working the draft
through their own structures and processes.
If it took the SWL three months to produce your own draft,
how are other organisations to interpret your sudden initiative for a meeting
which in effect would truncate their own internal decision-making processes? We
waited patiently for everyone, including the SWL, to pass the draft through
their structures and processes, but now that the SWL is ready should others
abandon their own structures and processes? Why do you now wish to stampede the
process after you have enjoyed the benefit of patience from the technical
committee, which patience allowed you to give proper organisational
consideration to the draft? Not only do you wish to stampede the process now
but also to takeover management of it.
Why, comrade, why? People may not be as clueless, naive, or even stupid as they may seem.
Potential harm of the SWL initiative
Your SWL initiative is particularly troubling because it has great potential to do irreparable harm to the coalition-building processes CORE has been shepherding since August 2019. First and foremost, it sows discord and distrust in the ranks of participating organisations — which would be a decidedly faulty foundation on which to build a coalition. There are possibly those who in their good-faith desire to participate in building a durable coalition of the Left may participate in your proposed meeting of 17 May, unaware of issues such as those I have raised in this open letter. They may find subsequently that they have been taken advantage of and may for that reason lose faith in the sincerity of future efforts to build formidable organisations of the Left. Second, there is the fact that by usurping the authority of the broad CORE coalition that authorised the current process which you are subverting, you have encouraged those who believe it is acceptable to subvert collective decisions if doing so favours their sectional interests. That effectively destroys any possibility of organisational coherence and discipline in any future coalition based on your act of subversion. Finally, and most important in the long run, if your initiative results in the death of the present coalition-building process you would have prolonged the incapacity of the Left to radicalise the popular struggle and thereby aided the bourgeoisie in perpetuating and aggravating the inhuman conditions they have imposed on the working masses of Nigeria. This, objectively speaking, might end up being the result of your SWL effort to usurp the process. Do you care at all about this?
Conclusion
I will conclude by recapitulating my main points.
1. The
meeting of the expanded CORE coalition of 11 January 2020 set up a technical
committee to oversee the coalition-building process, including producing a
draft programme and organisation rules, receiving inputs from participating
organisations to the process of formulating those documents, and organising
discussions on them.
2. The
decisions of that meeting are binding on all participating organisations,
including the SWL, and should be respected.
3. The SWL
initiative for a meeting on 17 May is a violation of the decision of that
meeting.
4. This initiative has no tenable rationale and has the potential to do incalculable damage to what has been achieved thus far.
I hope, Comrade Aye, that you and the SWL will give due consideration to these issues.
Red salute!
Osaze Lanre Nosaze
Coordinator, Technical Committee
13 May 2020
Comments