For
some months now, a debate started by an intellectual section of the
bourgeois intellectuals, has been raging about the possibility and
necessity of a revolution in Nigeria that will change the political state
of the country. This call was again echoed by some section of the
opposition. The human right community has also joined the campaign for a
Nigerian revolution. But it is one thing to argue for a revolution, it is
another to do so with sincerity and clear-cur definition about what a
revolution means taking into cognisance the political-economic interest of
the people raising such issue. The most vital aspect is the role of the
labour movement and the level of the consciousness of the labour
leadership. The major basis for the call for revolution by a section of
the bourgeois class is the concentration of power in the hands of tiny
layer of the most conservative section of the capitalist class within the
framework of the limited capitalist democracy. The emergence of civil rule
in Nigeria has given many capitalist politicians hope of assessing
political power through power rotation as witnessed in many advanced and
semi–advanced democracies where two (or three party) system operates.
Unfortunately, the most conservative section of the ruling class
represented by the ruling PDP was able to hold on to power despite its
unpopularity for more than eight years. The so-called opposition (the
other section of the capitalist ruling class) after losing all hope in all
the state structures the electoral system, judiciary, etc, are looking for
an opportunity to ride on the crest of mass anger to power.
Firstly, this other section of the ruling class represented by the AD and
the ANPP (formerly APP) which held some regional powers at the beginning
of this civilian experiment provided a basis for the popularity of the
ruling party. The opposition parties which claimed to be progressive,
despite the widespread support for their emergence, disappointed the poor
masses which brought them to power. In fact most of these opposition
parties initiated some of the anti-poor neo-liberal policies later
massively implemented by the central ruling government vis-a-vis
retrenchment, privatization, attack on workers' union, commercialization,
among other neo-liberal policies that deprive thousands of working people,
basic living standards. Take for instance in the south-west, most of the
state governments that claimed to be social democrats (Awoists) introduced
diametrically opposite of what they claim to represent. Rather than create
jobs, tens of thousands were axed in Osun, Oyo, Ogun and Lagos among
others. Social infrastructures were at their lowest ebb while massive
social and industrial investments witnessed during the '60s and '80s in
the west were non-existent (even the remaining legacies like Oodua
Investment were sapped up and mismanaged). In Osun state under Bisi Akande
(now AC National Chairman) over ten thousand jobs were axed with a whole
working family (father, mother, and even children) retrenched. Labour
movement was attacked. Yet, there is no serious investment in social
infrastructures or the economy as education, health etc. were in their
worst state while industrial investment were left in the hands of
non-existent private sector. In Lagos State under Bola Tinubu, struggles
for improved wages and against retrenchment of thousands of workers led to
the death of a vibrant worker and retrenchment of labour leaders including
Ayodele Akele. In Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo and Oyo States, the same policies were
introduced and implemented.
These
policy and ideological changes of the so-called Awoists led to their
complete rejection by the masses except in Lagos State (being an economic
centre) where general hatred for the Obasanjo/PDP central government
overshadowed the anti-poor policies of the AD government, coupled with
unprecedented use of monetary inducement and political patronage by the
Bola Tinubu government (which were repeated in the 2007 elections). It is
vital to state that the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the
so-called progressive opposition is not accidental; it is a reflection of
the changing global situation exemplified by the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the Eastern European Stalinist states. During the Cold War
period, in an attempt to stave off social revolutions in many countries of
Europe, America, Asia and especially Africa, the US and European
Imperialism adopted a welfare state which gave the working poor an
improved living standard through funding of education, health, full job
provision (by the state) among others. This found echo in many African
states (especially where the emerging nationalist capitalist class like in
Nigeria were not prepared to challenge Imperialism) which led to many
pro-welfare politicians and political structures emerging. This explained
the existence of welfarist ideology in South-western Nigeria (and even
some parts of East and North). This gave unprecedented popularity to the
Obafemi Awolowo-led progressive regional government, when counter-posed to
the semi-progressive governments in the East and conservative in the North
(which was carried over till the second republic).
However, the collapse of the Stalinist states and subsequently the end of
the Cold War gave capitalism globally the boldness to roll back the gains
of welfare states in order to protect the capitalist profit. This uni-polar
state led into the incorporation of the third world into the orbit of
international capitalist exploitation through the politics of New World
Order and capitalist globalization; and the establishment and
strengthening of capitalist trade organizations (WTO, IFC, etc). No
country could exist outside this orbit without a social revolution against
imperialism. Therefore, many so-called social democrats, because they are
not fundamentally against the capitalist system, could not explain the
process simply renounce the welfarist states – from Schroeder of Germany
to Mitterrand of France, Blair of Britain among others. "Welfarists" in
Third World cannot be exceptions. Even many so-called left intellectuals
and activists who could not explain what was happening in the Soviet Union
– which is result of the absence of democratic management in the Soviet
planned economy (that led to massive wastage and mis-direction of
priority) coupled with failure of international socialist revolutions, all
of which led to final collapse of Soviet Union and Stalinist Eastern
Europe – relapsed into human "rightism" or defence of neo-liberal
capitalism.
This is
the ideological basis of the failure of Awoism and welfarism in south
west, which coupled with crass opportunism of the so-called Awoists (who
were also looking for cheap wealth) led to their unpopularity and
consequent political victory of the conservative central government over
the so-called opposition. The arch-conservative was able to sustain its
power through massive propaganda, use of brute force, patronage and
corruption, among other. The ruling party was able to manipulate all the
structures of civilian state to entrench itself in power. It should be
noted that the civil structures – the tiers and arms of government, the
law and constitution were structured to ensure the survival of the fittest
while denying the masses the right to political power. Or how else could
one explain the fact that the so-called Nigerian constitution that ask
government to provide basic social facilities did not make them
enforceable while poor people are denied the right of forming their
political party through obnoxious provisions of the constitution. In fact,
the process of making and amending the constitution is structured in such
a manner in which it is the already strong ruling class (from the military
makers of the 1999 constitutions to the "elected" legislature and the
executive) that will have the right to do this. All this, coupled with the
dual character of the opposition gave the ruling party the encouragement
to implement anti-poor policies and privatise public wealth.
But
there is limit to the extent to which the ruling party can ride roughshod
on the people; there is a limit to how much the masses can bear their
scrupulous pro-capitalist, neo-liberal anti-poor economic policies, which
has ensured unprecedented wealth for the one percent rich few who have
cornered over 80 percent of the nation's wealth, led to their massive
rejection in the 2007 elections. It was rejection of these anti-poor
policies and a quest for political alternative that made the working poor
to vote en mass for the opposition. But this is not to mean that the poor
masses were ready to stake their lives for the so-called opposition who
represent nothing different from the arch-conservative ruling parties;
therefore the votes were only protest votes not a vote of confidence for
the opposition parties. This explains why the ruling party emboldened by
the lack of viable alternative were able to rig the 2007 elections
massively and violently. The opposition members on the other hand, aside
the fact the masses were not actively supporting them, are also afraid to
even raise the masses to their feet after the rigged elections (when there
was a general anger against the rigging) because they fear that such a
step can go beyond their wish such that the masses who might have learnt
from the anti-military struggles will request for far-reaching demands
that can put opposition's interests in jeopardy. How will anybody expect
the masses to risk their lives for the Bisi Akande (or Bola Tinubu who
stood for the same anti-poor policies when they were in government), Atiku
Abubakar (who only became the opposition when his economic and political
interests were attacked by his compatriots in PDP) and Muahmmadu Buhari
(an unrepentant anti-democrat)?
It is
when it is clear that they (the opposition parties) could not get power
through the structures of the state that started their call for a
revolution. But when they talk about a revolution, they are not calling
for a revolution where the masses will have independent power or that will
lead to a socio-economic change. They are talking about a revolution that
will restore them back to the vantage position they were able to reach
during the June 12 (anti-military) struggles which they can then use to
negotiate power. This was how they (along with their so-called revered
ethnic leaders) manipulated the June 12 struggles to seek for political
power from the military men while the masses were on the street. However,
this is not to mean that all those calling for a revolution are doing so
for pecuniary and selfish reasons. Some, especially the intellectual
section, in a quest to ensure the survival of the capitalist system are
calling for a "minimal" revolution that will restore some political
changes and give a facade of democratic society. This call for a
revolution is a pre-emptive attempt by the rational section of the
capitalist class to avoid a social uprising that will end capitalism
altogether. But the limit of their perspective is shown in manner in which
they advocate a Nigerian revolution – a revolution that will restore
democratic system and true federalism.
But the
problem the working masses are facing cannot be resolved by federalism.
For instance, despite huge amount of money that had accrued to every tier
of government for the past one year, no substantial improvement has come
the way of the working masses. The one year of the current administrations
at all levels has shown that these elements cannot be different from the
past. Take education, health, social infrastructure, cost of living,
workers' welfare and job creation, there is no basic improvement. Despite
the huge resources, only the rich are benefiting as billions are budgeted
sustain the profit interests of the big business (most of whom are also in
politics) while hundreds of billions are dedicated to the capitalist
politicians as salaries and emolument. While the working poor are groaning
under increasing cost of living, the best the servant-leader could do is
to impose a new regime of electricity tariff on the masses while giving
billions for the big business in the name of stimulating non-existent
private investment in the electricity sub-sector. It was the same private
sector, along with the corrupt political class that looted billions of
dollars that would have transformed the deplorable electricity state of
the country. Also, a new regime of fuel prices is to be implemented in a
couple of weeks when the masses are even finding it difficult to survive
on the current rate of fuel prices but this austerity measure is not
extended to the business class who are given a whooping N17 billion by the
servant-leader Yar'Adua. This is clearly a failure of the neo-colonial,
neo-liberal capitalist system and not that of federalism. Of course, the
current civilian system is faulty and need a serious reform but these
reforms will not translate to better lives for the working masses unless
the capitalist economic system is removed. But this is exactly what the
capitalist ideologists are avoiding. In fact, the same policies will be
implemented if the so-called opposition parties are to be in power today.
It is
important however to point out that what the opposition and the bourgeois
ideologues are clamouring for should be a traditional demands of the
labour movement, which in the Nigerian context is the pole of attraction
for the working masses. This is clearly shown in the massive seven general
strikes the labour movement led against some anti-poor policies of the
Obasanjo government. But, despite these huge potentials, the labour
leadership in Nigeria prefers to avoid raising an independent, working
class political banner through this, which will serve as a genuine
alternative to the rotten politics which the opposition parties are
playing. Even, the labour leaders avoided openly embracing a Labour Party
formed by some labour activists. Thus an ironic situation now emerged
where clearly pro-capitalist politicians (who could not achieve their
political agenda in the ruling parties) are now using the Labour Party to
seek political power while Adams Oshiomhole, the erstwhile labour leader
contested under a completely pro-capitalist political party, AC. This has
led to a situation in which the Labour Party has been hijacked by the
capitalist politicians while the state chapters have either become
redundant or appendages of various capitalist politicians. The other
radical political parties like the National Conscience Party (NCP) and
Democratic Alternative (DA), among others are either being hijacked by the
right-wing elements or are politically inactive. The overall result of
this is that the working masses are denied political structure of their
own thus leaving their fate in the hands of various sections of the
capitalist political class.
One
would have expected a serious labour leadership to build a mass working
people's party with a clearly genuine democratic socialist ideas (of
public ownership of commanding height of the economy coupled with a
democratic control of the economy and the political system by the working
and poor people themselves at all levels, which will allow genuine
planning based on people's interest). Such a party will stand for massive
funding of free, qualitative and functional education, healthcare, job
provision (with adequate living wages and pension), cheap, efficient,
environmentally-friendly, agricultural system, public works – transport
system (road, rail, water and air), public housing, rural development,
communication system, potable water system, etc – and energy system
(solar, wind, bio-waste, etc), which will rapidly develop the country and
improve the living standard of the poor. This will inspire massive
interests of not only the working masses but also the youth, students,
artisans, peasants, etc. Despite the huge resources to achieve all this,
the capitalist ruling class, in the quest for profit will never provide
them. This explains why the public take-over and democratic control of the
society resources becomes more necessary to ensure the implementation of
thee far-reaching programmes. Such a party, through democratic control
from the grass roots to the national level, will link its programmes with
the day-to-day struggles of the working people (in strikes, rallies,
protests, pickets, etc) and thus build a rank-and-file base for the party.
It will also be easy to build a political alliance with the left-wing
sections of some radical parties. With a massive working people's
participation, it will be dangerous for the any ruling party to rig an
election won by such a party. At this stage, it is either the capitalist
class surrender power peacefully or risks a social uprising. This is the
clear path to building a truly Nigerian revolution.
This
however does not imply that the road will be smooth or that this process
is a special formula that can be adopted in a day and yield result in a
year or two. It is a long-term programme meant to inspire a political
discussion and debate among the pro-labour activists and labour leaders
with a serious working class political plan. There will be setbacks, even
schism within such a party (as various trends – ultra-left, right-wing,
etc will emerge) while the ruling class will even create moles within such
a party. The examples of many countries with workers' parties (which are
now more pro-capitalist than even the main capitalist parties – New Labour
in Britain, PS in France, PT in Brazil, etc) which have fallen back to
capitalism can be cited as a basis to ignore a call for a workers' party.
But it is a known fact that most of these ex-workers' parties, while
having a mass, working class base, were (are still in some instances)
controlled by a pro-capitalist leaders, (with a top-down system) most of
whom are only serving as a balancing force for capitalism. With a working
class, bottom-top democratic policies of a truly mass workers' party, the
main course will still be maintained. But the most of the labour leaders
are not even ready for debate on the political role of labour movement.
Even,
the industrial policies of these labour leaders are such that they prefer
to fight for piece-meal demands of workers while the fundamental issues
are left unaddressed. For instance, the same labour leaders that condemn
retrenchment are not against privatization and commercialization which are
the basis of this retrenchment. The only demand of most labour leaders
(either at local, sectoral or national level) is that the labour issues
should be addressed whenever any public utility is to be privatised or
concessioned. But privatization and commercialization are means to cut
cost and provide the big business with huge profit through attack on
workers' rights. Even, when labour leaders condemn retrenchment, their
ultimate demand is that workers should pay their terminal entitlements,
not that they should not be retrenched. In many states and industries, the
labour leaders are mostly conduit pipes to force government or
managements' anti-worker policies on workers. This set of labour leaders
cannot be expected to develop interest in independent working class
alternative, unless pushed by the working people. Currently, the central
labour unions, despite the attacks on the working masses by the current
government, prefer a strategic partnership with the same government.
Despite all this treachery of labour leadership, the working and poor
masses still follow the labour leadership in any struggle. This is not an
endorsement for their treacherous policies, but a product of the evolving
mood of the masses.
In
conclusion, it is clear that the working masses will again rise and
struggle against the anti-poor policies of the Yar'Adua government and its
clones in states, and such struggles will again bring the issue of a
revolution into focus as they will realise that various section of the
capitalist class cannot resolve any of the problems confronting humanity.
The Nigerian revolution needed is not the one that will place the power in
the hands of another section of the capitalist class, but in the working
and poor people of Nigeria who create the wealth but are denied the fruit
of their labour. It is the task of the pro-labour and genuinely
progressive and pro-democracy activists to start campaigning for a working
peoples' political platform. They should campaign that the labour movement
should call the summit of labour organizations, pro-labour and
pro-democracy organizations, socialists groups, progressive students'
movement, etc., where the political issues will be discussed. The problem
with the masses is not lack of political understanding but the absence of
a genuine leadership.
KOLA IBRAHIM
OBAFEMI
AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY (OAU), ILE-IFE,
NIGERIA
