Unhealthy Power Struggle In Nigeria
By Soji Akinrinade, deputy editor-in-chief,
Monday, November 22, 2004
The influence and invaluable experience of Elezar Chukwuemeka Anyaoku, former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, continue to command respect around the globe. In the first two weeks of this month, he was in New York to chair a high level panel of the United Nations on NEPAD, then back to Nigeria to chair the retreat on Nigeria's foreign policy review and reformulation; then on to Switzerland to attend the meeting of the executive committee of the World Wide Fund for Nature of which he is president. On November 11, at the Royal Commonwealth Society in London, the glint was evident in Anyaoku's eyes. The University of London made him the first African to be honoured with a chair by a British university. Anyaoku spoke to Soji Akinrinade, deputy editor-in-chief, on the professorial chair, problems with Nigeria and his hopes for the country. Excerpts:
Newswatch: Congratulations on getting a chair named in your honour at the University of London. We heard it had been in the pipeline since 2001.
Anyaoku: I think it actually started at the end of 2000 when I ceased to be Commonwealth Secretary-General. The University of London approached me and said they had this plan to establish a professorial chair to be named after me. It is a most unexpected honour because this is the first time it has happened to an African and in fact at the University of London itself it hasn't happened for a long time. Furthermore, it is the first time that it is happening in any British university that any African has a professorial chair named after him. I was really humbled by the gesture. So I naturally asked them why, since I wasn't the first secretary-general of the Commonwealth. But they maintained that I was the secretary-general who has done the most to promote the Commonwealth and make it into a forceful international organisation. The first phase, of course, was to raise the funds. The Duke of Westminster, a respected English gentleman, kindly agreed to chair the fundraising committee and a number of governments contributed some money. Nigerian government contributed a bit, Malaysian government, Cyprus, etc. Indeed a number of governments contributed and then private individuals and foundations also contributed money. I think the largest contributor is the Ferguson Foundation, which is a foundation connected to the late Professor J. Ferguson who was my professor of classics at Ibadan. They donated £400,000. That's a lot of money. It has taken two years for the chair to be established and the professor was appointed last year-Professor Richard Cooke, an Englishman who is a great academic, great historian, great Africanist. He gave his inaugural lecture last week.
Newswatch: Was government donation symbolic or significant?
Anyaoku: The government gave £100,000, which is more than symbolic. At a time that Nigeria has many other problems, I thought that was substantial.
Newswatch: Since the chair has to do with the study of the Commonwealth, would it be primarily research based and would there be lectures?
Anyaoku: It is a combination of both. There will be research students coming from all over the world (not only Commonwealth countries); research students who are keen to research into Commonwealth affairs and history. And then there is undergraduate teaching too. It is a whole department of Commonwealth Studies.
Newswatch: What is now going to be your role? Are you going to occasionally give lectures?
Anyaoku: I have no formal role other than having my name there. It is just an honour. Of course last week, the Institute organised what they called an evening with Anyaoku and I gave a lecture there. So occasionally this may happen although it is not a requirement. But if they choose to invite me, I will happily go there.
Newswatch: Do you miss your days as Commonwealth Secretary-General?
Anyaoku: No. I was very glad to handover to my successor in 2000. After 10 years as secretary-general, I thought it was the right time to go. Indeed I may tell you that in 1997, the then Indian prime minister actually came to me to suggest that the rule that secretary-generals should only serve two terms might be amended for me to continue. I said to him: 'Thank you very much Mr. Prime Minister, it was I who proposed to the head of governments in 1993 in Cyprus that secretary-generals should be limited to two terms and I am not prepared to break that rule.' Whatever anyone in government or authority cannot do in two terms, I don't think there is any chance of doing much better afterwards. Besides, I thought it was better to leave office while the ovation was loudest.
Newswatch: The Commonwealth does not appear as engaged as it used to be. How do you see this?
Anyaoku: I don't think it would be a fair question for me to comment on the performance of my successor. But I can say he's doing a very good job and that the Commonwealth is still at the centre of things. It may not have major crises on its hands like it had during my tenure when I was actively involved in the transition that took place in South Africa and also take a central position on the Nigerian crisis because with the Nigerian situation General Abacha posed a direct challenge to the core principle of the Commonwealth and I was strengthened by the belief that the majority of my countrymen and women did not like Abacha and were not in support of what he was doing. This emboldened me to take the stand that I took which was open opposition to him. The Commonwealth had that challenge and was able to face it. Also during my time was the beginning of the globalisation phenomenon and the Commonwealth, of course, was able to play a role in giving globalisation a human face. So these were the challenges that created the opportunities for the Commonwealth to play an active role.
Newswatch: In Zimbabwe where the Commonwealth has been unable to make any meaningful impact whatsoever.
Anyaoku: I think the situation is so probably because the Commonwealth's approach to the Zimbabwe situation, in my view, was a bit mistaken. The Zimbabwe situation polarised the Commonwealth and in my view that was because the approach did not sufficiently address the central problem in Zimbabwe which was land. The Commonwealth addressed only the issue of governance- whether the behaviour of the Zimbabwe government was democratic enough or not, which is a matter of debate. It did not address the central issue of land equally.
I remember, if you have had a chance to look at my recently published memoirs, I told the story of the conversation I had with Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe and Josiah Tungugara, who was the commander of the liberation forces, during Lancaster House conference that produced the constitution for independent Zimbabwe. In that conference, Mugabe, Nkomo and Tungugara came to me (I was the deputy secretary general of the Commonwealth then) to say they could not accept the proposal that Lord Carrington had put together on the land question. They said to me that their people had taken up arms to fight for liberation in order to get their land back. They maintained that as recently as 1969 the Ian Smith regime was still dispossessing African communities of their ancestral land, pushing them away by force and giving the land to settlers. So they could not therefore accept the proposal being put together.
In the end, the Lancaster House conference proposed a formula for dealing with land which was inconclusive. That inconclusiveness was to obtain for 10 years. Independent Zimbabwe was not to do anything about land for 10 years. Well, Zimbabwe became independent in 1980 so the 10th year coincided with my assumption of office as Commonwealth Secretary General. Then Mugabe was going to start his land reform in 1990 which, if you remember, was the year President De Klerk released Nelson Mandela and announced his policy to engage with the anti-apartheid organisations. So Mugabe was told by people including myself as secretary general of the Commonwealth that if he began his land reform then he would complicate developments in South Africa and he did not, in deference to South Africa. That is why he began his land reform much later in 1996. I think the issue of Zimbabwe should be addressed or should have been addressed on the basis of governance and the land, not just governance. And that is what incapacitated the Commonwealth. Mugabe and his government see the Commonwealth in an adversary position. And then of course there is the situation where the SADC, the Southern African governments of the Commonwealth, as many as 12 of them, are in sympathy with Mugabe.
Newswatch: You have been important in Nigeria's struggle for democracy. Are you satisfied with the state of things today?
Anyaoku: We are on the right path but we still have a lot of hurdles to jump over. I am on record for saying that Nigeria needs a national dialogue. I am on record for saying the existing structure of our polity is not conducive to peace and stability, nor is it conducive to national development. To start with, we have as many as 812 quasi governments-774 local governments, 37 governments at the states and federal capital and of course the federal government. With the paraphernalia of government being expensive, we are spending anything up to 80-82 percent of our revenue on administration. How can we develop on that basis? Nigeria was making more progress when you had a federation of four regions. The achievements of Sardauna in the North, the achievements of Awolowo in the West, the achievements of Okpara in the East and the achievements of Osadebey in the Mid-West were solid. Take the West and the universal primary education that Awolowo got through, thereby laying a very solid foundation. Now these units of administration in Nigeria today are drab. So we have an inefficient federal system and we have an inefficient state system. That needs to be corrected. And I think the correction would come if you have a national dialogue.
Newswatch: Why is the federal government so afraid of jumping on the national dialogue bandwagon?
Anyaoku: I won't say afraid but I can understand the reason why our president is reluctant to go along that path. He became president at a time when Nigeria was on the brink and he was concerned, given his personal history and personal commitment to one Nigeria, that because people were talking about sovereign national conference, it could lead to a disintegration of the country. I myself have never supported sovereign national conference because sovereign national conference means a non recognition of the elected executive, elected legislature. We have these institutions elected, no matter how imperfect, so because of that the president was concerned. I think the concern is lessening because I read not too long ago a member of the government Professor Jerry Gana, talking about national conference and even the vice-president before that had spoken about it. So I like to believe that the government opposition to national dialogue is progressively lessening.
Newswatch: But for many Nigerians when an important man like Chinua Achebe rejected a national honour because he does not believe the government is performing well and the man is abused, or when Transparency International says Nigeria is the third most corrupt nation in the world and government dismisses the report, they are worried that the government is burying its head in the sand, and refuses to listen to what people are saying.
Anyaoku: I can see why they are worried. For example what happened in Anambra State, in my view is scandalous. But I am not home yet and still need to get hold of the full facts. But from what I have been reading outside here, I am concerned. The allegations that are being made (and I can only say allegations at this stage) about mayhem in Anambra State and the fact that the police have not played the role they should play and that the thugs who have been creating the problems are not really wholly indigenous, are worrying. If these allegations are true, it would be a very serious indictment of the authorities. But as I have said, I am not home yet and I need to get there to assess the fact for myself.
Newswatch: Anambra's has been very peculiar, not only now but also from the time of the former governor. If all the problems are being traced to the presidency, how does this help democracy in Nigeria? How is it possible to say democracy would grow with Obasanjo there?
Anyaoku: I think that the democratic progress of Nigeria is the most important thing. The country is on the right path. It has held elections no matter how imperfect they may be. The institutions of state have been put in place. We have an Independent Electoral Commission which is trying to establish its independence; we have ICPC which is meant to fight corruption; we have in place the due process mechanism; we have the institution which looks at economic crimes; these are very good institutions and the hope must be that if these institutions progressively do what they have been set up to do, the country would make progress down the democratic path. But at the same time, the reason why I called for a national conference is that the core problem is the problem of the structure of governance in Nigeria. It has to be successfully addressed. Until it is successfully addressed, I fear the movement to democracy cannot be satisfactorily made because at the moment we have an imperfect federal structure. The competition for power at the centre is unhealthy and that is why we have the electoral imperfections. The impact of our existing structure on our national development is very negative. Until these are righted through a national dialogue, I fear these drawbacks will continue irrespective of how hardworking and how well meaning the president is.
