First of all, is there anarchy in Nigeria?
My definition is not concerned with the anarchy decried in International Relations, as “the absence of any authority superior to nation-states and capable of arbitrating their disputes and enforcing international law”. We should jettison that, not because some aspects of that problem is not present in the general insecurity bedevilling Nigeria, but simply because Nigerians have not seen that as a problem.
This is what I mean; Nigeria’s general insecurity is daily worsened by the influx of foreigners, especially Fulani Cattle herders, who drift or pour in (take your pick) from the country’s Northern borders. But no effort has been made to seek out such undocumented herders, try them in our courts for illegal entry into Nigeria and jail or deport them, as international law allows. Instead, foreign Fulani herders were mentioned as a way to prove the non-involvement of Nigerian Fulani herders in the rampant terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and savagery against farmers that have made Nigeria a vast killing field.
In fact, these non-Nigerian Fulani herders have been paid by a few state governors to stop their unbridled bloodletting. Such non-Nigerians have also been fingered as forming the bulk of the bandits and Boko Haramists. They are lawless all right, but Nigeria has not seen the activities of such foreigners as an affront, otherwise there should have been an effort to root out such undocumented but murderous Fulani herders from Nigeria. But nothing of such is on. Being an undocumented non-Nigerian Fulani herder may actually not be an offence because the Federal Government has not taken a stand against it. I just wonder what would happen if the Yoruba people in the Republic of Benin would begin to claim the same privilege, simply because Yoruba people are also found in Nigeria.
It just appears that where a Fulani is involved, whether one is a Nigerian or not is not an issue at all. This brings up the other matter; when the RUGA (Rural Grazing Areas) programme takes off, how do we know if the benefiting herders are foreigners or Nigerians? Well, this should be looked into or we could be making ourselves the world’s laughing stock; a dirt-poor country, the poverty capital of the world, one of the countries with the most debilitating debt burdens, which is extending its poor and terribly inadequate resources to foreign Fulani herders in their private businesses (yes private business) and for no gain whatsoever. And we are talking about foreign Fulani herders who have proved to be long time murders of their Nigerian hosts. Well, in such a situation, we have to ask ourselves whether we are encouraging or discouraging the blatant anarchy that has blanketed Nigeria for years now. Anarchy? What really is anarchy?
The word ANARCHY was coined in 1539 to denote “an absence of government”. This refers to the “curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation or any inhabited place that has no system of government or central rule”, according to Wikipedia. I know that some anarchists only advocate for a society without hierarchies, of equals, and not chaos or disorder reign, but I have not come today for such hair-splitting.
This is because anarchy comes from the Medieval Latin anarchia and from the Greek anarchos (“having no ruler”), or literally meaning “without ruler”. In fact, even as a political philosophy, anarchism advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or even harmful. Opposition to the state is central to anarchism and when such opposition is acted out or even advocated, the state of Nigeria is under attack. Right?
Well, we are just learning that opposing Nigeria or its constitutional provisions may not be evil deserving of punishment, after all. If not, the Minister of Communications, Isa Pantami, should have resigned, or he should have been sacked and turned over to the law enforcement agencies. Even after he has freely accepted that he may have espoused some doctrines that may have been in conflict with the dictates of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, he has not been made to face the music. Gosh! Satan would be squirming now; why should God not open the gates of heaven to him, after all, that he may have sinned is not the point; Nigeria has just proved that past sins should not be taken into account in any way. Just see the way, the President’s own spokesman, has defended Minister Isa Pantami.
It is not enough to explain, on his behalf, as the State House Spokesman did recently, that anybody who mouthed some incongruities yesterday could have changed his mind today. No, the security agencies need to establish what sort of absurdities that the man spewed out into the public space. I say this with conviction because our Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, has raved and raved and raved against hate speech. Now, why has Minister Pantami been applauded for his own hate speech? If he was not applauded for the hate speeches that have been popping up on the social media recently, a prodigious output that only a man fully on a mission could have achieved – as voluminously as the River Niger flows.
Reading or listening to what has been attributed to Pantami, the real question that should crop up is actually why he would be retained as a minister of the Federal Republic but why he was appointed in the first place. Why should a man who did not believe in the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all Nigerians have been appointed an officer of state? And how could he have been confirmed by the Senate, if he had publicly advocated for the nasty things he and the Presidency are now papering over?
And there is this question: What if a Christian had mouthed such type of things – but against Moslems?
That brings us to the image of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. What message would President Muhammadu Buhari be sending to Nigerians, if he keeps indulging Pantami by not sacking him? What pantomime is Buhari performing in this Pantemi disaster? Why should a nation be drowned in illogical reasoning as advocated by Pantami himself, that he held some views, religious views, and he has now changed or modified those views?
Has the government actually analysed those views of his? Were they really religious views? Or were they against the dictates of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and so anarchic. I have always been told that Islam stands for peace. So, he must have expressed something other than religious views.
And what should those views have been, if they were against the dictates of peace and against the constitution? What answer would have resulted from Pantami’s exertions if not ANARCHY? Could, say Malam Garba Shehu please correct me on this sour point if I am wrong. And if I am right, then why did he see the need to use his time, which is paid for by the Federal Government of Nigeria, and so is paid for by all Nigerians, to defend Pantami’s anarchic views? And he should know better than to tell me that the man has changed his views; did any psychologist evaluate the man and certified his metamorphosis? If Pantami rages against some people, why should those same people continue to pay his salary? Dear Garba Shehu, how do you answer that?
The trouble with anarchy in the state system is that it requires individual ethnic groups, states, cities, towns and villages or even individuals to be ruthlessly self-seeking, once a country has proved incapable of protecting the citizens. That Nigerians have turned to self-help defence systems proves this theory right. This is true because the Fulani has taught other Nigerians one salient lesson: the best way to achieve security under anarchy is to be powerful. Fulani apologists have argued that Fulani herders fought back to avenge the killings of herders and their livestock. Even such self-help mechanisms spell anarchy.
The murderous combination of anarchy, ruthless self-help, and power-maximizing behaviour in Nigeria now is worrisome. The American political scientist Kenneth Waltz stated that “in such an environment “war is normal” and the British Encyclopaedia states while looking at countries under no control of international bodies: “In other words, war, or the threat of war, is the primary means by which states under anarchy resolve conflicts of interest. The readiness of every state in an anarchic system to defend its interests through organized violence is the primary factor responsible for the development of internal cultures of militarism and bellicosity (and an emphasis on maintaining honour—i.e., international status). Unfortunately, this is true of Nigeria today, where the government has lost the ability to defend the citizenry.
We must take this warning seriously: The Encyclopaedia Britannica states that “Political scientists also suggest that under anarchic conditions, there is a moment when the danger of large-scale war is most acute: when a sudden large shift in the distribution of power among states occurs. Political scientists refer to such a shift as a power-transition crisis. The shift can be either a dramatic increase in the capabilities of one of the main actors or a dramatic decrease in the capabilities of another main unit. But when the existing distribution of privilege, influence, and goods in a system becomes mismatched to the changing realities of power, the result tends to be large-scale war”. No wonder Nigerians decry the saturation and marginalisation of some ethnic groups in government.
Does President Buhari know exactly what he has done, by refusing to sack Pantami? Does he know the pantomime he is orchestrating? Does he actually know the message he is sending to Nigerians? Will the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed be able to raise his voice again to rant against hate speech?
I will leave President Buhari with one question as he continues this Pantami’s pantomime; what kind of government is Nigeria, under his administration, practicing, especially as the insecurity blankets the nation? For the German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, a nation under anarchy is not really a state because the law is only an “empty recommendation” if force is not included to make this law efficacious (“legitimation”, etymologically fancifully from legem timere, i.e. “fearing the law”). For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, for a state to be a republic.
Kant identified four kinds of government: One, “Law and freedom without force (anarchy)”, two, “Law and force without freedom (despotism),” three, “Force without freedom and law (barbarism)” and lastly, “Force with freedom and law (republic)”. Nigeria cannot be a Republic if a Pantami can spew out murderous hate and strife, own up to them, and yet continues to be a minister.
