Fighting Insecurity In A Democracy

By: Nelson Chukwudi

The birth of the Fourth Republic on May 29, 1999, ushered in a new democratic experiment after many years of military dictatorship. This journey actually began with the Third Republic’s botched June 12, 1993 election, which was presumably won by the then Social Democratic Convention (SDC) Presidential Candidate, Chief MKO Abiola, whose running mate was Babagana Kingibe. Both had defeated a Kano son, Bashir Tofa, in a landslide victory adjudged by the international community as the most acceptable democratic election in Nigeria’s history. But the Northern cabal would not agree.
That epochal event brought to the fore the high level of injustice and the skewed political foundation that have since shaped the social, political and economic direction of Nigeria. The consequential upheavals which enveloped the country in the aftermath of the annulment of the most free, fair and credible election have yet to eclipse. No doubt, June 12 unleashed new security architecture, and changed the nation’s security order.
The new security order began to take root in June, 1993, even in the face of brutal repressive tactics orchestrated by the military. The glaring threat to Nigeria’s security, majorly forced the formation of an Interim National Government by the Gen Ibrahim Babangida regime. In a clear move to douse tension, he appointed Abiola’s kinsman, Chief Ernest Shonekan as head. But in a coup led by Gen Sani Abacha, that appeasement option was jettisoned for a democratic transition process that was marred by turbulent hic-cups.
With many ethnic nationalities in the South obviously disenchanted by the denial of their right to govern the nation by the North, as exemplified by the manoeuvres and intrigues surrounding the annulment of the election, various groups resorted to arms struggle to push their political interests. Just as the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Ijaw National Congress (INC), Ohanaeze Ndigbo, and others were working to achieve political inclusion and participation through non-violent, intellectual engagements; some other more youthful wings of their communities were reticent and bellicose, like the Odua Peoples Congress (OPC), Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) and some militant cells across the Niger Delta fighting for resource control.
Even though the Abacha regime deployed crude force to quell the agitations, the movement dislocated the social order and entrenched harbingers of insecurity that amassed large swathe of illegal arms and ammunition in the hands of non-state actors, who used them against government assets and perceived agents. Then, Abacha died, leaving behind a nation riddled by disturbing security challenges.
However, seeing that the agitations would not just fizzle out without any clear attempt to remedy the grievances of the South with the Presidency of the country, the Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar regime, which took over after the sudden death of Abacha, contrived a transition programme that gave the Yorubas the opportunity to produce the president in a national election. Even so, pressure from the Southern agitators, indeed, contributed to the emergence of the Fourth Republic on May 29, 1999, but their activities no doubt laid the foundation for insecurity in Nigeria today.
To extinguish the Southern agitation, the Abdulsalami Abubakar regime, in a compromise deal, released Gen Olusegun Obasanjo from prison, and gave him the ticket of the newly formed Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to contest for the presidency against his Yoruba brother, Olu Falae. Although Obasanjo’s victory in that election significantly acted as a soothing balm to calm frayed nerves in the South, the seed of discord and militarisation of social fabric in the communities have remained untamed, and therefore, a dangerous cancer and monster threatening the peace and unity of the country.
The Odi and Zaki Ibiam massacres, the Zango Kataf and Jos killings on the Plateau, among other fratricidal pogroms were indicators that the culture of hate and intolerance has been assimilated, and therefore, wittingly or unwittingly internalised across many hitherto friendly neighbours along religious, ethnic, tribal and cultural lines. Little wonder that during the eight years of Obasanjo presidency, militancy in the Niger Delta laced with kidnapping and hostage taking, attacks on oil and gas facilities and crass sabotage of pipelines, flowstations and power plants, including killings were commonplace. Elsewhere in the South-East and South-West, uneasy calm pervaded the atmosphere, with the military on red alert to crush any ugly uprising.
In the North, Obasanjo’s deployment of iron fist rather than engagements and dialogue in quelling social disorders in Kaduna and Plateau, just as was also the case in the South resulted in the springing up of armed religious fundamentalists and Islamists. It emboldened the likes of Sheikh Mohammed Yusuf, the progenitor of Boko Haram, to intensify his exploitation of the mass of illiterate and ignorant amaljiris, extending to Bauchi and Yobe, some of whom he helped travel to Libya and Sudan for combat military training in alliance with underground foreign collaborators. His admirer and co-traveller, Sheikh Ibrahim El-Zakzaky also clandestinely continued the push to broaden his access to radical Iranian fundamentalists to import, promote and spread extreme Islamic traits and cultures in Kaduna and neighbouring states, including Zamfara, Kano and Jigawa.
The unwholesome activities of these elements, to a very large extent, created the atmosphere of insecurity in the North as a counterforce to the agitations in the South. The extrajudicial killing of Yusuf in police custody and the repressive tactics of Obasanjo aided and abated the surge of insecurity in the North, just as the South was already terrorised by disoriented but armed restive youths. Thus, the exit of Obasanjo after eight years in the saddle in 2007 without engaging the distraught armed youths across all regions in dialogue and negotiation was, by the assessment of many experts, a disservice to the fatherland. This is because, in a democracy, honest engagement, strategic dialogue and guided negotiations are embedded tools for resolving disagreements and fashioning more defined path to social peace, political stability and economic growth and development.
Therefore, Obasanjo’s arranged handover to Katsina-born Umaru Ya’Adua as a way of returning political power to the North may, to the PDP and the cabal, have been the best option to achieving justice and equity. But it obviously was not the most potent answer to the question of insecurity in the land. Indeed, Ya’Adua’s subtle approach to reconciliation, reintegration, rehabilitation, and resettlement, which was the cornerstone of the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) designed for Niger Delta militants, was applauded as meeting global benchmark for peace building; the strategy was not religiously implemented to achieve the desired goal, thereby leaving certain armed youths behind.
Ya’Adua’s death after a protracted illness, and Dr Goodluck Jonathan’s assumption of the Office of the President in 2010, and his eventual election to serve full four-year tenure in 2011 was definitely a tonic for the Niger Delta renaissance. But the seed of anger and hate already showed in the North over the circumstances of Ya’Adua’s death did not help the peace and stability of the country. Instead, it exacerbated the crisis of confidence in the polity, and triggered the resurgence of Boko Haram as a full-blown terrorist operation, first in the central axis of Kogi, Nasarawa, Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Zamfara, and Jigawa, before moving North-East to Yobe, Borno and Adamawa with the aim of linking its transnational collaborators in Chad, Cameroon, and Niger. Those splinter groups and their admirers are still enjoying, though illegally, the resources of the commonwealth, unleashing severe environmental devastation and pollution on the Niger Delta.
The murderous events of the spread of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan’s Taliban to the Middle East, and its transmutation to Islamic State (ISIS) and desperate attempts to establish a Caliphate in Iraq are well documented by history. Similarly, the fall of Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and the convergence of Islamic fundamentalist fighters in the Sahel, as well as their movements to certain West African countries to cause instability have not helped promote peace and security of harmonious communities in the North, particularly in those communities at the fringe of the borders with Niger, Chad and Cameroon. Their push to settle in hitherto peaceful communities has not been welcoming to many, thereby leading to bloody attacks in efforts to subjugate the people.
Of course, the use of armed and murderous herdsmen to penetrate the communities in North-Central, South-South, South-West, and South-East, and moves to replicate the Caliphate’s spectre of Raqqa in Iraq and Syria through acts of terrorism in Northern Nigeria, have unleashed unceasing momentum of insecurity, bloodletting and kidnapping, sometimes, for ransom to fund their operation. The terrorists, whether they are bandits, Boka Haram or Islamic State in West African Province (ISWAP), have also used revenues from drug trafficking to fund their heinous enterprise. They have been fighting endlessly to create an atmosphere of fear, tension and instability in Nigeria.
Muhammau Buhari’s election in 2015 on a commitment to end insurgency and insecurity, and the trust Nigerians bestowed on him as a former military General, has not resulted in the resolution of the crisis as insecurity still festers. The setting up of the North-East development Commission (NEDC) in the framework of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) was a deliberate response to appease the North. Although certain experts argue that Boko Haram has been weakened and greatly neutralised in the North-East, its activities could still be felt once in a while in vulnerable communities, including Maiduguri. The resettlement efforts in Chibok, Damboa, Dapchi, Michika, Monguno, among others in the North-East, have not been executed smoothly without attempts to truncate the process.
In the North-West, the terrorists masquerading as bandits have not toned down their dastardly and barbaric activities. The orgy of kidnapping and killings, including of school children and worshippers in the house of God, has been relentless. Even Islamic leaders, such as Sheikh Abubakar Gumi and others, have canvassed negotiation and amnesty for terrorists as a panacea to the insecurity. The National Assembly has even gone ahead to pass bills creating development commissions across all the zones of the country as a political weapon to douse the tension and restore peace and order in the society.
In the South-East, promoters of Biafra have also taken up arms to assert their resolve to defend their cause for self-determination. The wanton killings and horrific bloodletting in Igbo communities have remained a cause for concern to genuine stakeholders and advocates of peace and unity of Nigeria. The arrest and prosecution of the leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has not also helped the peace building process.
In all these, the trillions of Naira and billions of Dollars invested in arms and ammunition procurement, including fighter jets, such as the American Tucano war-machines, armoured personnel carriers, among others, have not resulted in clear victory for the Armed Forces against the harbingers of terrorism and insecurity in Nigeria. Also, the massive weapons, both light and heavy, procured for the security agencies and other morale boosters, have not resulted in the resolution of the security infractions across the country. The deployment of thousands of tactical military personnel to the frontlines have been sustained and consolidated. But the peace has yet to be achieved!
Therefore, like military experts and technocrats often say, ‘military operations and actions alone do not end wars, diplomacy does’. They argue that no war in history has ended through military exploits. They insist instead, that all military conflicts have ended at the negotiating tables where thorny and complex issues were extensively diagnosed, analysed and remedied for the greater good of the larger population, not the politicians and military generals.
While this concept is understandably germane in some aspects of the Nigerian security crisis, such as the Biafra, Yoruba Nation, and Niger Delta agitators simply because of the clarity and consistency of their objectives; the ISWAP, Boko Haram and bandits’ goals are inconsistent and not clear-cut. Therefore, while fighting insecurity and winning the war in the South through dialogue and diplomacy may be plausible, the same cannot be projected in the case of the North until a clear pattern and objective is identified.
Like Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike said during his inaugural address on May 29, 2015, “No government is worth any value if it cannot guarantee the security of lives and property. I assure you that never for a moment will our administration be a captive of politics, when it comes to public security. We have the political will to fight, defeat crimes and criminality in Rivers State. There will be effective coordination, collaboration and synergy with the Federal Government, the law enforcement agencies and our community leaders in the prosecution of the war against cultism, kidnapping and armed robbery. We urge our people to fully co-operate with us in this direction”.
Buhari, in 2019, declared June 12 every year as public holiday to celebrate the success of Nigerian democracy and the forces behind it. This, to many, was another conduit for appeasement of dissatisfied politicians and individuals in the nation’s body polity. But whether this step has crystallised in promoting peaceful co-existence and religious harmony among the divergent ethnic groups is not certain.
Therefore, as Nigerians celebrate June 12, it is important to appeal that since the cardinal responsibility of any government is the protection of lives and property of every citizen, fighting insecurity in a democracy, should be carefully thought through. Different benchmarks should be adopted in addressing the various challenges, including strategic engagements and dialogue. In the same vein, where negotiations fail, tactical military approach, including mercenaries and clandestine sabotage operations should be deployed to consistently destabilise the terrorists’ leadership structures, and subjugate them to submission to Nigerian political authority and sovereignty. This may be a window to winning the fight against insecurity in a democracy such as ours.
But honestly, fighting and winning the war against insecurity in a democracy goes beyond military and security operatives’ arms confrontation with the elements of destabilisation. In fact, various tools must be employed. These include building a resilient economy capable of sustaining strong employment profile for the youths, building vibrant revenue windows for all strata of the society. It also encompasses the building of strong corporate institutions and agencies in both private and public sectors to withstand shocks in the social, political and economic system. It further involves entrenching justice and equity as natural principles of governance, just as freedoms and liberty must form bedrocks for human interactions in all spheres of life.
To win the fight against insecurity, political leaders must provide enabling legislation and implement policies that promote justice and inclusion for all, including those with disabilities. The political class must also work in concert with the private sector to establish drivers of an economy that is strong and capable of sustaining and accommodating the labour force, and providing wages that encourage merit-based work environment that is productive. Indeed, labour must be properly compensated with commensurate wages. Seniors and veterans must be paid their pensions, and social security valves must be provided for the vulnerable ones in the society.
Fighting insecurity in a democracy is beyond procuring arms and ammunition for the Armed Forces and the security agencies. It must include building consensus and buy-in for communities, which must be seen to be working as equal stakeholders in governance, so they can furnish security agencies with critical intelligence to fight crime and criminality. Political leaders must deliver people-oriented governance, investing in infrastructure, human capacity development, and promoting justice, equity, freedom and liberty for all.
They must eschew corruption in the management of public resources, and ensure prudent and equitable distribution of resources to alleviate poverty. In fact, leaders at all levels must ensure that levers of social unrest and discontent are addressed early enough to avoid escalating grievances in conflicts and crisis in any form. These are the ways to fight insecurity in a democracy. Rhetoric and grandstanding, brute force and miscarriage of justice, and other actions that deny people their legitimate rights, freedoms and liberties as well as access to available opportunities to achieve their potentials must be jettisoned.
Democracy thrives in an atmosphere of justice, equity, freedom and inclusion. The opposite brings about insecurity and instability.
Happy Democracy Day to Nigerians!