Nigeria: Beyond the violence

It is unusual for African countries to make the news headlines in British media, yet the continuous violence in the Northern Nigerian city of Kano has created much concern and interest from across the world. An Islamic and self-declared jihadist organisation called Boko Haram, meaning “western education is sacrilege” in the Hausa language, has been launching co-ordinated suicide attacks across the country as part of their demands for an Islamic caliphate under Sharia Law. In the past few months attacks have intensified with bombings on Christian churches, the UN building in Abuja and most recently several police stations, where 186 people were left dead. At the centre of it all is the hapless President Goodluck Jonathan. Elected last year after the death of his predecessor President Yar’Adua, 2012 has not begun well.  Not only a state of emergency in the north of the country and border closures with Chad and Niger, he has had to deal with a general strike after the government removed a fuel subsidy. The incidents in Kano have so far seen the national Chief of Police sacked and the ‘reorganisation’ and ‘repositioning’ of the Nigerian Police Force. Do these events mark a new era of politics in Nigeria or do they simply comply with the world’s previous assumptions of the country?

There is a belief with many Westerners that Nigeria is a land of dysfunction; dominated by internal strife, oil revenues and systemic corruption. A former US Secretary of State once declared that all Nigerians are crooks. Perhaps most people would associate it with email ‘419’ scams or documentaries by the filmmaker Louis Theroux. Yet the links to Britain are historical and continue to be present today. Acquired as a buffer from the Francophone dominated West Africa, the British Empire formed a country comprised of different religions, languages and tribes as a measure of convenience. Religious lines were split almost evenly between the Muslim north and Christian south, though religious relations were normally good. The country’s significance was reaffirmed several years later when oil was discovered at a time when the Royal Navy was changing its fleet from coal to oil powered vessels. When independence was granted in 1960, rule was governed in a similar way to the how the British had left it. The dominant population of Northern Muslims had power in the legislature and crucially the military, to the displeasure of the southern and western factions. The ugly Biafran War in 1970, which left over one million dead, is a direct legacy of the tension between the north and south.

Yet the underlying issue in Nigeria is not religious or ethnic conflict, but endemic corruption. Even as the country emerged from a military dictatorship, corruption has continued to play its part, from the local area boys to the state house. Nihu Ribadu, a prominent anti-corruption figure said that that since independence in 1960, over £380 billion dollars had been wasted or stolen by the government. Much of this money is laundered into British banks. In 2011, Transparency International ranked it the 143^rd (out of 182) in its annual corruption index, yet Goldman Sachs deems it to be in an economic grouping behind the BRIC nations.

As Africa’s most populous country, almost 160 million and growing, why is their thought to be so much potential when seventy per cent live under the poverty line?

Oil and petrodollars, continue to pollute the environment and the political system. As other countries have found, resource dependency inhibits creativity and innovation. As the state can rely on mineral wealth, it relies less on tax revenues and consequently accountability. The World Bank says that Nigeria’s oil wealth is siphoned off by only one per cent of the population.

After the oil price rises in the 1970s, it was the multinationals who filled the investment void vacated by the Government. Portrayed by some as a Faustian pact, the multinationals offered a more reliable investment to locals through jobs and wealth. However; not all benefitted, as local Governors became rich, other regions and ethnic groups were left out and felt the effects of oil spills and contamination. The lack of infrastructure or investment in health and education has been the main consequence. In 1993, fed up with the continuing pollution in the Niger Delta, protestors prompted a shutdown of Shell’s operations in the area. As a consequence, a military crackdown brought before a court several men accused of murder, with questionable evidence, including the playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. All men were hanged for their crimes, stoking an international uproar, which saw several countries request Nigeria’s suspension from the Commonwealth.

Even with its massive oil exporting powers, almost 2.2 million barrels a day, Nigeria does not have any working oil refineries and therefore has to import the great majority of its oil. Many of the deals are struck by governing politicians and as the Africa watcher Richard Dowden says “Any politician who does not end up a multi-millionaire is regarded as a fool. Not many Nigerians are fools.”

And what of the nation’s politicians? Nigerian Parliamentarians are paid a salary of $1 million a year with $1 million in expenses to supplement it. Former rulers like Ibrahim Babingida and Sani Abacha both managed to steal billions of dollars and get away with it. The impunity and almost admiration for such men may be the reason why corruption happens and why there is so much of it. Simply because it is there and it works. It is part of the system, so there is no other way to function. As long as everyone receives their share then it is okay. Corruption is the oil that allows business to function. Tax collectors, telecoms companies, immigration officials all take part, especially the maligned police force.

The ruling Peoples Democratic Party [sic] (PDP), the new governing elite that succeeded the military, have a cosy arrangement that rotates the Presidency between a ruling southern Christian and northern Muslim. It in effect allows those in charge to have a share of the spoils whilst in charge, before the next rotation. The issue currently is that Jonathan succeeded Yar’Adua, who died before his tenure finished, before being re-elected. This led to violence in the city of Jos last year and the more recent anger in Kano. Muslims were annoyed at their PDP officials who acceded to Jonathan’s victory. Boko Haram is now exploiting that loss of trust by giving people an alternative, violence is their tool. For the first time in decades many Christians are leaving the north in fear.

Commentators argue that militants in the lawless Niger Delta were bought by government bribes to keep the peace; it is only likely that the members of Boko Haram will be bought with bags of bills sooner rather than later.

Prospects of Nigeria splitting or an African ‘awakening’ are not to be ruled out, but is anyone in a position to take it that step further? Nigeria is becoming strategically important to the West as it slowly becomes less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Yet the question is yet to be asked, will the Gulf of Guinea will remain stable itself?

Holodomor: Starving to death

It was a policy that aimed to change the economic power and landscape of the Soviet Union. A policy introduced to reorder the inequality that had governed the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. Yet, it was a policy devised to manipulate power and ultimately led to the death of millions by starvation. Called by one commentator as "the crime of the century that nobody's ever heard of" the Holodomor, a Ukrainian word meaning ‘death by hunger’ was a famine ruthlessly designed by Joseph Stalin to crush and strike and fear to an entire population. Massacred by Stalin’s secret police and abetted by left-wing Western intellects, the full scale of the atrocities are still unknown and still unrecognised as a crime of genocide. It is an event where the truth was killed.

Trusted and regarded by Lenin, many of the Bolsheviks regarded the Stalin as nothing more than a party administrator. However, after Lenin’s death in 1924, all the potential successors: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin all underestimated him. Stalin’s tact and astuteness allowed him to pick off his political rivals one by one and saw him rise to become party leader. Stalin was someone who demanded obedience. Influenced by the works of as Friedrich Nietzsche and Niccolo Machiavelli, he was willing to manipulate the weak to stay in power. He knew several cruel acts would serve a purpose in avoiding weak rule. To him, the ends always justified the means, no matter how malign. How tens of millions would eventually pay with their lives.

Stalin’s economic plans included transforming the Russian economy into an industrial superpower; one of the policies included the collectivisation of farms. Its main concern was regaining the land that many peasants had gained during the early years of revolution. Stalin needed the grain to feed new industry and to export to achieve foreign capital. It was a policy devised to improve farming yields by introducing the use of modern machinery. Yet it was a political move also. The peasants (Kulaks), though far from wealthy, had gained from the land reforms; but were regarded as traitors to the Communist cause. Many of them lived in the Ukraine, a bread basket for the whole country. Stalin saw the collectivisation in Ukraine as a way bludgeoning attempts to reaffirm independence. It demonstrated his ability to be strong. The so-called ‘dekulakisation’ was his attempts to end class warfare in the USSR.

To feed the growing workforce, Stalin demanded that yields improve. All produce was confiscated by party officials. Anyone who dared to hoard or steal grain would be executed or deported to Gulags in Siberia or Kazakhstan. Stalin’s terror demonstrated to ordinary citizens what would happen if they did not change their ways. When demand increased, the Ukrainian farmers were left without food. Their hopes of an invading force from Poland or Germany evaporated with the signing of non-aggression pacts. Travel was forbidden and slowly the population began to wilt.

Parents gave away their children in hope of a future; some because they could not feed them. Others dug their own graves, to await their peace. In the spring of 1933, 10,000 people were dying every day.

Some Communities resorted to cannibalism. In fact, human meat developed into a market. One mother when asked why she had killed and then eaten half of her child said ‘they would die anyway’.

It is thought that Ukraine lost around a quarter of its population, mainly women and children.

Yet this was all a lie according to Soviet officials, their line was explicit: ‘There was no famine’. It was not just Soviet officials, Western sympathisers and admirers of Communism came to see the country for themselves. They marvelled at Stalin’s ‘Five Year Plan’ and endorsed the progress he had brought. Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Doris Lessing all extolled the virtues of the Soviet system. Lenin coined the phrase for such people as ‘useful idiots’: Those who believed that political violence was necessary in the name of progress. British journalist Walter Duranty (the only Western journalist to interview Stalin) said that of the situation in Ukraine was malnutrition not famine. Foreign diplomats were given 'tours' of neighbourhoods to illustrate the Soviet project.

The two Western journalists who did report the truth, Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, both had to dodge the secret police to investigate the reports themselves. Yet, when they published their work, the likes of Duranty lampooned and denied their results. Duranty went on to win a Pulitzer Prize and Jones was murdered mysteriously in China several years later (believed to be by Stalin’s secret police).

To this day, eighty years on, the truth is still hidden in the police archives. It is also hidden to the Russian public. A BBC report highlighted that Russian history books distort large chunks of their own history. Stalin, who was voted the third greatest Russian of all time, was the war leader and great manager, he was not a tyrant. It hides the fact that Stalin lied about his date of birth and his height. They do not know that Stalin’s face was scarred by smallpox or his hand remained withered after an accident as a young boy. Nor do they learn of the massacre inflicted on 20,000 Polish officers in the forests of Katyn or his Great Purge that would eventually kill millions more. Stalin did not observe things in a moral sense of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, he was more interested in what was a good for him. Evil never crossed his mind. Any of his associates he distrusted were tortured then murdered. Even at his death, his guards refused to disturb him for days in case they felt his wrath.

History may redeem the plight of the Ukrainian nation, which included Poles, Germans and Jews. But we will never know how many.

ANC: 100 years - Living on history itself.

As world leaders and activists gather in Bloemfontein to celebrate the centenary of the African National Congress Party (ANC) it should provide an opportunity for all onlookers and participants to reflect and rejoice. The internal struggles against the Apartheid Government that eventually forced the world to act should be something that we must never forget. White rule saw coloured and black people subjugated, withheld basic economic and human rights. Anyone who tried to undermine the regime was brutally repressed. The ANC openly challenged the Apartheid system, providing legal help for defendants against a bias judiciary and organising strikes and boycotts. Banned by the Government following the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, where 69 protestors were killed after police opened fire, it continued to operate in secret. Working across the border in neighbouring Angola and Mozambique, it planned and launched sabotage attacks against factories, mines and communications with an aim to disrupt the day-to-day working of the country. Many of its activists were incarcerated, most notably Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, whilst others were fleeing abroad to push the intellectual message to an international audience. The ANC had become the world’s moral upright party, it was a cause that touched people’s conscience and believed it was time to act.

The release of Nelson Mandela from prison and his subsequent election as the first black leader of South Africa saw the rebirth of the country and an avenue of hope for millions of ordinary South Africans. Perhaps his greatest legacy was standing down after one term in 1999, allowing democracy to flourish after 50 years of insubordination. So does the party really stop there?

Since the man they call ‘Madiba’ stood down there has been greater scrutiny to how the country operates. His successors Thabo Mbeki and the current President Jacob Zuma have both been criticised as the party’s political practices have been questioned and a new ruling elite have emerged. Instead of the demands and transition to a fairer and more equal society, vast amounts of wealth have exchanged into ANC associated hands. In 1999 instances of widespread corruption were uncovered after the procurement of $4.8 billion of defence contracts with European defence manufacturers. Mbeki played down the HIV/AIDS epidemic across the country and Zuma said that showering after intercourse was a way of prevention. Mbeki was accused by human rights groups for turning a blind eye to atrocities being committed across the border by the Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe. Zuma’s leadership has been dogged by inter-party conflict led by the former youth league leader Julius Malema and the recent passing of a secrecy bill that forbids whistle blowing and investigative journalism against the national government. Both men played their part in the early struggles, yet both have continued to present the past as their ticket to the future. 17 years of power has not served well a new generation; millions of blacks still live in townships, almost 8.7 million live on less than a $1.25 a day, not to mention the high unemployment and violent crime rates. Both Mbeki and Zuma have made promises that remain unfulfilled.

Electorally the ANC continues to win votes from the Apartheid-era electorate, yet the population with a median age of 25, less aware of the past and uncertain of their future is turning to the electorally viable Democratic Alliance party, led by Helen Zille and significantly, Mamphela Ramphele, a fierce ANC critic and partner of the late Apartheid era hero, Steve Biko. The centenary should be an opportunity to remember the likes of Mandela, Sisulu, Tutu, Tambo and all others in the struggle, but we should remember those who have continued that have been left behind by the malaise of the ANC administration.

Footballers and Politics

The passing of the Brazilian soccer great Socrates not only leaves the world without a real footballing icon but neglects us from a passionate and illuminating sporting politician. Socrates will be remembered on the pitch as a highly technical and illustrious player, captaining the national side in the 1982 World Cup Finals, yet he also led an interesting life off the pitch. Socrates was not only a qualified medical doctor but a political activist. He openly campaigned against the military government in charge of Brazil during his time as a player, speaking at pro-democracy campaigns. He also highlighted the plight of children living in poverty and pushed for greater rights for players whilst playing for Brazilian club Corinthians. It leads me to question about footballers today, do any of them have any political will and would any of them be willing to challenge existing codes of practice in regards to politics, poverty or human rights?

Footballers traditionally are the role models that all young boys aspire to be. Not only do they fulfil every fan’s dream of scoring the winning goal or lifting the cup, but they also get paid handsomely to be a part of the club’s history and be adored by supporters. Fans go to extreme lengths to exalt their heroes through tattoos, naming children after them and creating shrines. The adoration is perfectly replicated in Ken Loach’s 2009 film Looking for Eric. Fans remember goals like childhood memories and the likes of Zola, Bergkamp, Shearer, Gazza were all childhood friends. Yet do supporters really care what a player thinks politically and would it really have an effect?

It is impossible to pigeon-hole any footballer’s political preference, but it would perhaps be acceptable to assume that with their great wealth, most would vote for the party that promises the lowest rate of tax. That is not to say that footballers are not politically astute, Chelsea’s Frank Lampard has a reputation with British journalists for his intelligence and admitted he votes Conservative. On the continent many footballers have publically declared their political affiliations, former West Ham and Lazio striker Paolo Di Canio confessed his admiration to Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, whilst Italian striker Cristiano Lucarelli is a card carrying member of the Communist party. Most famous of all is the World Cup winning French defender Lilian Thuram, who openly campaigns for better rights for ethnic minorities in France.

Finding players who openly admit to their political tendencies is only interesting because they are few and far between. How many athletes go on to write an autobiography after their career has finished yet end up writing rather insipid and lacklustre tomes? They often discuss key incidents or retell stories but rarely furnish it with thoughts on politics or leadership. It is unfair to say that all footballers are boring and lack intelligence but there are so many reasons why people admire them on the pitch yet look elsewhere for intellectual inspiration. Many footballers today tend to come from what we call the ‘working classes’ and though a horrible generalisation, put more effort into their football than their Maths and English. It doesn’t make them stupid but it does change their priorities. Making it into the first team takes precedence over which party is in power.

Football clubs are massive marketing machines and players play their part to oil the PR wheel. Players do not visit children’s wards for hedonistic purposes but because it fulfils contracts and charitable obligations. All charities, not just football clubs, are aware that by having a high profile patron helps promote a good image and generates donations, and in return it gives good PR to the patron. Certainly, some players front campaigns through goodwill e.g. Rio Ferdinand and his work to reduce knife crime in inner-city London, but all the while be certain he is well advised.

If you watch any press conference with a footballer, you can see they are briefed as if it were a police interview, all awkward questions are immediately rebuked by the communications team. Even in the dressing room they will follow the instructions from the manager, it is in an environment where saying nothing does you no harm. Think what Sir Alex Ferguson does to players who do not toe the line. The monosyllabic and cliché ridden responses stem from media training and the ‘I was only doing what the gaffer told me’ mentality. It is more than likely that many have interesting political opinions but either do not want the media hassle or the wrath of generating bad or unnecessary press for the club.

In a country where Premier League players earn on average over £20,000 a week with some easily earning over £200,000. It appears ironic to think that Robbie Fowler, Britain’s fourth richest footballer, once raised his shirt to reveal a vest in support of the Liverpool Dockers. Can players really have any loyalties when they live a life so far apart from ordinary fans? It is simply a fact British footballers live in a country where there isn’t a strong Labour movement and old sympathies no longer exist. Footballers earn enough so they don’t have to worry about these things.