By Eteteonline
It was generally acknowledged that the Abacha government came as a child of necessity. Indeed, everything had fallen apart in the country. Apart from political instability and uncertainty, the economy needed to be revamped and sanitized, the public service needed to be reformed and reorganized, and a war launched against indiscipline and corruption.
There was no doubt that these had been great challenges to the government. But they could not be faced realistically without national reconciliation. Nigerians needed to be reconciled with one another to be able to find a new, strong, and united way forward.
Therefore, as part of its mission of salvation, national reconciliation was top on the agenda of the administration. It was sought to be achieved through consultations, negotiation, dialogue, and compromise. As the Head of State, Abacha, put it in the national broadcast on November 17, 1997:
“In undertaking these initiatives, we seek to reinforce a culture of consensus-building, long-term planning, and national involvement in our body politic. We believe this approach best serves our desire for enduring. Peace, stability, and sustainable development.”
The programme of national reconciliation became necessary as a result of the annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election by the former military administration. The Abacha administration had always stressed the fact that the presidential elections were inconclusive and no results were declared; that the elections were aborted by a previous government, which was replaced by another government before his administration came into being; and that June 12 itself was the culminating point of several anti-democratic injustices. General Abacha clarified the position further in an address to the nation on August 17, 1994:
“Our general understanding of the effect of the annulled election was that it was of national concern and so should be addressed nationally. The June 12 issue was considered by all as the culmination of several dashed electoral hopes, which included the abrupt disqualification of 23 aspirants in mid-1992. Ironically, it was this particular injustice, after all, which enabled Chief Abiola and some others to make their bid for the presidency. Therefore, it is important to state that the circumstance of the annulment ought not to attract the imputation of ethnicity or personalisation as may be presently canvassed. This crisis ought to be a national one in which no ethnic group should seek any undue prominence.”
In an address to opinion leaders in June 1994, General Abacha stated that the annulment was very unfortunate and no Nigerian was happy about it. But somehow the country must move on. According to the Head of State:
“Some have not yet, and may still never be able to get over the unfortunate annulment of the June 12 elections. It is natural that the anniversary of that event would engender an outpouring of emotions. But we must move on; the nation must move on, reinforced by the proper lessons of that bitter experience. The important point is that we must resolve never to have a repeat performance.”
The annulment provoked serious crises in the country. But the Head of State maintained that his administration could not be held responsible for the annulment or its aftermath. Rather, the administration was doing its best to heal the wounds and move the nation forward. In the words of General Abacha:
“It is instructive to emphasize that this administration did not instigate the problems associated with the annulled election. Instead, it was in accord with the collective will of well-meaning Nigerians that we assumed the task of seeking to solve the problems occasioned by the aftermath of that annulment. This effort was enthusiastically received and endorsed by all parties and the overwhelming majority of Nigerians across the country. The composition of our cabinet and our programme of action reflect the compromise and good faith received from all interested parties.”
Nigerians must therefore deliberately cultivate the desire for peace and stability, strengthen interdependence on one another, and improve internal cohesion if the nation was to grow. As General Abacha put it:
“If we must ensure the steady and upward growth of this nation, there is a need for all of us to deliberately cultivate the desire for peace and stability.
“Our country is striving to develop a culture of democracy, and this calls for an attitude of give and take. We are a nation of over 250 ethnic groups inhabiting the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory of our country. The reality of our circumstances is the need for us to strengthen our interdependence on one another and improve our internal cohesion. In a multi-ethnic society such as ours, there is the overall need to protect all and sundry against internal or external oppression, deprivation, or relegation.
“We should acknowledge justice as a sacred tool for ensuring the advancement of our people”.
Nigerians must also set aside all their differences and work together as one people and one family to achieve a stable and prosperous society. As a firm believer in the great future envisioned for Nigeria, General Abacha said in his 1997 Independence broadcast:
“I remain a firm believer in the great future envisioned for our fatherland by its founding fathers. As I have often stated, we must set aside all our differences and work together as one people and one family for the attainment of our dream of a strong, stable, and prosperous society. We must dream great dreams for our country and transform our thoughts into positive action. We must develop greater pride and believe in our capabilities and potential, and assume our destined role as the largest black nation on earth. It should be for us a commitment to transform these past difficult years into the golden years of Nigeria’s final take-off. Nigeria should be launched into a safe orbit of a strong, stable, and happy country; a nation of sustained growth and development; a people of contented leaders and citizens working harmoniously together; with a fresh, young generation actively being prepared to inherit the fatherland.”
Since it came to power in November 1993, the Abacha Administration had evolved a number of strategies to heal the wounds occasioned by the annulment and promote national reconciliation among Nigerians. One of the strategies was the formation of a government of a grand national coalition, which would perform a mission of national salvation. The Head of State put it this way in a national address in June 1994:
“As a result of this nationwide concern about the State of our country and following intensive consultations with a wide range of interests, including the principal actors of the June 12 crises, the Armed Forces, along with other patriotic Nigerians, took the initiative of devising a way forward by forming a government of grand national coalition. To facilitate reconciliation, this coalition comprised eminent and tested leaders from all shades of political opinion. It is, therefore, clear that this administration came in to perform a mission of national salvation.”
Constitutional conference
Another strategy in which the policy on national reconciliation found expression was the convening of the National Constitutional Conference.
It provided Nigerians with a forum to sit together and discuss their problems and also proffer solutions on the way forward. As General Abacha stated in his 1997 Independence broadcast:
“The citizens of our country have, over the years, demonstrated their ability as a people to resolve their differences themselves and to live together in peace and harmony. It was in recognition of this and in keeping with our abiding faith in dialogue, conciliation, and consensus building that at the inception of this Administration we convened the National Constitutional Conference.”
The Conference, which acted as a forum for national dialogue on fundamental issues, attracted participants from all over the country representing all shades of ideological persuasions. At the end of the conference, a draft constitution was produced. General Abacha said further in the Independence broadcast:
“We hoped that the Constitutional Conference would help greatly in finding a lasting solution to the incessant problems of political instability that had plagued our nation over the years. We are glad that indeed the Conference produced useful and innovative features that should, with faithful application, allay, for instance, existing fears of the domination of one section of the country by the other. We must establish a sense of belonging among all the sections of our country so that all the citizens of Nigeria may once again be proud to be members of this nation.”
In addition to the above strategies, the Abacha Administration established the National Reconciliation Committee, headed by a former Information Minister and dynamic Nigerian statesman, Chief Alex Akinyele.
The Chairman and members of the Committee are travelling around the country on the mission of national reconciliation and have held discussions with all aggrieved Nigerians. Matters ranging from the political, like the June 12 crisis, to socio-economic, like the Ogoni crisis, have been taken up vigorously by the Reconciliation Committee. The Committee has already achieved some positive results in addressing key national issues.
Abacha’s new political order
When the administration of General Sani Abacha came to power in November 1993, it concerned itself primarily with the task of maintaining the unity of this country and creating an atmosphere of peace and security. This goal had to a large extent been achieved, and some Nigerians were grateful to his administration. As put by General Abacha:
“We believe that we have achieved the first major objective of our intervention, that of maintaining the corporate existence of our country as one indivisible nation, and creating the atmosphere of peace and security in which our people can pursue their legitimate business without fear of what tomorrow may bring. For this, we owe no one any apology, and we certainly intend no one to disrupt our people’s peace and security. Vigilance will be maintained, and our citizens will be protected.”
It may be recalled that the events before November 17, 1993, had brought Nigeria very close to dismemberment. The administration, having achieved its first major objective, then set out for the second, being the enthronement of a sustainable and enduring democracy in Nigeria. In that regard, General Abacha said:
“We are now concentrating on the second major objective of our intervention – the restoration of democracy in our beloved nation. Let no one confuse issues or mislead our foreign friends and wishers by giving a false impression of a nation in dichotomy as far as commitment to democracy is concerned. Civilians Or military, politicians, or other professionals, we are all as a people yearning for democracy. We are all yearning for the rule of law, a free press, and fundamental human rights. The label “pro-democracy” is nobody’s monopoly. This is the mood of the nation, this is the wind sweeping across Africa and the entire world. We cannot be, and we are not, indifferent or impervious to its impact.”
The democratization process enjoyed tremendous grassroots support and participation. Millions of Nigerians joined one of the five political parties all over the states of the federation. This was a tacit approval of the effort of the administration to institutionalize a genuine democracy in Nigeria. By the structure and organisation of the political parties, they could not be said to be the property of an individual or group of individuals. They were allegedly owned, run, and managed by Nigerians with common objectives, manifestos, and ideologies who had agreed to come together to form the parties. This gave every member of the parties a sense of belonging and provided a mass platform for the emergence of new leadership. It also diminished the role of money bags as they were unable to hijack the parties and run them as private companies. The mass participation of Nigerians also removed vital decision-making powers from small cliques in the parties and vested the same in the masses. From this mass participation, a new crop of leaders emerged with new ideas and vigour and a new sense of purpose, direction, and vision.
The programme of democratization of the administration was designed to give equal rights and opportunities to all Nigerians to participate in the political process. Nothing whatsoever would be a hindrance to anyone. No one would be hindered by financial incapacity, ethnic or geopolitical background, as well as professional endeavours.
In the past, political opportunities were open only to the highest bidders, money bags, and the “heavyweights”. Many qualified and capable hands were excluded from the political process for various reasons. Some politicians were banned because of their previous ‘sins’. Abacha’s administration has, however, given every Nigerian, including the aggrieved ones, a sense of accommodation and belonging and equal opportunities in the new political order. In the 1997 National Day Broadcast on October 1, the Head of State extended an invitation and a hand of fellowship to all Nigerians, particularly those who might have considered themselves aggrieved, to be part of the political process:
“I invite all loyal Nigerians to continue to engage in the political process, and I wish to use this occasion of our National Day to appeal to those who may consider themselves aggrieved and alienated to endeavour to find relevance within that process. Confrontation and violence, which place the self-righteous dissidents outside the political process, are self-defeating and merely exclude the perpetrator from serious consideration as a builder.”
The policy of giving equal opportunity also laid to rest the feelings that some ethnic groups had been politically dominated and marginalized by others. One factor that had always destroyed the smooth process of democracy in Nigeria had been the corrupt use of money by some wealthy politicians.
The activities of the money bags and the negative influence on the electoral process had been a setback to democracy. In the past, they hijacked the political parties and spent an enormous amount to buy votes and bribe electoral officers. The massive and corrupt use of money during the transition period contributed to the collapse of the democratization programme that was to usher in the third republic.
In its transition to democracy, the Abacha administration purportedly frowned on all forms of corruption and improper use of money in the electoral process. The new dispensation was against all forms of corrupt practices in its transition programme. Heavy sanctions awaited culprits. In its determination to clean up the mess, the government had suspended the implementation of the decisions of Election Petition Appeal Tribunals and ordered an investigation into allegations of the corrupt use of money to influence decisions of the Appeal Tribunals in respect of petitions which arose from the March 15 local government party elections. Thus, the Abacha Administration attempted to inject new life and confidence into the democratic process so that Nigerians did not sell their conscience or mortgage their future for a pittance.
Violence had been part and parcel of Nigeria’s political experience. It had been a source of political instability and a worrisome development to every Nigerian. The transition programme of the administration took cognizance of the violence that had plagued the political scene in the past. The administration had equally risen to this serious challenge. In order to enthrone an enduring democracy, the emerging political dispensation sought to eliminate all forms of violence. It was the policy of that government that the incidence of violence associated with politics must be curbed or curtailed if Nigeria was to move forward democratically.
This was the goal the administration was striving to attain. Its democratization programme, therefore, had the potential and prospects for achieving that desired goal. An appraisal of the situation since the June 12 annulment showed that much had been achieved in the crusade against electoral violence, as was seen in the local government elections and the overall political climate in the country.
Nigerian politicians appeared to have become more tolerant of one another than before. The message of the new order was carried far and wide, and the impact was already being felt. The charged atmosphere and tension that preceded the administration had eased out, and everything appeared peaceful.
One of the policy objectives of the government was to give Nigeria a new political order that would usher in an enduring democracy. The new order had tried to address the problems and setbacks that led to the demise of the previous republics and prevented old alliances that only served personal, ethnic, or regional interests instead of the national interest.
Most importantly, the new political order saw the emergence of a new, more dedicated, more genuine, and more dynamic leadership with new determination and zeal to move the nation forward. The first, second, and third republics witnessed the recycling of old political warlords who were out of touch with contemporary issues; who contributed to the collapse of the democratic governments of their time; and who were overambitious, self-centred, self-serving, and ready to take power at all costs.
Supporters of the military government believed that General Abacha was trying to raise a new crop of leadership, the true and genuine democrats. They said Abacha was designing a home-grown brand of democracy that was founded on vision, unity, prosperity, and social justice that would see Nigeria into the 21st century as a stable, strong, dynamic, and viable black power. According to them, while Abacha was busy on the ground fashioning and entrenching a sustainable, dependable, viable, and endurable democracy not only for their generation but also for generations yet unborn, his opponents were trying to pull down Nigeria also in the name of democracy.
As the Head of State, General Sani Abacha put it in a nationwide broadcast:
“There is no Nigerian today who does not desire democracy. Even in the military, there is a groundswell of opinion on the need to establish and uphold a culture of true democracy in our country. It is also evident that past military leaders have lent their voice of support for the installation of a viable democracy in our country. No true national patriot would disparage his fatherland with foreign contrivance with the hope of instituting democracy on the debris of this country.”
Add comment