It is now appropriate,
indeed imperative, for the Nigerian Left to present its own manifesto to the
country. This should be in form of a people’s manifesto, a people’s charter of
demands in a situation of national emergency. A people’s manifesto at this
point in our history is not a dissertation-like programme of social
transformation, the type of thing any Left formation should be able to produce
in 24 hours. Rather, it should be a clear and concise statement of not only
what the Left believes should be done to reprieve the nation from a threatening
catastrophe, but also a statement of what—in alliance with other socio-political
forces—the Left can mobilize the Nigerian people to do.
To put the matter
differently, a people’s manifesto at this time is first and foremost a Nigerian
Left’s manifesto in the ordinary sense of the word: a “public declaration of
intentions, motives, or views” or a “public statement of policy or opinion”.
Yes; but beyond this, a people’s manifesto is a people’s charter of demands
presented to the Nigerian state and governments by the Nigerian Left. A
people’s manifesto has this double character because although it can be used
for an election, it is not election-bound.
This opening declaration
should, however, not be misunderstood as implying that without an explicitly Left
intervention, the country is doomed. No. Nigeria can still be reprieved—as it
was reprieved in 2015—and before that, in 1993 and at some other critical
points in the country’s post-civil war history. What my proposition should be
understood as implying is that if the country continues in its present course,
a reprieve from catastrophe will again be a temporary or false one. And a
temporary or false reprieve will, again, make the nation’s fundamental problems
more acute and complex when they explode again in a conjuncture—as will surely
happen again. The problems will then be much more difficult to resolve in the
context and framework of a single country.
This article is, however, not the people’s manifesto as advocated. It is
rather the initiation of a discussion on its contents, nature, parameters and
politics. An illustration will also be provided.
A Nigerian people’s manifesto drafted and presented by the Nigerian Left
should not begin with a catalogue of what a Nigerian state or the incumbent or
future government should do for the people. Rather, it should begin with a
self-introduction of the movement, organization or platform presenting the
manifesto. There are at least three reasons for this. In the first place, the
Nigerian masses have, for decades, been recipients and victims of deception
from personages and entities in power or seeking power. The people are,
therefore, increasingly cynical. In the second place, the Nigerian Left has a
strong and enviable record of involvement in popular struggle and patriotic
selfless service which it should be proud to present to the public.
In the third place, we know that in this era, it is not only
speech-writers that can be hired; manifesto-writers are also hired. In other
words, manifesto-writing has been professionalized. Just put the money down and
say what type of manifesto you want and the scale of lies you wish to be
included, and the job will be done. Although there are always differences
between fake manifestoes—however beautifully written—and genuine manifestoes,
most readers may not be patient enough to spot the inconsistencies and
incongruities in fake declarations.
I wish to
propose that the difference between a people’s manifesto drafted and presented
by the Left and other manifestoes cannot be found in the “lists of contents”, a
comparison of what the authors and publishers promise to deliver to the people:
roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, airports, electricity, jobs, “stomach
infrastructure”, etc, etc.
The difference
lies in the “totality” or “packaging” which shows whether the manifesto is a
revolutionary and popular-democratic declaration or a pack of lies, deceptions
and illusions. On the one hand, the “totality” or “packaging” indicates not
only what will be done but also how it will be done, with what resources it
will be done, where the resources will come from, and when exactly it will be
done. For, even if you swear by all the deities known and unknown, that you
will run from Lagos to Calabar in three hours I will be a bastard to believe
you.
On the other
hand, in this period of extended emergency, the “packaging” or “totality” unambiguously
answers the question: Whose desperate needs are being articulated and planned
for: those of the Nigerian masses or those of exploiters, predators and
state-robbers who always present themselves as “the nation”? To put the matter
more bluntly, does the manifesto unambiguously indicate plans to immediately
redeploy the nation’s resources in favour of the hungry, the endangered and the
forgotten?
An appropriate
“table of contents” for a people’s manifesto in this particular period of
extended national emergency in the lives of the Nigerian masses may be
structured in several ways. For instance, it may have the following eight-point
structure: Who are we (that is, the authors—the Nigerian
Left)?; The country we now have; The country we wish to have and are committed
to fighting for; Fundamental human rights; Directive principles of state
policy; Social transformation; National unity, federalism and
popular-democratic restructuring; and Immediate steps (on pressing needs and
current crises).
Back to
history. The Nigerian Left is one of the oldest ideological tendencies in Nigerian
politics because the Left grew out directly from organized anti-colonial and
labour struggles—both of which started in the early 1930s. By the
eve of independence in 1960, popular democracy and socialism had become the
clear aim of the Left.
As early as
May 1961, a Leftist group in Lagos, organized by Gogo Chu Nzeribe, Peter
Ayodele Curtis-Joseph, Tanko Yakassai, M.O. Johnson, J.B. K. Thomas and a few
others, had, in an extended public declaration, described itself as the
“organization of workers, women, farmers
and farm laborers, peasants, artisans, teachers and intellectuals, small
businessmen and women, professionals, lawyers, youths, students, the
unemployed, the maimed, the deformed …”
This was a
clear ideological selection which the authors justified this way: “These are
the people who know misfortune and therefore are capable of waging limitless
and courageous struggles until victory is won”. Left out of this long list was
the “indigenous Nigerian capitalist and feudal class that had emerged as the
virtual successors to the British colonialists”. The group pledged to
“organize, unite and lead the peoples of Nigeria in a relentless and
uncompromising fight against capitalism and capitalist exploitation of the
Nigerian peoples”.
Significantly,
these young Nigerians opposed regionalism and declared their commitment to “one
undivided Nigeria, under unitary and centralized government”. And, consistently,
they declared their belief in the creation of a “Union of African States” and
“one common nationality for all Africans”.
The revolutionary
Lagos group—let us call them so here—advocated
a 40-hour week for all workers, full employment, unemployment benefits, social
security, worker-participation in management, special allowances for “all
labour that is especially risky or dirty”, adequate minimum wage, free medical
treatment, free education, paid maternity leave, paid rest-time during nursing
period ….”
Putting itself
forward as a vanguard in post-colonial nation-building, the group concluded its
public declaration by repeating that it was formed to “lead the peoples of
Nigeria in their just struggles for peace, friendship, national reconstruction,
a better future, democracy and the triumph of socialism”.
That was the
Nigerian Left about 57 years ago, just six months after independence. A
contemporary people’s manifesto can proceed from here by indicating what has
changed, what has remained and what has emerged.
*Edwin Madunagu,
mathematician and journalist, writes from Calabar, Cross River State.
Pix: Courtesy: NigerianEye
No comments:
Post a Comment