Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)

For struggle, Solidarity and Socialism in Nigeria

Committee for a Workers' International

Chapter 1- General Overview

Chapter 2- Failure of Neo-liberalism

Chapter 3- Breaking With IMF?

Chapter 4- Will There Be A Coup?

Chapter 5- National Question

Chapter 6- The Labour Movement

Chapter 7- NCP and 2003 Elections

Home

Join DSM

Contact DSM

About us

Our Manifesto

Statements

Socialist Democracy

Newspaper of the DSM

Campaigns

NCP

Trade Unions

Students

Women

International

Downloads

email

NIGERIA:

The hopeless situation facing the masses and the society under capitalism and imperialism was illustrated by the decision of the Obasanjo regime to purportedly withdraw from IMF monitored economic programme and the reversal of the same decision a few weeks after it was announced.

"When the Olusegun Obasanjo administration came into power, it invited the IMF and the World Bank to help provide second level quality checks for its macroeconomic policies. Specifically, it invited the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the Bretton Woods institution to advise the nation on privatisation". (The Guardian, 6/4/2002)

For most averagely conscious working class people and youths, the names - World Bank and IMF - instantly bring forth a feeling of horror and misery. But to members of the capitalist class like Obasanjo, Tinubu, Kachalla (the Borno State governor), Dr Kalu (governor of Abia State), etc., the Bretton Woods institutions like IMF, World Bank, etc. embodied the last wisdom in economic management.

This is why the entire country and its people are being cheaply sold into second slavery, in the name of privatisation and liberalisation. This is what globalisation means to imperialism and its private international monopolies. The World Bank and the IMF, as creations of imperialism, were precisely created to achieve this selfish and unjust goal. The servile and spineless collaboration of members of the local capitalist class with the foreign senior partners should thus be seen as the inevitable consequence of the conduct of a very greedy but economically weak allies.

In other words, every class conscious working class person or youth should understand why the various capitalist elements ruling the country will always dance to any tune dictated by their imperialist masters and their institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

The central aim of members of the local capitalist class is to convert the entire societal resources and techniques into their own private estates, exclusively under the whims and caprices of themselves and members of their " God chosen" families. Here we need not stress that this has always been the reason and motive behind every imperialist expansion. As it should be known, imperialism is the author and originator of privatisation and liberalisation especially as being articulated in the prevailing globalisation concept.

The local capitalists want to steal the country and its people for the sole benefits of their own private estates. Significantly, this is also the central aim of imperialism when it preaches globalisation, trade liberalisation, etc., knowing fully well that it has better economic and political advantages than its economically and politically weak neo -colonial counterparts in any global sales of commanding heights of a national economy and exportation of goods and services. On its part, the neo-colonial bourgeois will always grumble and even make occasional attempts to stand up to their foreign senior partners. However, as long as selfish, profit motive of capitalism dominate their thoughts and action, they can never be expected to make a clean break with the hateful anti- poor, pro-rich policies usually championed by the World Bank and IMF. The neo-colonial bourgeoisie in Nigeria and elsewhere see that they have no chance to compete successfully with imperialism. This explains why they do not seriously invest in production. Instead, they engage mainly in trading, financial speculations as well as looting of public treasury.

But the Obasanjo administration falsely gave the opposite impression when he told the world on 5th March, 2002 that it had broken with the IMF monitored economic programme. According to Tunji Oseni, the senior special assistant to the president on media affairs, who made this revelation, government has taken this decision because of its commitment to the principles of "political stability, democratic consolidation, credibility and accountability".

Elaborating later on the same 5th March, 2002, finance minister, Mallam Adamu Ciroma, stated that government had decided to formally withdraw from the IMF because "it does not wish to continue with arrangements where only narrowly defined macroeconomic considerations come into play". Ciroma went further: "The government owes it to the people of Nigeria and secondarily to its external partners to identify prudent economic objectives that the people of Nigeria can support".

Simultaneously, President Obasanjo, in conjunction with other African rulers, has come up with what, from afar, looks like a responsive, anti-imperialist African renaissance economic cum political agenda. This initiative is called "New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)". Obasanjo, Thabo Mbeki (South Africa's president) and other African rulers have been making high-sounding speeches, on the aims and objectives of NEPAD. Amongst other things, NEPAD is described as "the most attractive basis of productive and viable interaction and cooperation between the international community and the continent". Addressing the steering committee of NEPAD in Abuja on 26th March, 2002, President Obasanjo amongst other things stated: "African leaders are fully aware of their responsibilities and obligations to their peoples. …

We must all ensure that Africa indeed claims the 21st century. There is the urgent need to set up parameters for good governance to guide our activities at both the political and economic levels"

When the aforestated decisions and comments are being made by rulers like Obasanjo, Mbeki etc. there exists the likelihood of sections of the working masses thinking that these African capitalist elements are prepared to break with the anti poor, pro-rich philosophy and policies of capitalism. In Zimbabwe at the moment, President Robert Mugabe wants to be seen as standing up to imperialism. He and his ZANU-PF party are implementing some pseudo-radical land reforms, which in practice have forced some of the extremely few but rich and influential white farmers to lose some little fraction of their land.

What therefore are the real stuff and ingredients of Nigeria's "formal" withdrawal from the IMF monitored economic programme? Are there really new elements in NEPAD's composition and objectives?

As far as the need and aspirations of the working people are concerned, government's purported withdrawal from the IMF monitored economic programme would have little on no positive effect. Government of course, stated that it would in place of the IMF monitored policies provide a "home grown alternative".

This is a blatantly false commitment. Barely two days after government's purported withdrawal from the IMF, Mallam Tijani Abdulahi, Acting Director General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) admitted that the privatisation drive of the Obasanjo regime is informed by the prevailing "global trend".

In other words, all the pro-rich, anti-poor policies of mass retrenchment, commercialisation of housing, health care, education, telecommunications, water, light, etc, would continue as before.

But the purported withdrawal from IMF programme also shows that the neo-colonial ruling class sometimes are compelled to take account of mass opinion. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that they may be forced to take some limited measures against imperialist interests because of mass pressure from below.

In any event, this is not the first time a Nigerian government had purportedly shunned the IMF. In 1986, the military junta headed by General Ibrahim Babangida launched a neo-liberal anti-poor, pro-rich economic agenda called the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). SAP was initially presented as a "home grown alternative" to the IMF-preferred policies which the working people had resoundingly rejected in a government sponsored referendum. Of course, SAP turned out to be the most coherent, comprehensive, pro- imperialist, capitalist, anti-working people's agenda ever articulated and implemented in Nigeria hitherto.

Whether sanctified or not by the World Bank and IMF, privatisation of societal resources and techniques will only spell disaster for the vast majority of human race. This means that mass hunger will remain, illiteracy will continue and joblessness will remain the order of the day; crimes and sectarian strife will become intensified.

There is therefore no serious, irreconcilable disagreement between the IMF and Nigeria's capitalist government. The government, knowing that it lacks any genuine spontaneous mass appeal that can get it re-elected, has decided to spare no cost to get re-elected at all cost! This decision the government knows well will surely attract "criticism" of the IMF officials. Hence, government decision to eat its cake, while pretending to keep it. Government wants to be spending money anyhow to get re-elected. On the basis of the counter-productive policies of the World Bank and IMF, this is not acceptable because of the inflationary wave which this conduct will unleash.

So, in order to avoid any costly verbal critique, government has formally withdrawn from the IMF monitored programme, while at the same time pretending that this is being done because of the masses. Hear the Minister of Finance, Mallam Adamu Ciroma: "the government owes it to the people of Nigeria .....to identify prudent economic objectives that the people of Nigeria can support".

So far, there is no single objective of the capitalist government headed by Obasanjo that can be truly supported by the working masses. The "formal" withdrawal is thus nothing but an election gimmick. Before or after the 2003 elections the Obasanjo government or any other capitalist variation will have no choice than to "formally" go back, cap in hand to the World Bank / IMF.

Beyond rhetorics, there is nothing new about NEPAD's composition and objectives. First and foremost, NEPAD is being packaged by the same set of the neo-colonial capitalist elements that are very corrupt and tyrannical in their respective countries. Even the current verbal renaissance does not reveal any clear break with the status quo in any respect whatsoever. According to the Vanguard of 27/03/02, "in the past six months, NEPAD officials have met three times with representatives of the G8 leading industrialised nations to prepare a plan to put to the next G8 summit in Canada in June".

According to The Guardian of the same day, NEPAD's initiators "welcomed on going engagements with developed states and multilateral institutions and urged that interactions be continued to meet the ultimate objectives of the new development paradigm…. The heads of state noted that in the spirit of partnership and development co-operation the invitation from the Director General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) to host the third meeting of the summit" (NEPAD) "in Rome, Italy during the food submit in 2002 has……..been accepted".

NEPAD therefore does not represent in any sense a break with imperialism or its hated policies. In composition, objectives and style, NEPAD is more like a loyal rebel, in the character of Her Majesty's parliamentary opposition where subterfuge is the preferred option to substance. To expect a new economic alternative from African capitalist rulers that is different from that of imperialism is to live in the world of illusion that someday the exploiters of the masses will voluntarily swap positions with their victims, the exploited working masses. NEPAD therefore means Never Expect Any Development.

According to a NEPAD's estimate, Africa needs annual foreign investments of $64 billion to ensure sustainable growth. But in the skewed world of capitalist globalisation, Africa and other poor countries of the world will end up paying more to the advanced capitalist countries than whatever paltry investment will be made by these countries. Between 1984 and 1999, the poorest countries in Africa handed over $11 billion in debt service to western creditors. Africa owes those countries more than three times her original loans.

According to Nigeria's finance minister, Mallam Adamu Ciroma, Nigeria originally borrowed $12 billion from Paris Club, repaid the sum of $17 billion, only to find itself still owing a sum of $21.25 billion to the same Paris Club! (Vanguard, August 1, 2000).

Imperialism is never a charitable entity. Whatever investments the so-called international community will make in Africa or elsewhere will be strictly based on how high is the prospects of returns. In the case of Nigeria and other highly indebted countries, such "investments" will be tied down to the unscrupulous sales of the assets of the countries concerned, in the name of privatisation and trade liberalisation.

Amongst other things, what Africa and other oppressed countries and nations of the world need for true emancipation is a total repudiation of the fictitious, unjust and unsustainable debts said to be owed by these countries. This of course, is only possible within the framework of an anti-capitalist international socialist order. Even compared with the Pan-Africanist agenda of the 50s/60s, that is the Pan Africanism of Kwame Nkrumah's era, NEPAD is a complete throw back. Where a complete break with imperialism and all its institutions and ethos are required, NEPAD proposes active collaboration and subservience to imperialism.

However, there is something significant about both NEPAD and Mugabe's land reform programme in Zimbabwe. It is this: the needless suffering of the working people has become so unbearable that even those responsible (local capitalists and imperialism) for this deplorable plight are being forced to recognise that there is a problem on hand. Expecting solution to come from these narrow minded, imperialist lackeys is however a different issue entirely.

In Zimbabwe, twenty one years after independence, 45% of the arable land is owned by white capitalist farmers. On the other side, 55% of this land is shared between black farmers constituting 70% of the population. The land question therefore still retains all the explosiveness of the pre-independence era.

For two decades, Mugabe and his leading officials, just like their counter-parts in other African countries have spared nothing to appease the insatiable profit greed and corruption of capitalism. These neo-liberal attacks on the living standards of the working people resulted in increasing mass opposition to the Mugabe regime, manifested in many protests and general strikes against his anti-poor policies, especially in the 1990s. Pressure built up for a political alternative in the form of a party to represent the interests of the poor, marginalised workers and peasants. It was this pressure that led to the creation of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Unfortunately, though the MDC evolved from the trade unions and its leader, Morgan Tsigangirai, is former general secretary of Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, its leadership has embraced capitalist programmes and policies.

When confronted with the reality of being pushed out of power, Mugabe and ZANU-PF officials suddenly began to implement a highly opportunist, unscientific and undemocratic land reform programme. In practice, land hungry ZANU/PF supporters have been encouraged to forcibly take over some little portion of the entire land belonging to a very minority class of white farmers.

Expectedly, this has met with vociferous denunciations of the imperialist forces worldwide. This of course has wrongly portrayed Mugabe and his ZANU/PF top officials as some kind of anti-imperialist forces, to certain layers of Zimbabwean working masses and their counterparts in other African countries. But it won't take long before these characters are shown for what they actually are. On its part, imperialism is worried about Mugabe's so-called land reform programme not because it has any great concern for the white farmers. Its real fear is that it may become an example for other African countries where the problems of landlessness among poor farmers, job losses through privatisation, rabid exploitation of human and material resources by multinational corporations and general mass poverty could lead to nationalisation and other actions being taken against its interests.

This opportunistic, bureaucratic, piece meal land reforms will backfire very soon. As long as imperialism and capitalism dominates the key sectors of the economy, in agriculture, industry, banking, finance, transportations, telecommunications, etc, capitalist ethos and dictates will ultimately determine what happens or does not happen. In this circumstance, Mugabe/ZANU-PF land reform will bring more doom than benefits. To start with, the method of the land reform is bureaucratic and inevitably the resultant land control and ownership is bound to be individualistic and capitalistic. On the other hand, the imperialist forces will spare nothing to consciously sabotage any incidental economic benefits that could come out of this exercise.

A thorough land reform in Zimbabwe or any similar situation like South Africa and Africa in general can only be successfully implemented within the framework of a democratic socialist plan, under a workers and poor peasants' government. Only the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy and its democratic management and control by the working masses themselves can prevent imperialist and capitalist sabotage. However, as we often explain, only a revolutionary, socialist workers and peasant government can attempt to successfully carry out this kind of programme, with the world wide, active support and solidarity of the working masses particularly those of the advanced capitalist countries.

What therefore is the perspective for Zimbabwe? Now that elections are over, Zimbabwe will once again renew efforts, even if subtly at the beginning, to secure the approval of the West and their various imperialist institutions, for its overall economic policies. On its part, in the absence of any immediate upsurge of the working masses threatening capitalist interests as a whole, imperialism too will find one way or the other to reconcile and collaborate with Mugabe and co, just as it had done in the past, with several other inglorious African rulers like Mobutu of former Zaire, General Sani Abacha, just to mention two examples.

But Mugabe's land reform and his anti-west rhetorics show, once more, that in times of very deep crisis or mass upheavals, the local capitalist ruling class can be forced to strike - or might made attempts to strike - some blows against imperialism in order to defend themselves. Such local ruler or regime could, for a time, take some anti-imperialist or radical measures, resting on sections of the masses and exploiting divisions among the imperialist powers. But this will not amount to a total break with capitalism. Therefore, where such a development occurs, socialists will warn the masses against having illusions in such regime or its policies. We will campaign for working class independence and explain the necessity to struggle for a workers' and poor peasants' government.

Meanwhile, the on-going recession in the advanced capitalist countries once again brings to the fore the incurable and insoluble contradictions of capitalism. It is already having negative impacts on the Nigerian economy and society. The recession started in the US between late 2000 and early 2001. In the US, capacity utilisation has gone down to 75% (the lowest for the past 18 years). But by late 2001, bourgeois experts were claiming some form of "recovery" or the other in the US economy. To the extent that the US economy accounts for one third of the world economy, this should be a cheerful prospect, at least going by the bourgeois economic theory of "multiplier effect".

However, as socialists explained at the time, when the factors beneath this so-called recovery are scientifically and dialectically analysed, their hollowness leaves little or nothing for imagination. The "recovery" was based on a rise in consumer spending which in turn was based on increased debt. The so-called recovery had little or no positive effects on capacity utilisation, employment, and living standards of the vast majority of the exploited mankind of the advanced capitalist countries. Confirming this analysis, the statistics issued out lately on the state of the US economy show that it is far from being on the road to a recovery. On the contrary, the capitalists are now talking of the US economy experiencing what is called a "double-dip recession", with all the consequences this would have for the rest of the world, including Nigeria.

In any event, this global capitalist crisis has already plunged Nigeria's economy into greater crisis. The expected revenue for year 2002 has fallen by 33%. When Nigeria was making more money than what is expected in year 2002, little of this practically trickled down to the vast majority of the working masses. The vast majority of the working people still live in squalor and unabated poverty which dominated the years of military rule. Needless to stress, the drastic collapse of revenues and economic activities in general, owing to the contraction of the economies of the advanced capitalist countries, particularly that of the US, Japan, Germany, etc, will bring greater disaster to the living standard of the masses.

In the 70s and early 80s when petroleum was selling at $40 per barrel, Nigeria was making a lot of money. But as typical of neo-colonial capitalism, this wealth only succeeded in creating a few local and foreign multi-millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the masses. However, when oil prices tumbled, the capitalist elements quickly introduced austerity measures whose central aim was to make the masses pay for the short fall in revenues, so that the capitalist elites can maintain their obscene, opulent life styles.

The same process has already begun to manifest itself in the face of the current drastic reduction of revenues from oil products. Borno State gives a frightful picture of what the future holds for the working masses under capitalism. According to The Guardian of April 1, 2002, "five categories of fees and licences have been increased by about 300 per cent to 4,900 percent". For instance, cattle trade fee of N10 per head has been increased to N100, while that of sheep and goats have been increased from N5 to N20. Cattle trade licence has been increased from N100 to N5,000 yearly. Hide/skin fees for each loaded trailer, lorry and pick up have been increased from N800, N400 and N200 to N1,500, N1,000 and N500 respectively.

Formerly, inspection of meat was free, now this will cost N20. Hitherto government sells a crate of eggs for N250, now this goes for N300, while poultry meat has been raised to N400 per kilogram from N200. Also, firewood sellers are to pay N1,000, N500, N50 for a lorry, pick-up, mini-cart and donkey load respectively.

In year 2000, the Obasanjo government signed a pact on minimum wage with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). Under this agreement, workers wages were to automatically increase by 25% and 15% respectively in year 2001 and 2002. Now, governments and private employers are citing the prevailing global capitalist crisis and its negative effects on local economy as reasons while that agreement can no longer be honoured. In fact, several private and public establishments have failed to implement the increment granted for the year 2000. Where partial implementation has been effected, this has resulted in mass retrenchment of workers while prices of goods and services have simultaneously skyrocketed.

States like Anambra and Enugu are already in arrears of salaries and allowances of over six months. Things are so bad that even frontline state apparatuses like the army, police, immigration, prisons, etc, are increasingly finding it impossible to pay the salaries and allowances of their non-commissioned officers as well as the allowances of their pensioners.

In The Punch of 26th March, 2002, the Head of Service of the federation, Alhaji Mahmud Yayale Ahmed, was quoted to have ruled out any increment in the wages of civil servants. According to him, the upward review of the remunerations of civil servants in year 2000 was just a kind gesture of the present administration. He stated further: "it is one of the major conflicting signals of public sector management in our part of the world that while the civil servants complain vociferously about inadequate level of remuneration, the government duly supported by the multi-lateral agencies, is committed to exploring ways of significantly reducing the cost of public administration".

In plain language, Ahmed is not only ruling out any wage increment, he in fact was saying that the local capitalists and their foreign backers are in agreement on imposing further hardship in forms of wage cuts and retrenchment on the working class people. This anti-poor, anti-working class approach will surely as usual provoke resistance and fight back on the part of the labouring masses. Therefore, the major task confronting socialists and the working class leadership is how to give correct political and organisational expression to this inevitable confrontation of the masses against the selfish calculation of the capitalists with a view to permanently guarantee the masses' basic needs and aspirations.

In this respect, all the sections of the capitalist ruling class are absolutely useless and irrelevant. Of course, those of them in power in PDP, APP and AD would tell you that another term of office is what they need to be able to complete the wonderful jobs they are doing at the moment, while those of them not directly in power are boasting of performing more wonders if voted into power.

Significantly however, all the strata of the capitalist ruling class, within and outside the registered political parties subscribe to a private sector led, market driven economy. In other words, they all severally and collectively subscribe to the prevailing unjust capitalist order, where the overwhelming majority remain in squalor, in the midst of abundant resources and inexhaustible potentials. Naturally, every one of their policies and conduct poses a serious danger to the interest of the vast majority of the working masses and Nigeria's so-called nascent democracy in particular.

If you complain about mass unemployment of the employable, members of the capitalist class will say there is insufficient money to provide job for every person in society. If you complain about mass retrenchment, the usual answer is that government and employers of labour do not have enough money to keep the retrenched workers in their jobs. If you ask them why they are hiking up the cost of food, housing, health care, education, telecommunications, etc in the midst of mass unemployment and mass retrenchment, where wages are grossly inadequate and yet never get paid regularly, the standard ruling class response is that money is not enough to attend to these needs.

However, no matter how deep the economic crisis is, no matter how high is the shortfall in revenues, members of the capitalist class in position of authority in public and private sectors have always had enough money to meet their own obscene, opulent life styles. Whenever they are not busy looting the treasury via fake and over-bloated contract deals, with their local and foreign business partners and companies, they will be busy using their privileged position to award to themselves outrageously fat salaries and allowances.

If it should be stressed, this kind of reprehensible conduct is inevitable under capitalism. To start with, capitalism glorifies a bizarre situation where one individual like Bill Gate is richer than say 500 million people on earth. This is the joy of private enterprise. But then this "joy" can only be made possible through the robbing, by a few individuals/capitalist corporations, of what belongs to all. In this context, capitalism itself is the mother of all corruption. In a neo-colonial capitalist set up like Nigeria, where the vast bulk of members of the capitalist class do not have independent capital or source of money outside state's treasury and public contracts, the organic corruption of capitalism assumes a more obscene, provocative character. If you are not in direct position of power and authority, in private and public sectors or have connection with those in authority, you are virtually an economic and political nonentity.

This primarily is what sharpens the intra and inter party conducts and relations of the six registered political parties, particularly PDP, AD and ANPP which have been ruling parties since 1999. For instance, these so-called parties are run in highly undemocratic manner. All, without exception, lacks active grass-root membership. The affairs of these parties are invariably dictated and bulldozed by the factions in control of state treasuries and apparatuses. There is one exception though: most segments of these "parties" agree that additional political parties should not be registered to contest power with them, lest they lose out. The working masses are thus faced with a no-win situation on all fronts. Neither the policies nor its current implementation can be changed! In this context, the so-called 2003 elections will be nothing but a cynical monumental farce, of course, with serious negative socio-political implications for Nigeria and the working masses in particular.

Therefore, none of the registered bourgeois parties represents the way forward for the masses. Their continued stay in power will only further deepen the alienation of the masses from civil rule. Severally and collectively, their conducts will be such that could only make the least conscious sections of the working masses to begin to see military rule as a better alternative to the prevailing suffocating economic and political realities of civil rule.

A central reason why there is growing disillusionment with civil rule is because bourgeois civil rule essentially functions like a dictatorial clique, aside from the widespread greed, rapacious corruption which characterise this rule. The intolerant, absolute undemocratic regimes which predominate in intra and inter-party affairs have very little in common with democracy. Under past military rules, formation of political parties were the absolute prerogatives of the powers that be. Sadly, this counter-productive undemocratic practice has been upheld by their civilian bourgeois successors.

Nevertheless, it will be grossly mistaken to see the military wing of the capitalist class as a credible alternative to the hopelessness and rottenness of the civilian bourgeois. In the first instance, the foundation of the prevailing rottenness, economically and politically, was laid under the rule of the military wing of the bourgeois. Secondly, it is not civil rule or democracy that is responsible for the prevailing poverty in the midst of inexhaustible plenty. Rather, it is capitalism which places the insatiable profit greed and egos of a few above the needs and aspirations of the majority that is responsible for this deplorable state of affairs.

This situation will only be worsened by a return to power of the military wing of the bourgeois. By nature, military rule is dictatorial and arbitrary in form and content. Yes, there is widespread corruption today under civil rule. However, the widespread nature of this deplorable phenomenon is due to the nature of civil rule which has to necessarily accommodate more structures and officials than what is needed under military government. Under military rule, individuals like General Babangida, Abacha or Abubakar could steal more in a month than what a group of hundred politicians will have the opportunity to steal in a four year tenure. Therefore, an acceptance of military rule as an alternative to bourgeois civil rule is like moving from a frying pan into fire.

What the masses need is a complete economic and political democratisation of the society, not a choice between the barbarism and corruption of the civilian and military wing of the bourgeoisie.

What then are the perspectives for a new period of military rule? At the present period, a military coup, though not entirely ruled out, is not a likely development due to the mass local opposition and international condemnation that it will receive. However, as capitalist civil rule becomes increasingly discredited and the masses further alienated, a section of the military might bid for power purportedly to "rescue the nation" from corruption and chaos created by politicians as it happened on 15th January, 1966 and 31st December, 1983. By taking some populist measures, such as arrest of corrupt politicians, such a coup might be received with apathy or sympathy rather than opposition by wide layers of the masses.

It is also possible that rather than an outright military coup, the ruling class or sections of it might opt to use "state of emergency rule" with severe repressive measures in order to deal with growing mass opposition or nationalist/separatist movements. This "state of emergency" under a civilian government is a less costly option for the ruling class than an outright military coup which might attract sharp local and international condemnation. The massacres carried out by the army in Odi in 1999 and Zaki Biam in 2001 and the threat by President Obasanjo to declare a state of emergency in Lagos during ethnic clashes in the city in 2000 indicate the extent the ruling class could go when it perceives that its vital interests are seriously threatened.

However, it will be erroneous to simply assume that any future military coup will be broadly welcome across the country in the same manner as in 1966 and 1983 due to mass disaffection with the civilian politicians. The national question has become sharper in Nigeria in recent years particularly since the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections won by MKO Abiola, a politician from the Yoruba Southwest, but whose results were nullified by the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, a member of the northern Hausa-Fulani section of the ruling class. Though the feeling of northern domination" has been somewhat moderated in the south west in particular and the south in general as a result of the election of and hand-over of power to Obasanjo, another bourgeois from the south west, the reverse would be the case if there should be a military coup whose main organisers or officers appointed after the coup are of northern extraction. Such a development would further heighten ethnic feelings and increase the tendency towards a break-up of the country.

Another possible development in the coming period is the staging of a "radical" coup by junior rank military officers, similar to the Jerry Rawling's second military coup in Ghana in 1981. Since the change in the global political situation after the collapse of the Soviet Union and other Stalinist states, popular, radical military regimes are no longer the fashion in the "Third" World" countries. There is also the local fact that no junior rank officers led coup has ever succeeded in coming to power to form government. In January 1966, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu and his colleagues only succeeded in killing certain principal officers of the state but the succeeding military government was formed by top military officers. In February 1976, the Lt. Col. Dimka led coup succeeded in killing the then military head of state, General Murtala Mohammed but were never able to come to power.

The Major Gideon Okar led coup of 1990 was described by General Ibrahim Babangida, the then head of ruling military junta as the most bloodied in the history of Nigeria. Significantly too, the authors were not able to physically arrest or eliminate the principal state officers let alone being able to form a government.

The unresolved nationality question is also one factor that at the moment tends to militate against military coups either by the tops of the military or the junior ranks. For instance, if a military coup occurs today and its leaders are mainly perceived as representatives of a particular nationality that could set in motion an aggravated nationality crisis which could engulfed not only the coup plotters but the country as an entity. Right now, the House of Representatives has passed a resolution asking President Obasanjo to resign within two weeks or be prepared for an impeachment. In response to this constitutionally legitimate process, some pan-Yoruba nationalist groups have been threatening secession of Yorubas from Nigeria should Obasanjo be impeached by elements seen as representatives of the Hausa-Fulani nationality. Nonetheless, it is not entirely ruled that under the impact of severe economic and social crisis, and where the working class could not take political power, junior military officers could stage a coup with an honest intention of cleaning the Aegean stable. Such a regime could take measures against corrupt members of the elite and even capitalist and imperialist interests.

Understandably, such a regime will meet instant opposition from the local capitalists and their imperialist masters, who will take measures to undermine and eventually replace it with an outright, reliable capitalist government. At the same time, unless the regime is prepared to break fully with capitalism and imperialism, it will not be able to satisfy the aspirations and needs of the masses for any long period, particularly given the increased imperialist domination of the world and greater pressure for deregulation and privatisation from multinational corporations, IMF, World Bank, etc., in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Socialists will support any action taken by the regime that serves the interests of the masses and against capitalism and imperialism. But support for such actions would not mean socialists participating in or supporting such a military regime. We would explain that partial measures, while perhaps providing temporary relief, could not solve the fundamental problems of society. Only a programme for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the transformation of society along socialist lines could lay the basis for a lasting solution. Such a programme could only be based upon the democratic control and management of every sector of society by elected representatives of the working masses (including youth and the armed forces) and the establishment of workers' and poor peasants government. It is only this socialist approach that can prevent the reactionary forces of capitalism and landordism from regaining their lost positions and privileges by either overthrowing a radical regime or subverting it from within, a process they successfully carried out in Ghana after 1982.

The rapid growth in nationalism and religion is caused by the desperate search for solution to the problem of mass poverty, hunger, diseases, unemployment, crimes and insecurity by the masses, especially given the failure of the labour leadership to provide an alternative on how the crises could be permanently resolved. Also, various sections of the ruling class have continued to play ethnic and religious cards in order to maintain political control.

The past three years have been largely dominated by ethnic/religious strife and violence. In the core north, there has been a geometric rise in Islamic fundamentalism. This period has also witnessed an astronomical rise in Christian fundamentalism across the country, most especially in the south. Perhaps more than at any other time in Nigeria, both before and after independence, the past three years has witnessed a more widespread clamour for the restructuring of the country itself. Nationalist organisations of all hues and cries sprang up and almost instantly began to experience phenomenal growth and support of members of the different nationalities.

This is the period when the Oodua People's Congress (OPC), Egbesu Boys, Bakassi Boys, Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra, etc. began their fiery but phenomenal growth and activities. As at today intra/inter ethnic cum religions strife and violence have resulted in the premature death of tens of thousands of Nigerians. Their death were usually caused by the warring nationalist/religious groups themselves and very largely and usually too, by the capitalist state apparatus of coercion like the army and police.

At the moment, the nationalist/religions agitations seem to have gone to the back stage of politics. You no longer see vehicle convoys of the OPC, Bakassi Boys, and Egbesu boys going for rallies or any of their other assorted activities. The time now seemed so far away when the security of the country, particularly in the south, was virtually left in the hands of nationalist militias of the OPC, Bakassi Boys, etc. In some states, these groups have actually become private militias of the state governors, a dangerous phenomenon to the labour movement in particular and society in general.

Also, the fierce opposition which greeted the introduction of Sharia criminal code in the core North by christians and the non muslim Nigerians has for now assumed a subtle feature of resignation. Even the politicians that introduced Sharia have had to take public feeling into consideration in the day-to-day execution of Sharia. Two instances should be given.

Mallam Jangbedi was the first victim of the new sharia criminal code. He had his right hand chopped off after he was tried by an Islamic court and found guilty for an offence of cow theft. Sensing the apparent apprehension and repulsion of the masses of even the muslim dominated state of Zamfara, the government had to in fact turn Jangbedi into a celebrity. After Jangbedi's hand had been chopped off, and subsequently discharged from hospital, he was lodged into an hotel for a week, with all expenses paid for by the government! Finally, when Jangbedi was to go back to his village, he received a cash gift of N10,000 from the government. In addition, a government-owned 504 station wagon car took him and the provisions bought for him to his village!

Another prominent victim of the new sharia criminal code was Safiyat, a 32 year old lady from Sokoto State. Her own offence was getting pregnant without having a husband. Tried by an Islamic court, she was found guilty and sentenced to death by stoning. Faced with massive waves of opposition both home and abroad, another sharia court of appeal has set Safiyat free, on some technical legal grounds.

Do all these suggest that the various nationalist groups have abandoned their goals. Have we seen the worst of religious strife and violence? Do Christian and Islamic fundamentalism have a correct scientific appreciation of the origin and solution to the problems of mass poverty and political repression which dominate the lives of the vast majority of their adherents and the working masses as a whole? Anytime there is an outbreak/escalation of intra, inter ethnic/religious strife and violence, the standard practice of the capitalist government is to send around police and soldiers to quell what is usually seen as "disturbance" or "riot". Is it this "fire for fire" philosophy that is behind the relative quietness of the present period?

There can be no doubt now that nationalist agitations have taken the back stage of politics. However, it is very important to note that none of the basic issues that gave rise to these movements, in the first instance, have been posed, let alone resolved.

The fundamental problem of mass poverty and destitution which is making the masses of the different nationalities to feel that their material and cultural conditions will be better if their destines are in the hands of their own nationalities, is not even being admitted by PDP, APP and AD. Daily, the governments formed by these pro-rich parties bombard the masses with paid adverts claiming fantastic achievements in all aspects of social life and economy. Again, just like in the past, the current capitalist governments across the country have heedlessly continued with the fruitless counter productive policy of suppressing agitations with superior firepower instead of that of honest inquiry and resolution. Needless to stress, nationalist agitations that presently seem to have receded will come back to front stage of polity with greater fury than was witnessed in our recent past.

Of course, as has been demonstrated in the recent past, this will not necessarily make it possible for nationalist aims to be achieved. The past period has shown what important role bravery can play in struggle. Within a very short period of time, the legendary bravery of the OPC, Bakassi Boys, Egbesu Boys, Arewa Consultative Forum, etc. shot these organisations into national and international limelight. They were the talk of the town. You were either for or against them. In any event, no worthwhile political trend could ignore their goals and methodologies.

But notwithstanding this legendary bravery, the activities of these organisations have presently declined without any of their objectives being realised. The country is still run as a feudal, divine fiefdom in which nobody can do anything to alter, either in forms or contents. For sometime now there has been a serious agitation for what is variously called "restructuring", "true federalism", "resource control", etc. Starting from the Abacha era and up till now, there has been a demand for the division of the country into six geo-political zones, in which these zones will control presidency in turn.

So far none of the topical demands and agitations of the nationalists have been accepted as valid by the powers-that-be and as things stand, this is likely to be the position for sometime to come. The reasons for this little or no alteration of the status quo, despite brave and self-sacrificing struggles and battles by the various nationalist groups, are socialists must thoroughly understand.

First and foremost, socialists have a duty to warn the working masses that the justness of a cause on its own cannot automatically guarantee massive support or victory. As ever, socialists support the democratic right of nations to self- determination including secession if that is the democratic wish of people of a given nation or group of nations from within Nigeria.

However, socialists must not shy away from frankly telling the nationalists that simply breaking Nigeria into whatever number of structures or independent units will not primarily address the problem of mass poverty which is primarily caused by the global capitalist system. Socialists must warn the working masses that it is possible to have a Nigeria broken into several independent national or geographical components and still have widespread poverty in these respective new entitles/republics/ empires.

Therefore, socialists have to always pose the national question in both cultural and social dimensions. Take the clamour for the Oodua Republic as an example. On its own, this is a very legitimate and democratic objective. But situated within the realm of concrete historical features of today's Nigeria, it becomes obvious that only with a democratic socialist agenda can ensure that such a republic brings meaningful changes to the well-being and political rights of the Yoruba masses, as well as safeguarding the rights of non-Yoruba minorities living within the region. The same condition is applicable to agitation for Biafra in the South East and demands for autonomy or separation in South-South and other geo-political zones in Nigeria.

In the past three years at least Lagos has been the centre of OPC's agitations and activities. Although historically a predominantly Yoruba city, Lagos is easily the most cosmopolitan of Nigerian cities. Any nationalist trend or agitation that fails to take this factor into consideration is therefore doomed to create more problems for the working masses of even the Yoruba extraction than the envisaged benefits of separation.

The OPC rallying call is that all Yoruba sons and daughters should come back home to establish an Oodua Republic. Implicit in this slogan is a demand that all non-Yoruba origin people should go back to their own "homes". Needless to stress this bourgeois way of posing the question will always encounter lukewarm if not outright hostilities of non- Yoruba people of the envisaged Oduduwa Republic. Even elements of Yoruba extraction who live and work in other parts of Nigeria and as such have no other practical homes and means of livelihood cannot be expected to sincerely and enthusiastically support this kind of political agenda.

As shown by the experience of the past three years, the vast majority of the Yoruba masses living and working in the envisaged geographical entity of the Oodua Republic themselves at best have been very lukewarm to the OPC's campaigns and activities. This, in no small measure, is largely due to the bourgeois and undemocratic manner with which the OPC's objectives are being pursued.

Without any attempt at convoking a democratic conference or organising referendum of the people of the Yoruba race, different Yoruba nationalist groups have sprung up, many with intolerable, anti-democratic constitutions. Instead of an approach which seeks to systematically mobilise the different strata of the Yoruba working masses, you have one that places emphasis on supernatural forces. Myths are spread about ancient " powers" possessed by the Yoruba race which can make people invulnerable to gun shots and machete attacks. Like every reductionist bourgeois trend, the OPC and many other Yoruba nationalist trends present the mass poverty of the Yoruba masses as something peculiar to the race, and not a phenomenon prevalent amongst the working masses of the diverse nationalities that make up Nigeria. The same unscientific approach is used by MASSOB and many other nationalist groups.

But in their day-to-day existence, the working masses are able to see that their class enemies cut across tribes, nations and countries. This is partly the reason behind the huge successes achieved by the two general strikes called by the NLC in the past three years. Therefore, to the extent that the various nationalist groups fail to emphasise collective struggles for democracy and social emancipation of the entire and divergent working class masses of Nigeria, to the same extent are they denied the crucial support of their respective working masses. And if it should be stressed, it is this organic weakness that is responsible for the palpable triumph of government perspective of suppression of nationalist agitations.

But if the working class movement is defeated, or shows no way out of the crisis, then the nationalist organisations can win working class support. This is the danger facing the labour movement. Labour has to fight this danger by both seriously fighting capitalism and putting forward demands that meet the national aspirations of the different nationalities. But for socialists, even if we come to the conclusion that the time had come for us to call for the break-up of Nigeria, we would do so on class lines. For example, as the socialists in Britain, members of the CWI, advocate for a socialist independent Scotland and a socialist federation of the British Isles. Even if calling for a break-up, we would still call for common workers' struggles and explain the internationalist approach essential for the victory of socialism.

The 1999 constitution has a provision that not less than 13% of revenues generated from natural resources of any given area must be paid to the area concerned by the central government. This very minimal provision has now even been sidetracked by the Obasanjo capitalist government. This has been done via the artificial demarcation between revenues generated from onshore and offshore oil exploration. Regrettably, though not unexpectedly, the Supreme Court has given a ridiculous judgement to sabotage this modest constitutional provision. According to this ruling, the oil found within the territory of a state, including its neighbouring shallow water, is onshore and the respective state is entitled to be paid 13% derivation revenues, whereas oil sourced from deep water belongs to no states but Nigeria as a whole.

Hence for the selfish capitalist/nationalist interests of the elites of the major Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo nationalities that dominate the economy and polity of Nigeria, logic must be overturned. We are now being told that if Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta States, etc. do not form part of the geographical entity called Nigeria, somebody from Sokoto, Kano, Ibadan, Ilorin, Minna etc can come to the deep sea of the states bordering on the Atlantic in southern Nigeria to claim ownership of oil or any other material thing for that matter.

The attitudes of the working masses to the agitation for resource control differ from one part of the country to the other. The masses in the non-oil producing states are either apathetic towards it or opposed to it. To this layer, the whole demand is seen as something which would reduce the revenue being earned by Nigeria with the attendant negative effects this is likely to have on their own living standards. On the other hand, the masses in the oil producing states support or have sympathy for the agitation for resource control. To them, this is the only way out of the prevailing endemic mass poverty in the oil-producing areas.

Socialists supports the democratic aspiration of the masses in the oil-producing areas to have control over the resources which are being presently exploited and looted by the multinational corporations and the Nigerian capitalist elite. However, in its present conception and articulation, the "resource control" agitation is largely a bourgeois phenomenon. Under the present arrangement, increase in revenues to the oil producing states will bring little or no material benefit to the lives of the masses. Instead, more millionaires will be created from amongst the friends and families of the capitalist elites in power in the oil producing areas.

In essence, it is only if the agitation for resource control is posed in the context of making the working masses to fully and democratically control the natural resources of nature and the commanding heights of the economy with a view to satisfy and guarantee the basic needs of every body as opposed to the prevailing capitalist system whose central goal is the generation of profits to a few insatiable capitalist sharks that it can have a meaningful impact in the lives of the masses.

But as it is written above, the re-emergence of nationalist agitations on a greater scale is a very likely development in the coming period. However, unless these agitations are given working class orientation and the activities of the nationalist movements are thoroughly democratised, they will merely serve to deepen the suffering and agonies of the working masses vis-avis their quest for social and political emancipation.

As socialists, we call for the democratisation of all struggles and we oppose undemocratic organisations. We also advocate the need for an orientation towards the working class and struggle for socialism by oppressed nationalities, students, etc. But a vital necessity is rebuilding a fighting workers movement that can take up these national issues, but not showing any signs of nationalism. Our attitude to nationalist organisations depends on whether they are splitting the workers' movement or representing the first steps of a new movement. For example, we would oppose an attempt to split NANS along nationalist lines or the creation of an Oodua Students Association. But if an OSA did emerge as the major student body in the south-west then we may be forced to work with it in at least a united front fashion.

The experience of the past three years has shown that nationalist groups can be as deadly against the working masses of their own nationality in the same way they behave towards those from other nationalities. For instance factional crisis within the OPC alone has resulted in the premature deaths of hundreds of persons in the past three years. This sectarian approach has only succeeded in alienating the mass of the Yoruba working masses from the OPC phenomenon and this makes them easier targets of physical attack by the state.

Instead of the agenda which seek to exclusively resolve the economic and political plights of the working masses of a given nation or country, socialists must develop one which seeks to combine the struggle for the cultural and democratic rights of the working masses of a given nation or country with that of the masses of the other nationalities and the world working masses as a whole. Only this kind of approach can successfully defeat the exploitative and oppressive rule of imperialism and finance capital world wide.

If this approach is not followed, nationalist agitations will always succumb to the divide and rule antics of the capitalist state. While it will always be easier for the capitalist state to out shoot isolated armed nationalist groups, same cannot be successfully contemplated against a well-mobilised, democratically-controlled movement of the working masses, especially one which will not hesitate to use arms to defend its interest, against the selfish and undemocratic interests of the capitalist class, whenever such situation arises.

However, unless the working class stamps its outlook and authority on the polity, more determined nationalist groups will develop or re-emerge in the not too distant future, whose motto will be violence unlimited. Similarly, the current retreat on the stoning of Safiyat for adultery must not be interpreted to mean that Sharia no longer constitutes a serious obstacle to the building of a virile, pan-Nigeria working class movement.

As socialists, we have always advocated the complete separation of the state from religion. We have always advocated against state religion. We regard religion as a personal question and defend the rights of believers to carry out their religions. For years DSM has been demanding immediate stoppage of the practice where government uses public money to build churches and mosques, and sends or subsidies pilgrimages to Mecca, Rome or Jerusalem. Our reasons are based on two broad, related premises. One, religion generally gives the impression that riches and wretchedness are the way God, the creator, orders things. However, this scientifically, is a fallacious theory. The earth and the universe as a whole are endowed with inexhaustible resources and potentials. As things are today, the human race has the resources and technical capacity to rid the world of hunger, homelessness, curable diseases, illiteracy, isolation (occasioned by restricted transportation and communication services), national narrowness, etc, which presently constitute the essence of capitalist civilisation. The main reason why this is not the case and not likely to become the case is that there are out there a few capitalist elements and corporations who feel that the world resources must be used not to satisfy the needs of the people of the world but be left for the capricious and selfish goals of the capitalists.

Socialists must make it abundantly clear that this is not the making of any God or Creator. We must stress the fact that on the basis of the existing resources and techniques, our earth can conveniently support ten times the present population of the world.

Of course, a layer of the masses within and outside the Sharia states innocently believes that the Islamic penal code is the solution to crimes and corruption. But Sharia, as it is, is not only a political adventure; it constitutes a serious breach of the democratic rights of Muslim and non-Muslim Nigerians. As a rule, whoever pays the piper, dictates the tune. Thus, Sharia, as it is a government creation, will only be interpreted on the basis of the fancies of whichever faction or creed of Islam that is at anytime in control of state power. Under the Sharia criminal code, two women are required to give evidence to be equivalent of one given by an adult male Muslim. If a muslim and a christian are jointly accused of committing an offence, an adult, male Muslim co-accused may be left off the hook and acquitted if he is prepared to swear his innocence on Koran. Similar option is however not given to a christian or somebody who holds a different belief. Under Sharia someone who steals a cow gets his or her hand chopped off but members of the capitalist ruling class who steal millions and billions of naira of public money are never punished because, according to the present authors of political Sharia, the first is a crime while the second category represents a breach of trust.

At a stage sooner than anticipated by political Sharia advocates, the working masses across national, religious and class divides will wake up and fight these blatant discriminations embodied in the Sharia criminal code. But unless socialists and the working masses in general are able to come up with viable political alternative and platform, which is capable and prepared to mobilise the entire energy and resources of the masses along the struggle for genuine social and political emancipation a new, more virulent Sharia movement is inevitable in Nigeria.

If, as is most likely, the prevailing global capitalist crisis goes deeper and or its negative effects lasted longer, and if the labour movement is not able to positively use the generalised, transnational mass poverty, which this is having on the living standard of the working masses, of the diverse nations that make up Nigeria, then the emergence of a more vicious, right-wing political Sharia is an inevitability. That is the kind of time you would encounter Islamic clerics who are going to argue that a more ruthless implement action of Sharia criminal code is the way forward for mankind. However, if it must be stressed, this will be nothing but the continuation of mass poverty and political repression for the working masses. As opposed to a religious struggle which tends to divide the working masses along sectarian lines, what is needed is a pan-Nigerian internationalist working class movement whose central objectives will be the struggle to replace the current man-eats-man, individualist capitalist system with a humane, democratic socialist ideals where the satisfaction of all the economic and political needs of every person on earth will be the sole and primary yardstick of economic management and governance.

In contrast to this approach, there are those who simply hold the view that the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) or National Conference (NC) will automatically straighten out any socio-political problems faced by the working masses. A truly democratically elected Sovereign National Conference may address some of the critical questions ravaging the country today. But if the country or its new fashion or units remain within the framework of global capitalist network, it will mean that little or nothing can be positively done to better the material well-being and democratic rights of the masses by such an SNC.

Therefore, the SNC must not be about sovereignty where the masses are only allowed to choose between one set of exploiters and tyrants or the other. For an SNC to be meaningful to the masses, it must be capable of raising and taking measures which are capable of enforcing the democratic, working class control and management of all resources and technical manpower of the society in the interest of all as opposed to that of a few as it is under capitalism. This is why all the various sections of the capitalist ruling class including its Afenifere AD extraction have not been able to consistently champion the convocation of an SNC, or an NC. Not even the south-south bourgeois, who is supposed to be more radical, given the fact that most revenues come from his area while little development ever occurs, is prepared to risk his prevailing privileges for an uncertain and very difficult ideal. Their reasons are not far fetched. Their present luxury and privileges are reality while the outcome of an SNC or even NC is a gamble.

For one, they are not prepared to propose to the conference that privatisation must stop and that the commanding heights of the economy be placed under democratic and public ownership of the working people where production will be planned for the use of all and not profits for a few as it is the case under capitalist dispensation.

Yes, each faction of the ruling class is ready to support an SNC/NC if it is certain that its class interest will eventually be better protected. The south-south bourgeois for instance will want to have exclusive control of the oil wealth of the Delta region, to the exclusion of his counterparts across the country. But if making an immediate move in this direction will risk provoking a situation where he stands to lose his personal material wealth, a southern bourgeois or any bourgeois from other nationalities will rather band together with other fellow, capitalist partners-in-crime, to sabotage the genuine national and economic aspirations of the Deltan masses.

For this reason, neither Afenifere nor its south-south bourgeois counterparts can consistently fight for "true federalism" or "resource control." This is because to do this will of necessity demand the involvement of the working masses in the aims and implementation of such an SNC agendum. But if the truth must be told, this (i.e. involving the masses in aims and implementation of any crusade by members of the capitalist class) will be the last, voluntary option that any bourgeois movement will ever take. Only the working masses who are the victims of mass poverty and destitution can be consistently interested in any genuine, democratic agenda which seeks to truly democratise the economy and politics of society.

This is why labour and youth activists and socialists should canvass for a truly democratically-elected Sovereign National Conference (SNC). This type of conference should be dominated by elected representatives of the working people as its composition should be according to the numerical strength of the various social groups in the country. It will among other things, decide on the way forward for the country and agree on a new constitution. Even then, while such an SNC may represent a step forward from the present military-imposed arrangement, the working masses and labour activists need to struggle for a workers' and poor farmers' government that will implement a socialist and anti-capitalist programme. It is only this type of government that can guarantee lasting improvements in the political rights and economic and social conditions of the masses.

Continue ...