.
culled from images of the French Revolution.
Revolution can be
defined as a total overhauling or effecting a complete paradigm shift of a political
system or type of government to a new one by peaceful or violent means.
Revolution carries with it fundamental changes in the socio-economic and
political spheres of a country when its process is ultimately consummated.
Revolutionaries are often regarded as dissidents by the government and its
supporters in the course of their action.
Until such a revolution succeeds and the old system overthrown, it is
only then they would be branded as revolutionaries. A revolution is different
from the conventional and the common phenomenon of ‘change’ when certain
changes are effected in a new political dispensation. This is always accompanied
with some degrees of self-centeredness, and not for the general sweeping good
of the oppressed and the downtrodden as denoted by the spirit of true
revolutions. An example of ‘change’ is a military coup, where a clique of some
soldiers, possibly because of their personal dissatisfaction on how the
government is run decides to effect a political change. Erroneously, most
changes are regarded as revolutions. This concept is often wrongly interpreted.
Revolution can also be
defined as a “a calculated overthrow of an existing political order using as
much force as possible to effect or to bring about radical changes in the
society”..
Revolution as a concept
has been defined by many other writers of which we will just look at some of
them.
S.P. Huntington
considers revolution “as a rapid, fundamental and violent domestic change in
the dominant values and myths of a society”
Neumann further looks
at it as ”a sweeping fundamental change in the dominant myth of a social
order”.
According to T.S. Khun,
political revolutions occur because the parties to revolution differ about the
institutional matrix within which political change is to be achieved and
evaluated.”
Another writer, Hanna
Arendt defines modern concept of revolution as “revolution is extricately bound
up within the notion that the course of history suddenly begins new, that an
entirely new story never known or told before is about to unfold”.
In a broader view,
revolution can be described as “a passage of or a transition from one epoch to
another. In the form of the transformation of an entire epoch, the revolution
occurs when a class of men sees no other way out of the misery, than a
revolution.
From studies,
successful revolutions predicated their successes on the altar of violence – an
overt force coordinated to overthrow an existing order so as to institute a new
and more accommodating political system with sweeping general acceptance. This
method of violence is given a further clarification by Henry Biemen who
commented that revolution “carries overtones of “violating” and we often use
violence to refer to “ultimate force”. The state against which a revolution is staged
is described by Max Weber as having the “exclusive source of the right to use
violence – all other individuals or associations may use it only to the degree
permitted by the authorities.
While violence remains
a major means of executing a revolution, for a revolution to actually be one,
it must incorporate the use of intellectuals who through their writings
persuade and mobilize the target audience being the oppressed or the masses for
the prosecution of the revolution. This
is why revolutions have sweeping effects on the majority of the citizens,
especially the dissatisfied ones.
WHY
THERE CAN’T BE A REVOLUTION IN NIGERIA.
One of the major
factors that aid successful revolutions of the masses is predicated on the
homogeneity of the affected society, driving a common cause and course in the
bid to entrench a new socio-political order. Nigeria is a highly fragmented and
segmented society with about 250 (two hundred and fifty) different ethnic
groups scattered all about the six geo-political zones of the country. The segmentation
is a direct reflection of the forced marriage of strange bedfellows who were wedded
under the colonial authorities. The six geo-political zones are actually a conglomeration
of the regions of the three main irreconcilable regions of the country - the
North, East and West. In all ramifications, there is no single common identity,
both in terms of origin and existence, of these regions. It is pertinent to
note that these regions sometimes are on one another’s throats, possibly at the
least provocations. One may have lost count of how many Easterners and
westerners were killed in the North by avoidable violence. But because of the bitter acrimony, there
appears to be no love lost for one another. The Easterners and the Westerners
too do not have good records for each other. Due to this factor, it will be extremely
difficult or near impossible to mobilize these seriously fragmented entities to
form a common front to stage a revolution.
To further corroborate
this, at a time when the Niger Delta protested to the federal government over
their environmental degradation, marginalization and deprivation under the
Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), other parts of the
country, especially the Northern part read political meanings to it. They felt
that their agitations were not genuine enough, and that they were only
interested in crippling the administration of Late Musa Yar’Adua, who was the
President of the country from the northern extraction. On that premise, a
revolution which is of a wider dimension and acceptability could not have been
possible under such circumstance.
Similarly, in 1993, a free and fair election was conducted in Nigeria,
which was annulled by the government of General Ibrahim Babangida. The annulment
generated a nation-wide political upheaval. But in the course of the protests,
the other two regions- the East and North opted out and left only the West
- the Yorubas to battle the federal
government all alone. This was because the acclaimed winner of that election
was a Yoruba man. Revolutions need a working synergy amongst groups to succeed.
If left dispersed, then the concept of revolution would only hinge on the level
of dreams and illusion in Nigeria.
Furthermore, there is
no ideology to draw the sympathy and attention of the suffering public and to
sway them to join in the revolution. Simply put, there is ideological barrenness
in the land. Amongst the civil rights groups, the Labour Unions, and Rights
activists, there is none that could come up with real ideological pursuit to
mobilize the masses for a revolution. The only two people who could be given
such accolades was late Fela Anikulopo Kuti; and late Gani Fawehinmi, though
they carried revolutionary minds wherever they went, the government did everything to emasculate them and thwart their
visions headlong. In the Cuban revolution, one could observe clearly that at
the end of the revolution process, there was a clear departure from the old
system of the Americans usurping the economic fortunes of the country and an
attempt to subtly introduce capitalism, to a novel concept of the a political
ideology – Communism. There was a clear cut definition of an ideology to be
pursued. Nigerians, even if they have revolutionaries at all, they lack a
persuasive ideology that can cause a revolution.
The problem of lack of
political ideology is further compounded by the apathy and lackadaisical
attitude of the Nigerian masses who believed that nothing positive can ever
come out of Nigeria, not to talk more of a revolution. This languid disposition
of Nigerians has contributed in no small measure of Nigeria’s inability to
organize a revolution. On this premise, if anyone clamours for a revolution
would end up in making mockery of himself, because of the level of general apathy
in the public domain.
Religious factors can
be considered as a factor that will dampen any revolution fire ignited by the
revolutionaries. It appears that the leaders have studied that Nigerians are
highly religious set of people. Even as the situation presents itself for
revolution, the leaders quickly collaborate with the religious bodies, to explore
the gullibity of the adherents, by whipping up the doctrine of godly
subordination and subservience to the authorities instituted by God. The
government depends on these religious institutions to brainwash Nigerians by
reclusing to the activities of religious organizations.
In Nigeria, one cannot
actually say, that there is class antagonism. Even if there was, the oppressed
or the have-nots have come to accept their fates and naturally remains
subservient to the haves. Several occasions have presented themselves for the
have-nots to protest their oppressions, but they appear to have conformed to
the status quo of the avoidable sufferings. For instance, during the fuel
crises, it is common knowledge that the failed deals between the government and
the elite businessmen, result in untold hardship on the suffering populace, yet
no one raises an eyebrow against such obnoxious deeds.
In this docile state of Nigerians, revolution
cannot be possible, at least for now. When we combine all the aforementioned
factors, one can safely say that Nigeria indeed is not ripe for a revolution,
even though the circumstances that would warrant a revolution in Nigeria are
overripe.
REFERENCES:
1.Remi Anifowose: Violence and Politics in
Nigeria. Sam Iroanusi page. pp I-3.
2/ EV Watters,” Power and
Violence”. APSR (June, 1964) pp 350-360
3/Journal of Political
Science, University of Ilorin, 1998, pp 9-11.
4.Tell Magazine, April 6,
2009.
5.Civil-Military
Relations. Theory and Military Effectiveness, by Suzzanne C. Nieson
Ph.D student at the
Harvard University (Her dissertation).
No comments:
Post a Comment