Abdulrahman DambazauCFR Ph.D.
Lieutenant General (Rtd)
Associate and Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs,
Harvard University, Cambridge, USA
Visiting Fellow, Center for Peace, Democracy and Development,
University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA
OVERCOMING NIGERIA’S SECURITY CHALLENGES
It is a pleasure to be here in this first licensed private university in Nigeria which was founded in 1999, coinciding with the year the current democratic experience started. It is indeed an honor to be invited to deliver the university’s Eleventh Convocation Lecture. I will start by expressing my gratitude to the Board of Regents, Governing Council, the Senate, Management, Staff and Students of this wonderful academic institution for considering me for this distinguished university lecture, and in particular, the Vice Chancellor, Professor Eghosa Osaghae.
I have been requested to make a presentation on the theme “Overcoming Nigeria’s Security Challenges”, a topic I consider most appropriate at this period of our national life. We have, as a nation, always been confronted with security challenges since independence in 1960, and sometimes so threatening that one would expect total collapse, but for some unexplained reasons it appears that Nigeria has developed some resilience in her ability to bounce back whenever it was almost knocked down by these challenges. My task here is not to dwell on the history of Nigeria, and I assumed that most of us are conversant with it, but it is important that we learn some lessons from our history, if the intention is to provide the opportunities for making progress.
To begin with, not only that the word “security” has various meanings, it can be contextualized on the basis of time and space. In its simplest definition security means “freedom from danger, fear or anxiety”. We define security on the basis of threat perception – threats that may impact on our physical body as individuals or groups; psychological thoughts or behaviour; our properties; means of livelihood; socio-economic needs (food, health, education, etc); the environment; freedoms or fundamental rights; and sovereignty or territorial integrity. We all share the consequences of these threats or the benefits of avoiding them, either as individuals, groups, state, region or even the world as a whole. It is therefore apt to view security as a “public good”. The idea of public good can be traced to David Hume’s 1739 thesis of the “common good” presented in his publication, the Treatise of Human Nature, and Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In line with economic theory, Holcombe defined public good as a good that, once produced, can be consumed by an additional consumer at no additional cost.[1]
Preceding Holcombe’s definition, Paul Samuelson (1954) is credited as the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, which he referred to as the “collective consumption good” in his classic paper in which he defined the concept in terms of “…goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good…”[2] Samuelson identified two elements of public goods: the first is “non-rivalry” that is consumption by one does not reduce the supply available to others, such as knowledge, street lights; the second “non-excludable” that is, once these goods are produced their benefits are shared by all, such as clean air, international legislation etc. As a public good therefore, once attained, whether in a state, region, or global, the advantages of being secure are distributed equally to all within the public space they relate to.
The traditional perspective of security focuses on military dimensions of security in which the defence of a nation’s sovereignty or territorial integrity is paramount. This approach is in line with the idea of maintaining a strong military to protect national values and also defend the nation against external aggression. Generally viewed in the context of “national security”, the word security has different meanings for different people, and it is for this reason that the concept is believed to be ambiguous. Harold Lasswell, for example, saw national security lying in the “…best balance of all instruments of foreign policy, and hence in the coordinated handling of arms, diplomacy, information, and economics, and in the proper correlation of all measures of foreign and domestic policy.”[3] In line with the traditional notion of national security, a nation is said to have security when: it does not have to “…sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain these interests by war”;[4]or when a nation has the capacity to preserve itself as a free nation with fundamental institutions and values intact;[5] or a nation has the capacity to protect its vital economic and political interests, the loss of which could threaten its fundamental values and vitality;[6]or there is absence of threats to acquired values and the absence of fear that such values will be attacked;[7] or if it possesses the necessary conditions required to enjoy self-determination or autonomy, prosperity and well-being of citizens; etc.[8]
In 1994 there was a paradigm shift from the traditional concept of security when the Pakistani economist, Mahbub ul Haq, first drew global attention to the concept of human security contained in that year’s UNDP Human Development Report. The Report equated security with people rather than territories, that the proper referent for security should be the individual rather than the state; with development rather than arms. Human security holds that a people-centered view of security is necessary at all levels (national, regional and global). The new concept expanded the scope of global security to include threats to economic, food, health, environment, personal, community, and political issues. There are two positions on human security: first, “freedom from fear”, which focuses on protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that violent conflicts are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity, and other forms of inequalities; and second, “freedom from want”, a position which says that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease, and natural disasters, because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity, and that they kill more people than war, genocide, and terrorism combined. Former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan examined human security in its broadest sense, which he said to embrace far more than the absence of violent conflicts, because, according to him it:
…encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and healthcare, and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfill his or her potential. Every step in this direction is also a step towards reducing poverty, achieving economic growth, and preventing conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment…[9]
Before we suggest how to overcome the security challenges in Nigeria, we must begin by acknowledging the fact that it is the sole responsibility of a government to guarantee the security of its citizens, and also as a matter of fact it is this responsibility that givesany government its legitimacy. In the case of Nigeria, the responsibility to protect and guarantee security is clearly spelt out in Sec 14(2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution which states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” This is the basis for the social contract in which we as citizens of Nigeria surrender some of our freedoms in addition to submitting ourselves to the authority relating to governance in order for us to enjoy the full protection of our remaining rights. These rights which include those of life; dignity of human persons; personal liberty; fair hearing; private and family life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; peaceful assembly and association; freedom of movement; and freedom from discrimination, are enshrined in sections 33 to 43 of our Constitution. These rights are fundamental to the social contract between government and the citizens, and failure to guarantee them by the former not only means a violation of the “agreement,” but also a threat to the security of a nation.
So what then are the major security challenges currently facing Nigeria? In other words, what issues threaten our rights, well-being, and existence as individuals, groups or a nation? First, the composition of Nigeria as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation, while not necessarily a disadvantage in themselves, is a security challenge within the country’s political environment. There are scholars who hold the view that ethnic rivalry and distrust are a consequence of colonial strategy of divide and rule, a situation that persists as a strategy for politicians for the mobilization of political support and votes during elections.[10]Still there are those who think that historically African societies have been characterized by tribal cleavages even before the colonizers set foot on the continent.[11] Whatever view one may hold, it is a fact that ethno-religious violence is a common occurrence in Nigeria and there is hardly any state that does not experience ethnic violence. As a matter of fact even politically, ethnic patterns have been developing along party lines since independence in 1960. There appears to be heightened ethic nationalism which can be associated with ethnic violence especially during and after elections.We may all remember the election violence of 1964, 1983 and 2011 in which many people were killed and properties destroyed, and each of the elections violence supercedes an earlier one. This was why the 2008 Uwais Electoral Reform Report noted that the “history of Nigeria’s elections shows a progressive degeneration of outcomes” with the 2007 elections being the worst since the first elections in 1922. The Report also noted that politicians are becoming “more desperate and daring in taking and retaining power, more reckless and greedy in their use and abuse of power, and more intolerant of opposition, criticism and efforts at replacing them.”Many of the thugs politicians armed and drugged for use to either grab or retain power are those who formed the nucleus ofBoko Haram members; militants in the Niger Delta; Ombatse in Nasarawa; and increased the strengths of armed robbers and kidnappers on our highways. Let me seize this opportunity to re-state what I said in my speech during my Pulling-Out parade organized by the Nigeria Army in November 2010, in which I urged the military to remain neutral especially during elections. Now that there is a lot of clamour and anxiety over the 2015 elections, I urge the military and the police to remain neutral and not to allow politicians to use them in furtherance of their political interests. We should always remember that we are under oath to serve the country in accordance with our professional calling and to protect the Constitution, and this should remain the focus.
In terms of resources, Nigeria is such a huge country of about 170 million and approximately 350 ethnic groups, with vast amount of untapped natural resources. The call for unity in diversity has not been heeded, rather since independence we have indeed regarded Nigeria as either a “mere geographical expression” or the “mistake of 1914”. After over 50 years of independence, and about 100 years of the north and south amalgamation, we are still grappling with the idea as to whether or not Nigeria is real.There is the mistaken assumption that Nigeria could go back to where it was in 1914; others think the country can split into north and south; yet for others, every ethnic group can be granted the right to self-determination. In a nutshell, an environment has been created for unnecessary and unhealthy rivalry, particular among the three major ethnic groups, while the country is left suffering from serious socio-economic problems. More recently, religion has become a major issue, leading to mutual condemnation. There is deep suspicion, fears and anxiety in the relationship between Muslims and Christians, sometimes leading to violence, especially in the north. As a result of the various ethno-religious conflicts, people have been killed, injured or displaced; properties destroyed; businesses closed and investors scared away; and communities are split along ethno-religious lines. Worse still, the effect of ethno-religious rivalry is reflected in the media, which is regarded as the fourth estate of the realm, the agenda setter, force multiplier, and gatekeeper. The media is not only crucial for national development but also a facilitator in nation-building. As a tool for shaping public opinion, the media must be objective and avoid sensationalism, bias and distortions. If it were a solid object it is possible to dissect the Nigerian media along ethno-religious line on the basis of its news presentation. On the political front, since independence in 1960, our political parties have always reflected ethnic patterns, and this has posed the challenge of managing multi-party democracy in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation like ours. The politics of ethnicity and religion has denied us the opportunity for census which we require for national planning purposes, as we always attach population to the share of the so-called national cake and other advantages. Nigerians have been arguing as to whether Muslims are more in number or it is 50/50, and forgetting that there are citizens who are neither. But the question is, what is the real advantage of more in population when 70.82% of the total population in Nigeria lives under extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) and Nigeria is the home of 8.03% of the world’s poor; the death rate is 13.48 deaths/1000 population; 51% of girls are out of school; the average life expectancy is less than 50 years; infant mortality rate is 74.36 deaths/1000 live births; under-five mortality rate of 138/1000 live births;maternal mortality rate of 840 deaths/100,000 live births; insignificant percentage of our population has access to medical drugs; human development index is one the lowest in the world? This is in spite of the fact that Nigeria is a wealthy nation, earning over $400 billion of oil revenue alone over the years of our existence. In fact according to a New York Times report recently, Nigeria is currently the world’s 6th most populous and expected to hit 300 million in 25 years at the rate of 2.553% growth. What plans do we have for this population - for education, healthcare, food, employment, drinking water, housing, electricity, etc?On the other hand, what strategy do we have in curbing population growth bearing in mind other cultural and religious challenges? Meanwhile a reporter from the NY Timesmade an observation of the living condition she saw somewhere in Lagos in which:
…a typical apartment block known as “Face Me, Face You”…whole families squeeze into a 7-by-11-foot rooms along a narrow corridor. Up to 50 people share a kitchen, toilet and sink – though the pipes in the neighborhood often no longer carry water… At…Primary School, more than 100 students cram in most classrooms, two to a desk… As graduates pour out of high schools and universities, Nigeria’s unemployment rate is nearly 50 percent for people in urban areas ages 15 to 24 – driving crime and discontent…[12]
Now talking about crime and discontent, the lineup of violent crimes, specifically of armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, and ritual murders, pose a different kind of security challenge in Nigeria. These crimes pose serious threats to the lives and properties of citizens, and equally increase the risks in businesses and investment climate. Even though we lack reliable crime statistics, it is safe to assume that the rates of these crimes are growing higher, while there is no capacity for effective policing. There is a growing concern on the efficiency of the Nigeria Police and the effectiveness of current law enforcement strategy leading to various debates on community policing and de-centralized or State policing. There appears to be a misunderstanding of what community policing is all about, except if we are re-defining the concept – for most people the thinking in Nigeria is to deploy police personnel on the basis of their local origin. Community policing pursues two interrelated goals: developing solution to problems through collaborative problem solving; and improving public trust. The concept encourages partnerships with relevant stakeholders because of the belief that the police can rarely solve public safety and problems alone, and such partnerships would involve private businesses, non-profit organizations, the civil society and the media, in addition to other government agencies within the community. The community policing model encourages the application of modern management practices to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
The other contentious issue in circulation is the idea of “State Police”. Attention has been largely drawn from the practice of the United States from which we copied the federal system. Unlike the unitary or confederate, in the federal system as operated in the US, the Constitution prohibits the federal government from exercising general police powers. Each state therefore retains its own police powers and maintain jurisdiction accordingly as long as the crime is committed within its territory and the criminal or suspect does not cross into another state. The structure does not end with the state policing department because there are also county and municipal police departments. Every university, for example, has its police department and its jurisdiction does not go beyond the university. In Nigeria, people have expressed the fear that state policing would also mean state autonomy, in addition to the caution that politicians are likely to abuse the powers of state policing by using it against their opponents. While such argument is not misplaced due to the antecedents of most Nigerian politicians exercising executive powers, if we have a police that is well grounded in professionalism, then it would not be difficult to understand that the main functions of the police are order maintenance, law enforcement and provision of services, including first aid. We are however in a society in which sycophancy and the pursuit of material gains are the order of the day, therefore the possibility that the police could allow themselves to be misused is very likely. The other fear is that there are those pursuing the agenda of ethnic self-determination and therefore state policing arrangement would enhance their agenda through the backdoor. All these arguments show that we have not been practicing democracy on the basis of the rule of law; transparency; accountability; and respect for human rights.