There are obvious substantial linkages between “the faith and region of origin of the winner/loser and those of the perpetrators/victims of the violence.” The winner is Christian and southern and so are majority of the victims of the violence and vice versa. I know that many who agree with this are too politically correct to mention it!
We have said that it is a sad, very sad, irony of our contemporary history that the general elections of April/May 2011 widely adjudged as “free, fair and credible” led to post-election violence resulting in fatalities including National youth Service members on election duties as part of their service to fatherland. Properties, including places of worship, predominantly churches were also torched and/or vandalized.
We have also pointed out that, reactions to that violence, are sending dangerous signs of division between the leaders of the two major faith groups in our nation, Christians and Moslems.
As we saw in the first two parts of this serial, Rev Ayo Oritsejafor, national president of Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) kind of fired the first shot with his call for the arrest and prosecution of Muhammadu Buhari, who was one of the presidential candidates for allegedly being the instigator of the violence. Oritsejafor also alleged that there was an Islamic agenda to rule the country perpetually.
Predictably, candidate Buhari’s reacted swiftly, denying culpability and dismissing the cleric as a “villa priest” being used as a “sounding board” by those who want to move against their candidate. But the more significant response came from Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto and President-General, Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), He dismissed “the insinuation by Pastor Oritsejafor that the post-election violence was a plot hatched by Muslims as part of their ‘religious agenda’, which merely took ‘advantage of the political situation’” as both “preposterous and unfounded.”
In a temperate, but innuendo-laden statement, the sultan said: “religious leaders, were expected to preach tolerance and mutual understanding especially during times of crisis, and not to promote dissension and discord...” He declared: “It is of paramount importance to remind Pastor Oritsejafor that a genuine search for peace should never be regarded as a tactical engagement, to be pursued only when it suits our immediate interests. It is a life-long commitment which we must all take seriously…”
It was also stated, in closing last time, that the fact that the CAN president and his NSCIA counterpart are “co-chairmen of the National Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) and have to date spoken with one voice, this public disagreement is symptomatic of something deep…” One might also add in this respect, that both men had publicly described themselves as “good friends.”
Two questions appear appropriate at this juncture. Why should a “free, fair and credible election” lead to violence? What linkages are there, if any between the faith and region of origin of the winner/loser and those of the perpetrators/victims of the violence? These are obviously difficult questions. They are difficult because they will lead us to inconvenient answers; answers which should lead us to do some fundamental reexamination of the so called Nigerian project. Yet, answer them we must.
Permit me therefore to attempt to answer these questions. First, I wish to state that the so-called post-election violence was not caused by how free or fair the elections were. They are the result of frustration arising from the fact that a northern Moslem candidate lost to southern Christian, in circumstances that were seen as brazen use of state power. I shall spend a bit of time on this because it is at the core of the problem. But, before that, let me also proffer an answer to the second question. The honest answer is indeed implied in the first answer. There are obvious substantial linkages between “the faith and region of origin of the winner/loser and those of the perpetrators/victims of the violence.” The winner is Christian and southern and so are majority of the victims of the violence and vice versa. I know that many who agree with this are too politically correct to mention it! Yet it is in looking this uncomfortable fact in the face that we can engage it meaningfully.
This is where Pastor Oritsejafor’s statement comes in. First, let me state that, as a Christian, I empathise with my president. I understand his frustrations concerning the too frequent loss of Christian lives and properties in several parts of northern Nigeria over the years. I have heard him ask rhetorically, sometimes in tears, if these issues are political, why are churches burnt and Christians killed? And he was spot on when he identified as one of the reasons for the violence, the noise that had been made by proponents of the zoning/rotational policy of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that the north was yet to serve out its eight-year term. In the event, the people felt cheated, irrespective of the integrity or otherwise of the election. There can’t be a better understanding of the problem.
With all due respect, however, I do not agree with the dismissal of this fundamental issue with a wave of the hand. It must be stated upfront that there can be no defence for crime, of any kind; and certainly none for murder or arson, under any guise. I am therefore absolutely supportive of every legal effort to bring the culprits to justice. However, I think we need to look deeper into this remote cause, so that we can march forward with a reasonable level of certainty that such incidences can be avoided in the future.
A recent statement by former military President, Ibrahim Babangida on the on-going debate about geo-political sharing of office, post-election is very instructive here. It reads in part: “
“Following the heated debate that has enveloped the nation in the last one month on which zone to produce what position, and vice-versa, I am wondering about some Nigerians’ ingenuous capacity to make a 360-degree U-turn on zoning…when the Northern Political Leaders’ Forum (NPLF) raised concerns over the zoning formula of the PDP and the deliberate disobedience of the party’s constitutional provision, some Nigerians called the NPLF all manner of names. At the time, some argued that zoning should be discarded and merit should be the criterion, and the voice of those who stressed the importance of zoning was lost in the maddening crowd. After the elections, the music has suddenly changed and the chorus is now zoning, zoning, zoning, and zoning…” (CONTINUES NEXT WEEK).
No comments:
Post a Comment