THE RECENT hunger protests left a sour taste in many mouths. As much as it tried to prevent them, the government couldn’t stop the protests. Unlike the Kenyan youths who obtained some concessions from their President, William Ruto, Nigerian protesters couldn’t get any from their president – the hungry are still without food; some families are mourning their dead, while others are counting their losses – the injured are nursing their wounds; and those alleged to have fallen foul of the law are languishing behind bars.
If a movement is a group with common ideals, beliefs and ideology, striving towards a goal, the protests constituted a movement, whose members believed that Nigeria could be made better for all Nigerians. And whatever ideals they cherished, couldn’t be divergent with zero tolerance for corruption, equity, fairness, and inclusive governance.
The perception of the protests varied according to the class prism of Nigerians. To the dominant classes, the protests were too early and unwarranted, while poorer Nigerians regarded them as timely and necessary to change their existential conditions.
The protesters were an amalgam, consisting of those driven by hunger and poverty; those contracted to protest against the protesters; and those who used the protests as a cover to steal.
The protesters, and most Nigerians, exist from hand to mouth, and oftentimes, the hand is not able to get anything to take to the mouth. For those in government who live like emperors, the protests are insurrectional. For this reason, they repeatedly reminded the protestors of the perilous economy. But the non-synergy of the comatose economy, with the profligacy in government fuelled the angst of the protesters, which forced them out to the streets.
Rather than the palliative approach to hunger, the protesters wanted a sustainable solution: ending the neoliberal strangulation of the economy, reintroducing subsidies, fixing the refineries, and fighting corruption in government.
ALSO READ: The Political Economy Of Dangote Refinery: The Controversies, Opportunities And Potentials; By Ivor Takor
There have been protests against hunger and officialised graft in many nations scammed into swallowing IMF’s dangerous drugs, which made the tough stance of Nigerian government against the protests unusual.
It is unbelievable, that the protesters could have forged within so short a time, the political consciousness to constitute a vanguard for regime change. The protesters were a hungry mass, made angrier by the official confirmation of the continuity of policies which induced the protests that led some of them to vent their anger in ways to spite the government, including the urge for the military to come back, and the use of foreign flags.
Reminiscent of the power orgies of military dictatorships, the government regarded the right to peaceful protests as a privilege to grant or withhold. As enlightened citizens, the protesters weren’t unaware of the constitutional right to protest, abundantly used by the president when he was a leading opposition politician, which emboldened them to proceed with the protests.
To reduce the scope of the protests, a court order was granted to limit the protests to the National Stadium in Abuja, whilst in Lagos the Lekki axis was a no-go area for the protesters.
The protests were led by those who wouldn’t compromise the struggles for a pot of porridge. Omoyele Sowore, Solomon Dalung, Isa El Buba, etc, led the protests transparently, without being disgraceful sell-outs like the wayward progenies of Pa Imoudu who would declare protests or strikes, and abandon them after closed door meetings with government officials.
ALSO READ: Tajudeen Abass: A Dutiful Speaker At Work; By Owei Lakemfa
President Tinubu summoned his first National Council of State meeting on 13th August, attended by all but two former presidents and heads of government among others, to review the state of the nation, and navigate a way forward.
With due respect to the august body, its praises were misplaced on a Commander-in-Chief who resisted vulnerable flag waving, and noisemaking hungry protesters, whilst the Turjis, Boko Haram commanders, operatives of the Eastern Security Network, etc, are at large wreaking havoc whenever they wished. The Council swept serious issues under the carpet – hunger, poverty and corruption, by passing a vote of confidence on a regime which seems more beholden to the neoliberal establishment than to Nigerian people.
After its deliberations, the Council concluded that: (1) The protest was a regime change movement; (2) praised President Tinubu for resisting regime change; (3) passed a vote of confidence on his stewardship to the nation; (4) reminded the protesters that the only way to effect a regime change is through periodic elections.
If a movement is a group with common ideals, beliefs and ideology, striving towards a goal, the protests constituted a movement, whose members believed that Nigeria could be made better for all Nigerians. And whatever ideals they cherished, couldn’t be divergent with zero tolerance for corruption, equity, fairness, and inclusive governance.
For the short spell of its existence, the movement couldn’t have formed a coherent body of political and economic beliefs to form an ideology. The protests can be described as an ad hoc youth movement to change their conditions of life through peaceful demonstrations in Nigerian cities and towns, infiltrated by fifth columnists and other characters which portrayed it in bad light.
ALSO READ: The Madness In The National Assembly; By Jibrin Ibrahim
It is unbelievable, that the protesters could have forged within so short a time, the political consciousness to constitute a vanguard for regime change. The protesters were a hungry mass, made angrier by the official confirmation of the continuity of policies which induced the protests that led some of them to vent their anger in ways to spite the government, including the urge for the military to come back, and the use of foreign flags.
The Council is right that if some of the protesters are interested in regime change, they should wait till the next election cycle to mobilise their members to vote an alternative party into power.
ALSO READ: The Vanity of Sex; By Godwin A. Abeghe
With due respect to the august body, its praises were misplaced on a Commander-in-Chief who resisted vulnerable flag waving, and noisemaking hungry protesters, whilst the Turjis, Boko Haram commanders, operatives of the Eastern Security Network, etc, are at large wreaking havoc whenever they wished. The Council swept serious issues under the carpet – hunger, poverty and corruption, by passing a vote of confidence on a regime which seems more beholden to the neoliberal establishment than to Nigerian people.
In a neoliberal colony, the head of government is duty bound to execute the economic agenda of the IMF, as is being done in Nigeria. Therefore, by passing a vote of confidence on the president, the Council has usurped an IMF function. The IMF is more appropriate to pass a vote of confidence, that despite national resistance to its agenda, President Tinubu hasn’t abandoned it in Nigeria.
As an advisory body, the Council should have advised the government to give its policies a human face to forge a fruitful partnership with its citizens. But with the preponderance of governors in the Council, who are complicit in the Nigerian tragedy that induced the confrontation, the conclusions aren’t unexpected.
Jahun, a commentator on public affairs writes from Dutse, Jigawa State Capital. He writes this column every Wednesday under the title: ‘The Other Perspective’. He can be reached via email@: aminuhabibu58@gmail.com or WhatsApp on +2347 3903 8088
