Continued from Part One
THE WEAKNESS of NLC as a vanguard of the labour movement must be attributed to the doubts in the leadership as to whether to join the socio-political and economic program of the ruling class or to, through mobilised mass of working people, launch working people’s independent agenda for political power and people-based economic and social development.
The current political dispensation (in Nigeria) is said to be ‘democratic’, as opposed to ‘undemocratic’ military dictatorship whose last lap was between December 31, 1983 and May 29, 1999. In 1999, in a paper which I delivered at Ibadan in honour of the late Comrade Ola Oni; “From Obasanjo to Obasanjo… the Barbers’ chair”; I characterised the Obasanjo civilian presidency as military dictatorship by other means. What we have in Nigeria today as a democracy is the product of that phenomenon.
Thus, unlike the labour party which Michael Imoudu led in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the Labour Party of 1989, and subsequent eras, were (are) treated as private organisations of party leaders for negotiation with ruling class parties and dissidents from ruling class parties.
Indeed, labour leaders, instead of building working peoples’ political parties, end up in ruling class parties.
The NLC mass rallies and protests across Nigeria in 2008/2009 articulated certain key economic and political issues that are central to the livelihood of the masses of the Nigerian people. Concretely, the demands underpinning the protests concern a new minimum wage, opposition to deregulation of the downstream sector of the petroleum industry (another terminology for increase in fuel prices) and adoption of aspects of the Justice Muhammed Uwais recommendations for Electoral Reforms.
ALSO READ:
Nigeria Is On The Road To Haiti, Not Venezuela; By Owei Lakemfa
We must observe that in spite of the potentials of that re-awakening, a danger emerged. This danger is that our movement, especially its “civil-society” component, may have boxed itself into the corner of refereeing contests among factions of the ruling class instead of building its own independent platform for contesting power with the ruling class.
We must not forget to take account of the global context in which the military extraction of the bourgeoisie led Nigeria’s ruling class between 1984 and 1999, a context which laid the foundation for military dictatorship by other means between 1999 and today. Just as the post-1945 capacities of labour and the oppressed around the globe forced the social, economic and political gains of the oppressed peoples and classes up to about 1973, the recrudescence of the power and virulence of capital in the late 1970s unleashed the venom of the ruling classes in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The danger is concretely on ground today as the so-called civil-society organisations say they are engaging the “progressives” in the ruling class parties for 2015. The general lack of organic link between organised labour and the masses of the oppressed also produced the ragged, some say treacherous, surrender of NLC and TUC to government blackmail during the fuel price hike of January 2012.
The current political dispensation (in Nigeria) is said to be ‘democratic’, as opposed to ‘undemocratic’ military dictatorship whose last lap was between December 31, 1983 and May 29, 1999. In 1999, in a paper which I delivered at Ibadan in honour of the late Comrade Ola Oni; “From Obasanjo to Obasanjo… the Barbers’ chair”; I characterised the Obasanjo civilian presidency as military dictatorship by other means. What we have in Nigeria today as a democracy is the product of that phenomenon.
The dictatorship which has thus survived is that of Nigeria’s neo-colonial ruling class spearheaded most of the time by the armed wing of that class but propped significantly and strategically by other wings of the class – intellectual, commercial, comprador, and ideological (religious, spiritual, etc.) – which also cut across various generations and geopolitical divides.
ALSO READ:
The 1981 General Strike And The Struggle For Minimum Wage; By Izielen Agbon
As we shall see later, the moments in the dynamics of the struggles of the trade union movement and the labour movement generally in Nigeria metamorphosed from a period of inclusiveness and activism (1973–1988 and especially 1979-1988), to a stage of collaborationism by labour leadership with the state; a collaborationism which included complete surrender (1988 to 1994) by, and take-over of, the trade unions by the state (1994 to 1998) and to a stage of possible re-invention of the movement from 1999 (Iji, 1997; Lakemfa, 1997).
We must not forget to take account of the global context in which the military extraction of the bourgeoisie led Nigeria’s ruling class between 1984 and 1999, a context which laid the foundation for military dictatorship by other means between 1999 and today. Just as the post-1945 capacities of labour and the oppressed around the globe forced the social, economic and political gains of the oppressed peoples and classes up to about 1973, the recrudescence of the power and virulence of capital in the late 1970s unleashed the venom of the ruling classes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This shift in the balance of forces has subsisted globally until today and it has occasioned the ambience of the struggles of the labour and the trade-union movements till today (William, 2004).
The apprehension of this ambience by Lindstrom (2004) in respect of South-East Asia is equally applicable to the fate of other countries (like Nigeria) and the working people in Nigeria and across the globe.
Can the labour and the trade union movement be seriously considered contenders for political power in Nigeria today or even in the last two decades? Or the intellectuals and especially the students’ movement? The period between 1973 and 1978 witnessed frantic efforts by the progressive segments of the labour movement to unify the labour movement in Nigeria in order to strengthen them. The military dictatorship from Yakubu Gowon to Obasanjo made equally frantic efforts to stultify the unity moves in, and to take control of, the labour movement.
In spite of the massive globalisation and capitalist propaganda about the transformation of some Third World countries into First World status, Lindstrom observed what he referred to as a “paradox”, stating thus: “Some economic, social and political transformations across the region (East and South East Asia) seem to favour an enhancement of the bargaining power and political influence of workers and trade unions. Despite these changes, organised labour remained politically marginalised and ineffectual across the region. This can be seen in the inability of workers…to contest the negative consequences of (state and firms) economic strategies for labour to seize new opportunities generated by democratic reform.”
Again, analysing the Asian situation, Lindstrom came up with observations of situations that are analogous, almost indeed identical, with the Nigerian condition especially under what we are forced to call democracy: “Political developments seem, on the surface, to enhance the power of labour to reorganise and link up with democratic forces [in civil society]…
“At the same time, the economic developments have had the opposite effect of demobilizing labour. The deepening fragmentation of the work force has negative effects on the organisation of workers into homogenous unions constituted in the context of capital-labour contradictions…
“Economic restructuring (SAP, Reforms, Deregulation, Privatisation) has been accompanied by amendments of labour laws that enhance the role of capital at the level of production and the level of the state.”
Let me call your attention to the unexplained distinction that I have been making between the trade union movement, on one hand, and the labour movement, on the other. The trade-union movement is a largely economicist movement legally recognised and registered by government(s), generally prohibited by law from engaging in politics, especially party politics; (in our Nigerian case, Section 15 of the Trade Union Act, Cap 437, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990).
We hope to exemplify the foregoing with concrete regard to our own country, Nigeria, later in this exposition. And in contradistinction to the depressing prognosis of the health of our movement in Nigeria, we are heartened and inspired by the renewal and the internationalisation of that renewal, of the liberation struggle and the politics of liberation by the oppressed in Latin America; especially in Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil.
Economic and Political Struggles (1970-1999): A short recapitulation
In this section, we attempt a summary of the major engagements of the trade-union and labour movements in Nigeria in the three decades between 1970 and 1999 – three decades of, with the exception of the Shehu Shagari “civilian” interregnum – direct military rule.
I do not, in this summary, claim that this account is exhaustive. Fairly exhaustive accounts may be found in other sources such as Adewumi (1995) in which the papers by Lakemfa (1997) and Iji (1997) are of particular interest regarding the history of the Nigerian labour and trade union movement.
Let me call your attention to the unexplained distinction that I have been making between the trade union movement, on one hand, and the labour movement, on the other. The trade-union movement is a largely economicist movement legally recognised and registered by government(s), generally prohibited by law from engaging in politics, especially party politics; (in our Nigerian case, Section 15 of the Trade Union Act, Cap 437, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990).
ALSO READ:
The Dangers Of Introducing State Police Today; By Jibrin Ibrahim
This ensures that working people do not and cannot legally seek political power and that, consequently, the pursuit and retention of political power which control economic power, is monopolised by the ruling class – the exploiters of the working people. The labour movement is the independent organisation of the masses and their allies with social, economic and political programme for the transformation of the polity in favour of the masses of the people.
We need to put it on record, however, the achievement of the coalition of the labour movement (represented by the NLC), the Nigerian intellectuals (represented by the Academic Staff Union of Universities – ASUU), the professionals (represented especially by the Nigerian Bar Association – NBA and the Nigeria Medical Association – NMA), women (represented especially in Women in Nigeria – WIN) and the students’ movement, which also demonstrated clearly during 1977/78 to 1998 (and especially 1978-1988) what commitment and creative organisational effort could achieve.
This distinction is important for us, as we shall see later, for the definition and actualisation of short-term and long-term agenda of the masses of the people. The relative dominance of the two forms of organisation of the oppressed is also a measure of the effectiveness of the organisation and the agenda of popular forces.
In 1989 Alison Ayida (Ayida, 1990) considered that among the social forces contending for power in Nigeria’s Third Republic were: “(i) The political class and the neo-politicians…; (ii) The business and corporate interest; (iii) Labour and trade-union movement; (iv) The intelligentsia…the universities (student power) and the professional class; and (v) The bureaucracy… the public service, including the military”.
Can the labour and the trade union movement be seriously considered contenders for political power in Nigeria today or even in the last two decades? Or the intellectuals and especially the students’ movement? The period between 1973 and 1978 witnessed frantic efforts by the progressive segments of the labour movement to unify the labour movement in Nigeria in order to strengthen them. The military dictatorship from Yakubu Gowon to Obasanjo made equally frantic efforts to stultify the unity moves in, and to take control of, the labour movement.
ALSO READ:
Conspiracy Theorists And President Tinubu’s Political Artistry; By Collins Adam Ali
Decree 31 of 1973 prevented the attempted merger of the four labour centres. In December, 1975 the four labour centres merged and inaugurated a single labour centre: The Nigeria Labour Congress. The General Olusegun Obasanjo-led military dictatorship orchestrated the final steps of turning the NLC into a parastatal, instigating fifth columnists inside the labour movement and using military decrees to intimidate and neutralise patriotic labour leaders like Wahab Goodluck and Michael Imuodu and to take control of the Congress. The Trade Unions (Disqualification of Certain Persons) Act 15 of 1977 and the Trade Unions (Amendment) Decree 22 of 1978 were the pivotal instruments in this regard (Adewumi, 1997); they set the general stage for the development of the progressive subversion and degeneracy in the labour movement since then.
We need to put it on record, however, the achievement of the coalition of the labour movement (represented by the NLC), the Nigerian intellectuals (represented by the Academic Staff Union of Universities – ASUU), the professionals (represented especially by the Nigerian Bar Association – NBA and the Nigeria Medical Association – NMA), women (represented especially in Women in Nigeria – WIN) and the students’ movement, which also demonstrated clearly during 1977/78 to 1998 (and especially 1978-1988) what commitment and creative organisational effort could achieve.
For, in spite of the viciousness of military dictatorship (in the mid-70s) and fascism within the 1979-1983 civilian interregnum, the aforementioned coalition of patriotic forces struggled gallantly against imperialism and its local agents.
To be continued.
Comrade Prof. Olorode first presented this paper at the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) Rain School held at the Workers’ Solidarity Centre, Atan Ofot, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State on 19th July, 2010. He later updated and presented it at the Conference in honour of Dr Dipo Fashina at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife on May 7, 2013.
