The recent declaration of a state of emergency in three north eastern states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa deserves careful attention both to substance and symbolism. First, no concrete time-line was given for the emergency rule and the framework for success was not defined by President Goodluck Jonathan. Given the practical impossibility of completely eradicating Boko Haram by military force, at what point would it be mission accomplished? Is it when the terror attacks reduce to the level of a manageable nuisance or when civilian casualties fall, and by what margin? Or is it when the present fighting stops? What is the end game? Herein lies a veritable source of uncertainty that should worry all Nigerians.
When the President declared emergency rule, he said the nation was at war. With over 2000 civilian deaths, the failure of the government to roll out a cohesive and comprehensive policy on security, expectedly, raised anxiety among Nigerians, as the problem spiraled out of control. However, the emergency declaration; the second in less than two years was short on expectations, confusing in details, doubtful in prospects and came too little, too late. It seems an open-ended commitment by the President in the face of the orchestrated campaign of terror by the shadowy Islamist sect that had clearly overwhelmed the country’s national security apparatus. In January this year, emergency was announced on five local government areas of Borno State, two in Yobe State and one each in Plateau and Niger States. Till date, they have not been lifted, which begs the question: is the one just announced an extension of the former? Since the state of emergency did not dismantle the political and civil structures in the affected states, what has changed from the first emergency, besides the surge in military presence and operations?
Immediately the state of emergency was declared, government troops raided Boko Haram targets and for the first time since the end of the civil war, 43 years ago, Nigerian planes dropped bombs on Nigerian territory, while ground forces mopped-up scenes of battle, killing the terrorists and capturing others. Early reports indicate that the troops surge is yielding results, but the campaign is far from brilliant because the measures announced by Jonathan were half-hearted, incomprehensive and politically expedient. In essence, the emergency seemed more of an expression of presidential concern over the affected states as a disaster zone, warranting only a troop surge.
It stands to reason that retaining the democratic machinery in the affected states was expedient, because in that subsisting arrangement, there are no clear presidential delineation of the lines of authority between the military and the civilian governors and other political office holders. Although the dissolution of all democratic structures may appear dictatorial and may have elicited condemnation, as was the case when Obasanjo decreed emergency rule in Plateau and Ekiti states, the President should have clearly spelt out the lines of authority and responsibility for the military and civilian authorities. Two simultaneous parallel authorities, structurally and contextually independent of each other, create confusion and uncertainty which could undermine the mission.
The exercise of power within the military to which the states have now been subjugated is through the Chief of Defence Staff; emergency being a negation of the lofty ideals of constitutional government. The governors and civilian authorities in the affected states wield power through the State executive and legislative arms. As things stand, who takes decisions; is it the military or the governors? In case of a conflict; who has the final say? On whose desk does the buck really stop? The present middle of the road arrangement is undoubtedly, a potential source of confusion, which may aggravate the problem.
Defence spokesman, Brigadier Gen. Chris Olukolade, has vowed that the campaign would continue for “as long as it takes to achieve our objective of getting rid of insurgents from every part of Nigeria.” This kind of garrison blustering indicates Nigerian authorities have learnt nothing from the global war on terror. Boko Haram cannot be defeated with military force because it is more of an ideology than an army. Beyond the massive show of force, emergency rule has not addressed the root cause of the problem which is in the name of the organization. Boko Haram is an expression in Hausa language meaning “western education is a sin”. But how is it possible that a country which produced famed icons like Chinua Achebe, Wole Soyinka and has trained millions of university graduates since independence gives birth to an obscurantist movement which completely rejects western education?
The fundamental reason for this rejectionist philosophy is that for many young Nigerian graduates, western education has not translated into jobs and improved standards of living. Therefore, western education is not only meaningless, it is sinful. We don’t have to agree with this obscurantist doctrine; we just need to understand that part of the solution to the Boko Haram menace is jobs as too many idle hands and minds have turned Nigeria into one huge devil’s workshop. Otherwise stated, Boko Haram is an expression of widespread discontentment by a people who desire better standard of living. Their inability to grapple with the dynamics of a changing society, and the ravaging poverty particularly in the North, makes Boko Haram to hold education responsible for their problems.
The Boko Haram insurgency has become the most deadly and intractable security challenge that requires a combination of carrots and sticks to resolve. Boko Haram like the Niger Delta militancy, are manifestations of public disenchantment with the political class and their style of governance. Leaders should also be less extravagant in the midst of ravaging poverty that is the lot of most Nigerians. The World Bank statistics show an increase in the number of the poor in Nigeria from 34.5 million in 1985, 67.1 million in 1996, 68.7 million in 2004, and an astronomical 112.47 million in 2010.
In addition, there is a nexus between criminality and spiraling joblessness. Systemic unemployment has scaled alarming levels to compel the declaration of a national emergency. At the last count, about 42 million youths are unemployed. Nigeria has 156 universities. Where are the jobs for the products of these schools? The severity of unemployment was illustrated recently when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) advertised 15,000 vacancies and received 800,000 applications. There is certainly an urgent need to emphasize job creation in private and public sectors. Furthermore, pervasive corruption has occasioned unprecedented levels of anger within the populace, building a mass of discontented and disoriented people who will find different ways of expressing their discontentment.
That Boko Haram, for no cognizable reason, has visited untold agony on the body and soul of Nigeria is an under-statement. A greater tragedy, however, is that its battle cry; rejection of western education, betrays an ignorance of the pioneering role Islam played in the emergence of the same western education that Boko Haram claims to be against. Which is why the current military expedition should be part of a holistic, multi-pronged approach to addressing the root causes of the problem, without which, the nation risks the emergence of more chaos just as bad as the one that led to the emergency rule. The emergency rule is therefore a risky political gamble bearing the imprimatur of the person and office of as the President, who has now put himself in a position where he must ensure the success of the action, or take full responsibility for failure. Against the backdrop of 2015, It can only be hoped that the outcome will justify the initial calculations of Mr. President.
