LET US MEET Sovereign National Conference and Possible Outcomes.

It is not news that there has been concerted paranoia about the subject of the oft clamoured for Sovereign National Conference (SNC). The Federal Government obviously sees the SNC as an affront to the sovereignty of Nigeria while the proponents of the SNC bandy the idea as panacea to the entire problems of Nigeria. Political analysts from both divide however agree that the colonial amalgamation of Nigeria may hold the key to the pearly gates for Nigeria. I myself have argued along these lines being a strong proponent not only of the general meeting of people but of a colonial fault in the works of the Nation.

But the colonial act of welding forcefully different ethnic nationalities together is obviously not the only problem faced by Nigeria. The problem of greed and unabashed corruption, the lack of collective ideas, the economic glut as a result of the oil boom, the eternal dissipation of the agricultural sector and the ignoble chant for youths to go back to the farm are problems which cannot be attributed, at least directly, to the colonial Lugard and his imperial civil servants. The federal character, the geo political zones, the ghost states and arbitrary local governments, the presidential system, the jumbo salaries for government officials, the security vote, and the non performing budgets could not have been caused by Lugard. A little digression, a mystical friend of mine argued quite convincingly that Nigeria was doomed to fail at inception judging from the constellations on the 1^st of October 1960. Even the mystical suggestion implies that the colonial compromise (which I happen to be a proponent of) might not be the omnibus cause for all ills.

The above argument also presupposes that the cause of Nigeria’s problems might not be only ethnic or religious. Dr. Hussaini Abdu in an interesting study of the Kaduna crises discovered that the layers of conflicting networks in Kaduna transcended both religious and ethnic loyalties. Komolafe in a This day article seeming to agree with this idea, pointed out that even the layer of class(professionals, students, poor, rich etc) was involved in this hegemonic tug of war. Being that Abdu utilized only a part of the North in his research, I am not sure that if beamed at other places in the North his research will hold true. Abdu’s theory therefore seemingly over complexifies an already complex problem by ‘omnibusing’ the North. Komolafe not only borrowed heavily from an Indian caste system completely excised from the Nigerian situation but also sought to put together other conflicting networks to disturb the waters.

I have gone through these arguments not to point out the crank in the works of great scholars like Abdu and Komolafe but to debunk any omnibus perception. Regarding the SNC, this omnibus perception presupposes on one hand that the problems of Nigeria will be solved by an SNC and on the other hand that there is actually one omnibus cause for Nigeria’s problem. On the government side of the divide the omnibus perception presupposes that an SNC will break up Nigeria.

Many analysts believe that the reason for the perception of the SNC as a tool for the breaking up of Nigeria might be due to the wording. Why should ‘Sovereign’ be part of the nomenclature of this suspicious meeting? Couldn’t it have been named a convention or consensus instead of a conference? Couldn’t we just put a caveat on discussions concerning the sovereignty of Nigeria? I think Pat Utomi falls within this group of genuine people trying to come up with an SNC compromise.

The Senate President David Mark recently declared that there will be no SNC. His reason was that the people had already elected representatives to amend the constitution and make laws, this right entrusted by the people to the lawmakers could not be abdicated. David Mark’s argument is valid but it does make some omnibus conclusions. The first is the pre notion that the SNC will be amending the constitution and the second is to presume that the senate is already empowered to discuss whatever is to be discussed in the SNC.

The SNC is thus an imperative. A wasp perched dangerously on a sensitive part of the body. A recurring nightmare that would keep haunting the sensibilities of Nigeria till it is addressed. There have been halfhearted trials in the past to politically water down the issues to be discussed in the SNC. Abacha, trying to ape his predecessor in political pseudonomics assembled a congress but charged them not to discuss the issue of the sovereignty of Nigeria. Obasanjo did the same thing also issuing a fiat that there are issues that can never be discussed.

This is like making a communiqué for a meeting that has not held. How can one set a fair wrestling match but warn that there should be no winner. Would the wrestling match not become a farce, a pantomime, a demonstration of a real fight and not the real fight itself. This has been the problem with former trial runs of the SNC – the unwillingness of the people and the government to lay the cards on the table. But there is another problem regarding modus operandi. How the SNC would be run. Would it be sponsored by the government with government agents running the event? Is it even an event? How long would it take? Who will nominate representatives to represent the rest of the people? Or should all Nigerians master the art of astral travel and project their avatars to the venue? Will there be a moderator? Or would it be a free for all. Should Nigerians be allowed to settle all knotty issues through the means of a shout down or (being great ‘apers’ of the American system) should we employ the legendary cowboy drawing contest.

It is my opinion that the SNC is not a single event but a process. Being that in Nigeria processes take a lot of time to unfold I must put a little caveat. It will not be a Nigerian process, just a process. It is also my opinion that arguments that the sovereignity of Nigeria should not be put on the table are absolute balderdash. In fact, it is the first thing that should be put on the table. This is just common sense deduction. It would be better to find out through a vote from Nigerians whether they would like to continue with the colonial construct called Nigeria. Would Nigerians want changes to be made? What kind of changes would Nigerians need? This would create a platform for further discussions in the SNC. If 90% of Nigerians reject the colonial construct called Nigeria would the remaining 10% hold it in place by force? It is therefore imperative that issues like these are discussed not only to save the time of Nigerians but to create a strong platform for lasting transformations.

By Nnamdi Okose
Abuja

The Cock Theory. Why men are unfaithful

John(not his real name of course) has broken a lot of hearts that it had turned into a habit. He picked up this habit at quite an early age. He broke Jessica’s heart in kindergarten when she refused to share her lunch with him. The words, ‘I hate you’ was said with so much venom for a boy John’s age, poor Jessica was inconsolable. But that was ages ago when John had not groomed himself in the finer art of heart breaking. He would break many more hearts as he turned into a dashing young man. This had nothing to do with venomous words as was the case with Jessica. It wasn’t about what was said to these hapless women. It was about what was not said. His brazen acts of infidelity.

John is not the only man to be unfaithful. Gary Neuman a marriage counselor in his study which culminated in a book The Truth about Cheating explains that 1 in 2.7 men will cheat and most of their wives will never know about it. This is a little over 37%. Neuman studied 100 men who were unfaithful and 100 who were faithful in a bid to create the ultimate solution to the societal malaise of infidelity. For this ‘kind’ of research, 37% seems to be a whopping figure. Let me explain: the research seems to have assumed that the sexual orientation of the men studied was of a heterosexual kind. One can argue that the incidence of homosexuality in married men will account for just a minor percentage but the bigger flaw would be to assume that cheating men who are undiscovered will own up to cheating.

This fundamental flaw in Neuman’s research raises disturbing questions about whether a study of this nature should be left in the realms of social statistical analysis. No doubt, in Neuman’s outstanding career as a marriage counselor, he would have come face to face with men who cheat and whose behaviours have sent them to the good counselor’s couch. The real question will be how many men will agree in a social survey that they are unfaithful to their spouses judging that infidelity is considered a taboo in most societies. Neuman studied marriage disorders but not the sexuality of man.

Married men represent one side of the coin. Unmarried men on the other hand also show a high level of ‘infidelity’ to their partners. This cannot actually in the real sense be termed infidelity since there is no contract and men are allowed in these cases to sow their wild oats. Still unmarried men like John find themselves most of the time at daggers drawn with their partners for reasons of infidelity. A real statistic of single men who cheat on their partners is not attainable but one can safely say that the incidence is overwhelmingly high.

The 100 men who swore to Neuman that they had only eyes for their wives trigger more than a passing interest. No doubt, Neuman would have made some sort of definition of cheating. Would a peck that lasts a second longer than normal be classified as cheating? Perhaps a neck massage in the office to relieve tension. Looking into the eyes of your colleague long enough to know that they are irrepressible tools of sensual expression? A hug that lasts a bit too long? A touch that lingers… Is infidelity just blatant sexual penetration? Jesus Christ makes the most conclusive definition, ‘whoever looketh at a woman to lust after her…’

Is this the definition employed by Neuman? Did he ask about actual penetration? Did he check the level of guilt before and after the act?

My argument at this point is to prepare the reader for the central conclusion of Gary Neuman’s seminal work; that men cheat because they feel unappreciated by their women. In other words, they cheat because they want to feel good about themselves. If this finding is true, as I am in agreement that it is more or less; what major question does it raise for us. A female might ask the obvious question of why a man should cheat to feel good about himself. But in retrospect, one should ask, why do men derive a feeling of dominance and self worth when they cheat? The answer to this question might be found in unlikely places.

John has been the bane of the opposite sex from his days as a Popsicle sucking 5 year old. Most of the women who come across him know this as a matter of instinct but his irresistibility and charm are two forces that give them an excuse to hope that he would change one day. Still women are quick to denounce all ‘Johnlike’ tendencies in men comparing them somewhat to the unbridled manifestation of the wild. And for a good reason…

Scientists have spent a long time studying the mating behaviour of wild animals. The social mating behaviour of a lion for example is played out in his pride. Scientists therefore are almost unanimous about the dominant male theory in a pride of lions. In social mating behaviour therefore, the lion is mostly a polygamous animal.

The social mating behaviour of animals is more complex than the dominant male phenomenon. The female species does not play passive roles in this complex system. Chan Lee Peng gives a simple explanation of this process: “the mating process always involves the struggle of one sex (often the male) to win the mating.” In lay man terms, the males struggle amongst themselves in order to mate with the females. This struggle for hegemony among the males means that the female mates with the dominant male. The dominant male is the preferred male. The real McCoy!  The struggle for dominance might not be a matter of brute strength in some cases as in the case of the peacock, the struggle is about comeliness. In the domesticated animal kingdom the Cock’s pecking order reflects this struggle for dominance and the somewhat polygamous nature of animals. I call this the Cock theory.

This kind of behaviour is not only noticeable in exotic species of the wild but also in the species which lay man term as domesticated animals. Man’s best friend for example has garnered over the years, a sexual behaviour simply described by many as bizarre. Perhaps because of their proximity to us, one would rather be called a lion than a dog or a bitch.

Constant and oft times derogatory comparison of animals and humans raise salient questions. Are we linked in some way in sexual behaviour with animals? Are societal ethics and norms perhaps mere veils to a more animalistic human side? And more poignantly, would the answers unlocked from these questions hold the key to why men cheat? Is John’s cheating tendency a matter of nature or a matter of a secondary social disconnection between him and his partners?

 Let us look at the conclusion of the research by Gary Neuman one more time. As the good marriage counselor discovered, the central cause of infidelity of men is a feeling of non appreciation by their women. This means that it is in man’s nature to feel good about his manliness. It is man’s nature to feel dominant. Just like in the wild, the social behaviour of human beings are no less different. For the female, it is a calculated choice of the dominant male. The man needs to be the dominant male in the pride of many females. This is the way that John feels. In kindergarten, when John had broken Jessica’s heart he was just expressing an animalist need for dominance. Jessica as well as many other subsequent females who have fallen for the latent charm of the dashing Adonis was merely expressing a need to be in the pride.

The realization of the relationship between man and other animals in terms of sexual behaviour increases the understanding of Gary Neuman’s findings. This understanding will make the reformation of people like John (which is more or less most of men) a task attainable for marriage counselors like Neuman and the myriad of women whom John inadvertently has scorned. Understanding this relationship will also highlight the difference between man and animals. Apart from the obvious fact that man is an animal guided by complex societal realities; the words of Jesus Christ about the intention as against the act underscores the importance of spiritual grace and self control. Women should also learn how to work with and not against this reality. Perhaps a single woman in order to sustain the interest of her spouse needs to be a harem?

Nnamdi Okose

How Did This Happen? Reading Vital Signs by Nnamdi Okose

The man on the stretcher seemed lifeless at first. His face seemed quite serene albeit a bit swollen. His shirt was completely unbuttoned showing a massive stomach which drooped at the sides and bobbled as the stretcher was wheeled. The stretcher was pushed by a nurse who seemed a bit reluctant or nonchalant. The nurse’s apparent disdain was in contrast to the agitated woman with disheveled hair who tagged meekly behind the nurse. I suspected that this was his wife. I looked closely at the man and could not make out the customary heaving of the stomach which signaled that some life still flowed within him.

The beds at the emergency unit of the hospital were completely taken up by accident victims in various forms of bandaging. So the man was left on the stretcher by the reluctant nurse who disappeared mysteriously into an adjoining office. After 15 minutes or so, she reappeared with a stethoscope and a thermometer. She placed a hand on the wrist of the supine man, looked mysteriously at a hand held clock and shook her head as if in relief. Next she needlessly tucked a slim looking thermometer under a bulging armpit and so on. This ritual is called the checking of vital signs. The subsequent verbiage between the nurse and the agitated woman dispelled any fears that the man was actually dead. He was merely under in some way. Stilled by alcohol.

My curiosity was pricked. What did the nurse really hear in the fluttering earpiece of the stethoscope that told her that the apparently lifeless man was still alive? Was whatever that was heard distinguishable from a mere hum? Dr. Chika Amobi explained that the difference between the heart beat of a healthy person and that of someone who was under was probably a matter of “volume” through the medium of the earpiece of the stethoscope. Here, volume refers to the level of hearability or loudness. A person who is under would have a weak heart beat difficult to discern by the untrained but the dup dup – dup dup would still be noticeable with a shsh – shshsh to signal the breathing.

The above scenario no doubt underscores the importance of checking vital signs not only in the sphere of medicine but in other spheres of human existence. The almost lifeless alcoholic would probably be an expert in checking the vital signs of a bottle of beer. And yes, a bottle of beer does have vital signs. Something to watch out for to ensure that the said bottle was not a fake or a “spoilt’ beer. Checking the vital signs in my own thinking starts with the opening of the beer cap and being vigilant to notice the sometimes inaudible hiss that transpires between the bottle cap and the invading opener. Kola Oseh however puts the vital signs before the actual union between the opener and the beer cap. If the beer bottle is shaken a bit before any invasion, one can see the tiny bubbles rising towards the neck of the bottle. This is more like checking the pulse of the beer.

Vital signs tell us what is happening before they happen. A man whose heart beat is barely audible is probably on a fast lane to the great beyond. A beer that has no pulse or that does not hiss will probably taste flat. Vital signs are therefore pointers and an illuminating factor that eliminates the element of surprise and ignorance.

In June 2011, a loud boom was heard within the premises of the Police Headquarters in Abuja. Another bomb had exploded. It was not unlike the explosion that had marred the independence celebrations of Nigeria about 8 months before. Several explosions had earlier occurred during the 2011 elections in Suleja and in Maiduguri. These explosions were not unlike other explosions in 2009 in Lagos and in 2010 in Bayelsa. Perplexed analysts have been befuddled with the recurrent puzzle of how this could have been possible. A little digression: the last explosion in June 2011 has thrown up a lot of security debate about whether it was a suicide bombing or not. Security analysts, especially those who had scrutinized the video have assured Nigerians that it was not a suicide bomb attempt. Nigerians should therefore heave a sigh of relief that the Nigerian was incapable of self sacrifice. The only problem with this conclusion is that it conveniently forgets the ‘hot pants’ scenario concerning a Nigerian in an American bound flight on the 29^th of December 2009.

So how could all these explosions have been possible? Is there a sudden and new found rascality among Nigerians? A good beer drinker does not wonder why the beer does not have a pulse; he simply does not open it. In the same way, could it not have been possible for Nigeria to have read the signs. Reading the vital signs takes more than the analysis of individual incidents. It also entails keeping an eye on the bigger picture. Let us consider these statistics. Between 1986 when a mysterious letter bomb tore down the brilliant Dele Giwa and 2005 which records the first bomb explosion in Bayelsa state, there have been a total of 14 incidences of bomb blasts. This time line is within a total of 19 years. Between 2006 and the last explosion which hit Maiduguri in July there have been a total of 25 incidences of blasts. And this is within only 5 years! By incidences, I refer to cases where a bomb was involved, detonated or not. In any case only few incidents were averted and thus did not result in an actual blast.

The statistic tells us a lot. It does not tell us that it is either Boko Haram or MEND or some other misguided thug. However the statistic reminds us that the incidents of the use of explosives as a leveling tool as against the gun has increased drastically in the last 5 years. Malcolm Gladwell in one of his collection of essays made a strong case that the September 11 attack could have been averted if only the dots had been connected. In Nigeria, are there dotted puzzles that can be connected? Will the dotted puzzles tell us where the next bomb explosion will take place?

In 2011alone there have been 11 incidences of bombing. The bombings have been oscillating between Jos, Bauchi, Kaduna, Maiduguri and Abuja. Maiduguri has the highest number of blasts so far. Does it signify that the Boko Haram, the faceless group which is said to have claimed responsibility for the attack is based in Maiduguri? Is there an Al-Qaeda training ground in Maiduguri or are neighboring countries providing launch pads for these attacks. What informs the locations for attacks? Being that Boko Haram means that western education is haram, would western schools be hit? Why hasn’t any school been hit so far? Why has there been only one recorded foiled attempt on a church?

Now let us readjust the frame of our lens a bit to accommodate a larger picture. Olisa Akukwe in his essay, vision 2020 and the new society predicts that an army of hate will be recruited in the north due to the gap in education between the south and the north and the attendant gap in standards of living. This raises an interesting question about what goes on in mind of an average Boko Haram ardent. What is the means by which they are recruited and indoctrinated? Is it possible to deconstruct the process from recruitment, indoctrination and attack? What channels of communication are used by these explosive lovers? Can these channels be infiltrated and alternative messages fed through them? Do we clamp down on the criminals or analyze them. More succinctly, how can we clamp down on the criminals without analyzing them?

The supine alcoholic is resuscitated and a rigorous path towards detoxification is pursued. He is made to avoid usual haunts where the kind proprietress would be willing to dole out cupfuls even when the man cannot pay. The family’s involvement is not played down. The recovering alcoholic is allowed to exist in a genial supportive environment. The treatment of the alcoholic does not therefore end in his resuscitation when he manages to pass out. It is more holistic. In that same vein, the holistic approach to solving the incidents of bomb blasts would not lie in just creating a more intelligent security system but in addressing the ills that engendered them in the first place. This calls for a government that can read the signs.

Muted Sigh

To me, Art is the mystical union between the body and the soul and the expression of this union. Sometimes Art is planned, measured, recreated(implosively); but other times, Art is simply impulsive, unplanned and on -the -spot. The difference between planned and unplanned Art, in my opinion is relatively much. Instant Art puts the artist on the spot. Like a mystical graffiti, the Art demands full attention from the artist and becomes his master.

Muted Sigh is an expression of such kind of Art. An Art in progress created at the spur of the moment about the journey of the artist towards happiness both for himself and for his society.

Nnamdi Okose