Sunday, November 27, 2016

Goodbye, Fidel Castro By Reuben Abati

The death of Fidel Castro was long expected and when it finally came on Friday night, there was very little surprise across the world. He was 90, and in August, he had himself predicted that he would not live beyond 90. He had been sick for about ten years, compelling him to hand over power as Cuba's leader in 2006. It is instructive that Castro's death, like his life, was attended by divided opinions. No other man has been more controversial in Latin America and indeed in the whole of the Americas in the last 50 years.

       He was hated and loved in almost equal measure, praised by those who admired him, and denounced by those who objected to his politics and style. This much was illustrated as the news of his death spread: while Cubans in Havana and across the country mourned the death of the El Commandante, the father of modern Cuba, and perhaps the last of the iconic revolutionary figures of the 20th Century, 145 kilometres away to the North, in Miami, Florida, many Cubans in diaspora celebrated the death of the man they consider a tyrant who drove them away from their homeland.

       Fidel Castro, having survived countless assassination attempts over the years, was fully aware more than anyone else, of the emotional reactions to the choices he made by all categories of persons including ideologues, capitalists, family members and plebeians alike. His response to this was the iconic declaration: "Condemn me. It is of no importance. History will absolve me." This was in 1953, after the Moncada Barracks event, but that statement more or less defined his life-long attitude to power, leadership and situations. As Cuba's strong man, he ran his country from 1959 to 2006, like a messiah, giving the people one of the best human development indexes in the world: a developed medical system, free healthcare, free education, advancements in science, research and agriculture, the transformation of Cuba into a centre of culture, and a strong presence in global politics.   

      But it was Fidel's politics that turned him into both the symbolic and controversial figure that he became. When he drove out the Fulgencio Batista government in 1959, he was regarded as the messianic revolutionary, along with his band of freedom fighters, who had come to save the people in what became known as the 26thof July Movement. Batista's military dictatorship imposed enormous misery upon the people and encouraged the transformation of Havana into the playground of the rich, the Mafia, the criminal and the corrupt.  Fidel, as he was simply known, promised his people "Fatherland or Death" – ("patria o muerte"), constitutional rule, free and fair elections, and a brighter future. He soon embarked on a series of brutal executions, victimization of his political opponents and mass repression, justified on the basis of the need to consolidate the revolution.  His transition from freedom fighter to an autocrat, and the gradual shift from a people's revolution to a one-man revolution, is one of the striking contradictions of his legacy.

     Perhaps the most defining marker of this legacy is Cuba's relationship with the United States under his watch. By 1960, the would-be socialist democrat had declared that he is a Marxist-Leninist and with his embrace of the Soviet Union, he brought the Cold War, one of the most significant events of the 20th Century to the doorstep of the United States. This marked the beginning of more than 50 years of strained relationship with the United States, beginning with Cuba's introduction of a nationalized planned economy which resulted in the state take-over of foreign businesses and investments which were mostly American, the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 and the nuclear missile standoff of October 1962, which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war as the Soviets attempted to set up a nuclear base in Cuba, a few miles away from the United States.  

      Fidel Castro's face-off with the United States earned his country economic and military blockades, which proved punitive for his people, the flight of many Cubans to the United States, sustained, vitriolic American propaganda against Fidel and Cuba, as well as assassination attempts. By 1961, America broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba. Fidel proved to be a fiercely single-minded, iron-willed, unbending political figure. He resisted both capitalist restoration and American imperialism. He emerged in the long run as a symbol of defiance and a source of inspiration for many of his compatriots and others who drew patriotic zeal and fire from his resistance, nationalism and patriotism.

          Cuba was the centerpiece of his revolutionary and ideological exertions. He wanted the best for his country and his people, and in pursuing a pro-worker, pro-people agenda, he stood firmly against the intimidation of the capitalist mega-power to the North. He turned towards the Soviet Union as trading partner and source of subsidies.  He lowered racial barriers, preached equality and sovereignty and railed endlessly against capitalism in characteristically fiery and long speeches. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, the subsidies ended, and the people's economic hardship increased but Fidel Castro remained stubbornly committed to his agenda and vision. He survived the end of Soviet subsidy with the help of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

      He was a very strong, impressive personality, a master of rhetoric, and a notable man of style, with his trademark fatigue, classic Cuban cigar and scraggy beard. He was the oldest and the most enduring of the communists. His example inspired radical politics in Venezuela, Chile, Grenada, Bolivia, Ecuador and other parts of Latin America.  He defined the left in Latin America. He changed the Latin American game.

       His impact on the larger international order was no less significant. Many Fidelistas emerged in other parts of the world, including Africa, particularly in Congo, South Africa, Angola, Namibia and Mozambique where he supported revolutionary change morally and materially. The Nigerian Left also owes much inspiration to the politics of Fidel Castro and the ideas of his friend and ally, Ernesto "Che" Guevara.  Cuban doctors served as volunteers in Angola and Namibia, while over 36, 000 troops and another 300, 000 troops took part in the anti-apartheid, liberation struggles in both countries respectively.  Cuban troops were also involved in Algeria, Guinea Bissau, Equitorial Guinea, Sierra Leone and Libya. Africa owes Fidel a debt of gratitude. Comrade Fidel became the hero of many across the world who wanted to stand up for their countries and become like him, champions of the interests of the downtrodden and apostles of the values of equality and sovereignty. He was one of the strongest political, if not moral, voices in the 20th century.  He may have been guilty of human rights abuses at home, for debatable reasons of pragmatism, but he was a champion of social justice on the global stage.

      The durability of Castro's politics and influence was further consolidated by the longevity of his life.  Many young Cubans may remember him as the old man, and probably be less excited by his politics, which they may not understand, but he is bound to remain the most influential figure in Cuban history for a very long time to come. The United States must be relieved that its arch-enemy is finally gone. Fidel Castro stood up to 11 American Presidents from Eisenhower to Obama and did a lot to promote anti-American sentiments in the global sphere. Even when Jimmy Carter (he removed travel restrictions in 1977 and visited in 2002 and 2011) and Barrack Obama (the first sitting American President to visit Cuba in 90 years) sought to extend a hand of friendship, he was unimpressed. 

      America's hope that his death will mark the end of his legacy may be too much of an expectation, but definitely Cuba after Fidel Castro will no longer be the same, but the change will be gradual. Castro's brother and successor, Raul is 85 years old: some day, a Castro will no longer be in charge of Cuba, and the end of that dynasty may well mark the beginning of another transformation. But before that happens, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz should stop gloating: their responses to Fidel's death are too cheap, vilely opportunistic and indecent!

      As it is, many Cubans are no longer afraid that America poses a threat to their country's sovereignty: the psychological weapon with which Fidel controlled the population for decades. Cuba without Fidel draws closer attention to the gains of the Cuban revolution, as to whether or not it has fulfilled its promises. Raul Castro has made the Cuban economy more open and allowed more opportunities for self-expression, there are plans to restore diplomatic relations with the United States, commercial flights to and fro the United States are now possible, future movements may also be in the form of extension of the scope of human freedom.

       Fidel never wished that there would ever be a counter-revolutionary capitalist restoration in Cuba, as happened in Russia and Nicaragua, hence he had declared in April, that "the ideas of Cuban communism will endure." He is no longer in a position to determine that, but like Jose Marti (1853-1895), before him, Fidel Castro (1926-2016) will forever occupy an important chapter in the history of his fatherland and the world. When his remains are submitted to the furnace of the pyre on December 4, if the dead could speak, Comrade Fidel could well be heard proclaiming afresh: "La historia me absolvera!". Certainly, it has. He got away with his principled opposition to imperialism and provided leadership when the world needed it most.

Reuben Abati

Friday, November 25, 2016

The threat of a new Political Party By Reuben Abati

When aggrieved politicians within the People's Democratic Party (PDP) decided to join forces with members of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the All Progressives Peoples Alliance (APGA) to form the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2013, they had well-defined, if not so clearly stated, even if poorly conceived objectives: to send President Goodluck Jonathan out of power, displace the PDP which had clearly become a dominating hegemonic party, exert vengeance and offer the people an alternative.

        The triumph of the APC in the 2015 elections resulting in victory at the Presidential level, in 23 states out of 36, and also in the legislature, state and federal, was propelled on the wings of the people's embrace of this slogan of change. Change became the aphrodisiac of Nigeria's search for democratic progress. The new party's promises were delivered with so much certainty and cock-suredness. Those who were promised free meals were already salivating before casting the first vote.

     The permanently opportunistic players in Nigeria's private sector could be seen trading across the lines as they have always done. Everyone knew the PDP had too much internal baggage to deal with.  The opposition exploited this to the fullest and they were helped in no small measure, not just by the party's implosion, but also the offensiveness of the claims by certain elements within the PDP that their party will rule Nigeria forever. This arrogance had gone down the rank and file resulting in bitter conflicts among the various big men who dominated the party. The party failed from within, and even after losing the 2015 elections, it has further failed to recover from the effects of the factionalism that demystified it and drove it out of its hegemonic comfort zone. It took the PDP 16 years to get that hubristic moment. It is taking the APC a much shorter time to get to that same moment.

      The displacement of the PDP gave the impression that Nigeria's political space, hitherto dominated by one party, and a half, out of over 30 political parties with fears of a possible authoritarian one-party system, had become competitive.  But the victory of a new party over a dominant political party in power such as occurred in 2015, has not delivered the much-expected positives: instead, questions have been raised about the depth of democratic change and the quality of Nigeria's political development. The disappointment on both scores has been telling.

        The ruling APC has not been able to live up to expectations. In less than two years in power, it has been behaving not like the PDP, but worse. Not a day passes without a pundit or a party member or a civil society activist suggesting that the only way forward is the formation of a new political party. There are over 30 registered political parties in Nigeria; no one is saying that these political parties should be reorganized and made more functional; the received opinion is that a new political party would have to replace the APC.

     The implied message is the subject of political science. Many political parties in Africa, not just in Nigeria, lack substance. They reflect the problematic nature of party politics in the continent, even after the third wave of the continent's democratic experience. Party organizations are weak, their organs are inchoate, their fortunes are mercurial. In Nigeria, this seems to be more of a post-military rule reality, for in the First and Second Republics, some of Nigeria's political parties appeared to be more relatively people-based and socially-rooted. The military left behind an authoritarian streak at the heart of Nigeria's party politics, producing political parties since 1999 that do not fully reflect or assimilate the people's yearnings.

       There isn't therefore yet in place a mass-based, people-driven political party to replace the elite-based hegemonic parties we have, despite early efforts in the past in this direction by the likes of Aminu Kano and his People's Redemption Party (PRP), Fela Anikulapo-Kuti's Movement of the People (MOP), Tunji Braithwaite's Nigeria Advance Party (NAP), Gani Fawehinmi's National Conscience Party (NCP) and Wole Soyinka's Democratic Front for the People's Federation. There was also the Labour Party, mentioned separately here, advisedly, because it ended up abandoning its social democratic base, and became like the regular parties, an elite cabal, with the initial progressives who championed it on the platform of the Nigeria Labour Congress, moving ideologically to the right in an attempt to align with the Nigerian mainstream and its ready benefits. A profile of this political party and its initial principal promoters would reveal just how alimentary Nigerian politics is.

     Our immediate concern, however, is to argue that those who are raising the flag of a new political party as the answer to the emerging failure of the APC and the growth of factions among its members, and by extension, the spreading despair in the land, are missing the point. They are not promising any revolutionary change nor are they interested in deepening Nigeria's democratic change. Permit me to quote Danjuma Gambo, of the Enugu Chapter of the Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) who reportedly said: "A new political party is what we need. A new party with new plan, (and an) ideology that will bring succor to the sufferings of Nigerians is the answer." 

      Gambo deserves some credit: he phrases the matter delicately as a commentary on the incumbent dominating political party and government. His "what we need",  "new plan" "ideology" means change, another form of change to end, he tells us,  "the sufferings (sic) of Nigerians". We ask him, although he seems to have answered the question already: what happened to the change that happened in 2015?  So we ask another question: if the formation of a new political party did not solve Nigeria's problems since 2015, what is the guarantee that a new party would gain power and perform better than the ruling APC? Professional politicians don't comment on the matter as carefully as Gambo attempted. They are brazen about it and they have been loud too. They make it sound like a threat and a given solution. When you hear them boasting that a new political party is on the way, you are left in no doubt that they are issuing a threat. But is a new political party the solution to Nigeria's foreign exchange crisis or the people's angst?

      The conundrum is easy to resolve. It is easy for the political elite in Nigeria to change their garments, sans remorse, ideology or sentiment and that is how some of the most prominent political figures in Nigeria today have changed party membership cards more than five times in the last 17 years. The politics of elitism in Nigeria is simply about access to power, position and privileges. It has nothing to do with the people's interests. The APC is in crisis for this reason, very much like the PDP, and even the smaller parties, because these are political parties of big men of influence.  Conflict results when they are not allowed to exercise that influence by other competing big men, who are similarly if not equally driven by ego, religion and superior ethnic considerations.

         The exercise of influence as a party big man follows a known pattern: after electoral victory, the big man wants the spoils of victory; he wants positions for his followers, contracts for wives and children and the freedom to have a say in the new government.  Any attempt to shut him down, oppose him, or sideline him or her, immediately creates a crisis within the party. The greater the number of such big persons who feel short-changed and marginalized, the greater the chances of such factionalism that would trigger threats of a new political party. New groups can create new tendencies in society, but in Nigerian politics, new groups don't really emerge, it is the same recycled set moving from one political party to a new or another one, looking for benefits.

      Poverty, low literacy and the weakness of public institutions make the people vulnerable. The people embrace slogans and the dividends of what is now known in Nigeria as "stomach infrastructure." They are deceived by the politicians' display of affection and empathy. Because they are hungry, they accept money to attend rallies to help create an illusion of populism and acceptability. On election day, they sell their votes and sign off their freedom. After the election, they are too ashamed to speak up or they compensate for their psychological distress by subscribing to the politics of vengeance. A patrimonial and neo-patrimonial political system such as we run in Nigeria promotes nothing but difference, disappointment and distrust.  Those who are plotting to create a new political party should be told that the harvest is predictable: more intense leadership competition, high level conflict among big men, greater deception, increased difference and tension within the polity. Political parties are governed by rules: the Nigerian political system operates above rules. It is possibly one of the most Machiavellian in Africa.

    What do we need? Not recycled politicians posing as new party men and women.  But this: effective party organizations, like the NCNC, the NEPU, the NPC, the AG, APGA, UPN, UMBC of old which belonged to the people and reflected their aspirations.  The only difference should be a necessary disconnect with the politics of ethnicity at the heart of the party formation process in Africa which, as seen, defeats the objectives of true democracy and modernization. Institutionalization of the political party system will also ensure stability within the democratic order: after a bitter political contest in the United States in 2016, the two dominant political parties - The Republican and the Democratic have remained stable, and the country is being projected as supreme.

      We should end this then where we started: leadership is the principal challenge. Until we sort that out, Nigeria's politics will remain trapped in the throes of ethnicity, patrimonialism, authoritarian dominance, the threat of system volatility and fragmentation and the politics of revenge.  

Reuben Abati

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Nigeria-US Relations And Donald Trump By Reuben Abati

I do not share the view of those who assume that by some kind of miracle, in the shape of electoral-college defections, Hillary Clinton would still, on the strength of winning the popular vote, supplant Donald Trump as US 2016 President-elect. We might as well begin to live with the reality of a Trump Presidency, sad and traumatic as that outcome may be. And coming to terms with that, despite our disappointment, calls for a forward-looking approach on the part of the Nigerian government.

Friday, November 11, 2016

The sad news of Trump’s triumph By Reuben Abati

“Democracy is tricky; it sometimes ends up as a parody of itself.  When the people clamour for change, they can vote with their hearts, and prove impervious to plain sight reason, and overlook likely pitfalls.  We can only hope that Donald Trump does not become the symbol of the change that Americans are seeking. That would be sad indeed for the free world.”  – Reuben Abati,  “Anything Can Happen in America”, The Guardian, March 6, 2016.  

Earlier this year, I had written a piece titled “Anything Can Happen In America”, from which the quote above is excerpted, but I had virtually no idea that the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election could be so shocking, unthinkable and unbelievable. I was like the pollsters, the cultural activists, the Nobel Laureates, the American media establishment and the global community, minus Russia and Vladimir Putin, a Clintonite. I stood with her. When the unthinkable happened on Tuesday, and Americans chose as their 45th President, Donald John Trump, the real estate developer, reality television celebrity, a complete outsider who stumbled on politics and turned it into a celebrity show, I could only ask: how did it happen?