(Knowing
the truth but not saying it is what kills
old men. Hearing the truth but not heeding it is what kills young men).
It is almost 2010 and the
Visions of 2010 are
forgotten or abandoned. In 1996, under Abacha, the government brought
together
248 of Nigeria’s most eminent
intellectuals and professionals to develop a
blueprint plan for the government to follow to ensure the realisation
of
Nigeria’s potential as an independent African state by the year 2010.
The
committee submitted its report in 1997.
The Committee was
comprised of a number of
subcommittees which addressed different aspects of Nigeria’s future:
politics;
economics; the environment; population; education equal rights,
urbanisation, and
employment; the infrastructure and corruption. These were all
encompassed in
the final report. It was a thorough and balanced report which reflected
the
hard work and intellectual application of many of Nigeria’s best minds;
its best
educated men and women.
There is no need to spell
out the conclusions drawn
by the Committee, nor to reflect on the blueprint developed. With the
death of
Abacha in 1998 the Vision effectively died. Although Gen Abdulsalami
Abubakar
officially supported the work of Vision 2010 (indeed he was part of the
Committee),
virtually none of the programs were embarked upon. By the time of
Obasanjo, the
participants in the 2010 Committee were told to never mention the word
2010 or
to face severe consequences.
In 2005 two Nigerian
academics (Ajayi, Dickson and Ikporukpo,
Chris) published “An Analysis of Nigeria's Environmental Vision 2010”
which concentrated on the environmental aspects of the 2010 report.
[i]
Their
report concluded “
Despite
this policy thrust, an in-depth assessment based on facts and figures
shows
that environmental protection/conservation is very low on the nation's
agenda.
Indeed, the depletion of the forest has continued unabated, such that
there is
a high rate of deforestation and forest resource loss without a
corresponding
afforestation programme. The problem of erosion has received little or
no
attention, given inadequate funding and poor management practices. Very
little
effort is being made to combat the twin problems of desertification and
drought. Pollution from mining and industrial activities is on the
increase.
Pollution from petroleum (oil spills), particularly from sabotage and
blockage,
is also on the increase. However, the incidence of gas flaring may be
eliminated by the year 2005, given the current trend. Apart from these,
Nigeria
has developed only about 40 per cent of its water resources. Municipal
solid
waste is a common feature in most urban centres without corresponding
management practices, while environmental planning, and especially
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), have received little or no
attention.
Thus, most of the policy objectives are unlikely to be achieved within
the
stipulated time given the current trends.”
Academic
reports, most published outside Nigeria, on the other aspects of Vision
2010 were
even more damning. NITE and NEPA are frequently mentioned. Recently I
had a
chance to sit down with several of those who participated in the Vision
2010 to
try and discover why it was that the brightest minds of Nigeria (since
the
original 1946 planning efforts) and in the Vision 2010 were able to
come up
with all the necessary data and blueprints for realising Nigeria’s vast
potential and why these have been ignored. The conclusion that was
reached was
very interesting.
The
reason why Nigeria’s political leadership has never been able to
understand or
implement the policies developed by the intellectual leaders of the
country is
because Nigeria has been ruled for so long by military personnel. In
its
simplest form Nigeria’s military leaders are high school dropouts; the
ones who
were left behind when overseas scholarships became available to the
‘been-tos’
in the immediate post-colonial period. They were too busy fighting for
rank and
privilege in the hierarchy of the military structure to attend
institutions of
higher education. The advancement of a career in the military did not
demand a
developed intellectual input or the acquisition of professional skills
or
credentials other than in killing or coercing their fellow citizens and
preventing others in the military from harassing them.
With
the rise of successive military presidents, military governors and
military civil
servants the intellectual level of governance sank to its current low,
largely
because the military leaders were not educationally or professionally
equipped
to deal with the sophisticated challenges which running a nation as
large a
Nigeria requires. The notion of justice, too, became military justice.
There
used to be a saying in the US that “Military justice is to justice as
military
music is to music”. Nigeria needs Mozart and Bach, not the marching
bands of
John Phillip Souza.
The
conclusions reached by our conversation ended when we saw immensity of
trying
to see how an enlightened policy, based on the 2010 Vision, could be
achieved
in Nigeria. The hurdles of IBB, David Mark, Aliyu Gusau, Obasanjo and
the
others of the military-economic elite (who have benefitted from their
ties to
the oil industry and the revenues it produces for them) seem too high
to
challenge. It is for the younger men to step back and make a plan to
make sure
that the militarisation of Nigerian politics is diminished. The words
of the
old men should be heeded by the young.