Junaid Mohammed: North Is The Majority, Any Attempt To Deny Us Our Right Will Lead To Anarchy

alt

In the last few years, especially since the formal inception of President Jonathan’s administration, Nigeria has been subjected to a spate of violent attacks on innocent citizens by the Boko Haram sects and some other fringe groups, hiding under the general umbrella of the sect.

Their objectives have not been fully articulated beyond the fact that its members abhor western education, as implied by their name, and the wider goal of imposing their own brand of Islam on the nation in spite of the established constitutional secularity of the Federation.

There has been additional, but faint rationalisation pinning the enduing gruesome killings to revenge operations following the killing of the sect leader in police custody.

Can that be the whole story? According to a publication of The Stanley Foundation, “mass violence is a political tool used by those with power for their own strategic objectives. It is not an unpreventable and unmanageable explosion of existing tensions.” In other words, the current violence is partly political.

Recently, they have come close to disclosing their political intentions with the demand that President Jonathan should convert to their brand of Islam or resign his position as president of the republic or they will continue with their indiscriminate killings.

To a great extent, they have made good on that fiendish threat as more unjustifiable killings have indeed taken place since then.

There is no doubt that for the sect or any group for that matter to be this successful in its operations, it must have support from elements that are spread out across the various social classes including the rich and poor. As well as the educated and not so educated – hinting at some degree of acceptance in some quarters.

Violence by nature is a lot easier to achieve than peace and it is therefore not correct to determine the relative success of a violent campaign solely from the point of view of its popularity or even legitimacy.

The Boko Haram sect is “succeeding” probably because the leadership has not really looked into the root causes of the insurgency and even if that has been done, has refused to treat the matter with the seriousness that it deserves.

What is however, irritating to most observers is the way and manner that all sides to the debates have tried to politicise the scourge. The government has tried to tie the whole development to activities of its “political enemies” thereby taking its eyes off the ball, while the sect inflict more and more damages all to the shame of the nation’s security system. That much was the impression that the former National Security Adviser, Gen Owoye Azazi, gave the world.

By trying to implicate political opponents as solely responsible for the problems, obviously stemming from the dysfunctional political economy of Nigeria, which predates our contemporary politics, government unwittingly created an effective alibi for those merchants of death to continue to hurt the nation while we fixed official gaze at the wrong places.

For example, the statement that was made by the President soon after the October 1, 2010, Eagle Square bombing which attempted to link the violence to the handiwork of disgruntled political opponents, whereas a splinter group of MEND was claiming responsibility for it, did a great deal to weaken the much-needed cohesion in the fight against terrorism in Nigeria.

Of course, the opposition has also not helped matters by seeking to justify the mayhem of Boko Haram as the inevitable outcome of the overall failure of the Jonathan Goodluck presidency of which the recent rationalisation by Mallam el- Rufai represents the reductio ad absurdum.

Taunting the president with the inability of his government to curb the Boko Haram violence and summing it up with a call for him to resign is clearly overboard and not helpful in the effort to eliminate violence from the land.

Instead, it gives some political justification to what is clearly evil. The world has since learnt that in the final analysis, nobody profits from violence and politicians who initiate or instigate violence with a view to reaping political benefits are being made to pay for their sins.

As a consequence of the Holocaust inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis during the Second World War, there has been a global resolve to prevent future deployment of state or partisan political power for the perpetration of mass violence just to acquire ephemeral political advantage.

Accordingly, the phrase “Never Again” has been the standard refrain of the global community in its rejection of the use of violence to achieve political or sectarian objectives. I am therefore surprised that Nigerian politicians still think that there is room to politically profit from violence at this day and age.

With the recent impossible demand by Boko Haram that the president should resign if he fails to convert to Islam, the political character of their campaign is getting clearer to an otherwise shocked nation. And this also signifies the ultimate failure of the insurgency as Nigerians begin to know the differences between religion and politics even if their leaders pretend ignorance of that fact for their selfish ends.

At the end of the day, good governance predicated on social justice commanding that citizens tolerate each other, not partisan politics, is the way to our collective survival as a people, Boko Haram or not.

hmm is the above topic not misleading? Skim thru to see where junaid made the above statement and its not there hmm

mojounited: https://www.nairaland.com/1016010/constitution-six-geopolitical-zones-divide

now i get the picture