₦airaland Forum

There was no Nigeria in 1845. So it is wrong to label it the first storey building in Nigeria.

....and to those making reference to Nigeria as an ancient land, no it is not.

Jarus: @Negro,

I am sorry I had to hide your post up there, not because you violated any NL rule, but because it can strongly interfere on the debate slated for few hours time. I will unhide after the debate. My apologies.

I quite understand and I agree with your decision. In fact if i had seen your post before i would never had written that.

Keep it hidden even after....we have to move forward with what we got.

Thanks.

THE  precariousness of Nigeria’s economy can    be seen from the fact that 73% of its exports are primary products, the supply of which is highly inelastic, while about the same percentage of our imports is composed of nondurable consumer goods. Enlightened Nigerians of different social strata, and more especially the well-to-do ones, blindly imitate the consumption patterns of the smarter and the more affluent elements in the developed countries of the world. As a result of all this, the balance of payments has moved steadily and relentlessly against Nigeria since 1960, and the existing prospect of turning the balance in our favour has been brought about only by the emergence of mineral oil as a major Nigerian export product.

Dearth of accurate and up-to-date statistics is one of the draw-backs of Nigeria’s economy. No one knows for certain how many of our able-bodied men and women are unemployed. It has been estimated by Dr. T. M. Yesufu that about 600,000 Nigerians are unemployed. However, we do know with some degree of certainty that under-employment, arising from plain inertia, lack of enthusiasm and incentive for work, or inelastic demand for money income in relation to efforts, is rife. According to the F. A.O., out of a potential Nigerian labour force 000.6 millions, 25.1 millions are economically active, and only 14.45 millions are economically effective. In the circumstances, our economy is, generally speaking, a subsistence one. We live, more or less, from hand to mouth, and capital formation is ipso facto very low. In order to accelerate Nigeria’s economic development, a number of laws have been enacted with a view to attracting and giving incentive to foreign investors who, for the reasons which we have copiously advanced, are able to exploit the resources of the country more efficiently and effective than Nigerians themselves.

Nigeria has the Industrial Development (Income Tax Relief) Act. This law, which was passed in 1958, provides a tax-holiday to pioneer industries for an original period of up to five years according to the capital invested in fixed assets, with provision for an extension of the period for each year of the original period in which a loss is sustained. Losses may also be carried forward to be offset against tax liability after the expiry of the tax-holiday. A pioneer industry is one which either is not at present being carried on in Nigeria or is not being conducted on a commercial scale suitable to the economic requirements of the development of Nigeria. In order to qualify as a pioneer enterprise, a company must, in addition to satisfying the above requirements, be incorporated in Nigeria and be a public company.

Nigeria has the Income Tax (Amendment) Act which has as its object the granting to companies of a very much quicker write-down of their capital assets in the early years of trading, so as to enable  the  company to amortise its capital assets in its formative years, and  to build  up liquids  reserves at an early date. The initial capital percentage for the write-down of capital assets in the case of machinery is 40. This is in addition to the ordinary annual write-down of 5-15%. Thus in the first taxable year of its existence, a company would be enabled to write off from profits, for the purposes of computing taxable income, some 50% of the capital value of the machinery employed by it. Where the taxable income of a company does not absorb the full capital allowances claimed, the unabsorbed balance will be carried forward indefinitely against future taxable profits. Unabsorbed losses may be similarly carried forward against future taxable profits. These benefits accrue to all companies, both public and private, which operate in Nigeria, whether incorporated in Nigeria or overseas, and they are not confined to companies engaged in pioneer industries. Where a company receives a pioneer certificate, the write-down of capital assets herein described can be claimed in toto at the end of the tax-free holiday.

Nigeria also has the Industrial Development (Import Duty Relief) Act which provides for the repayment, wholly or in part, of amounts paid in customs duty on materials of capital equipment imported for the use of Nigerian industries, where such repayment would be to the country’s overall economic advantage. This Act also makes provision for the repayment, wholly or in part, of duty paid on components imported for assembly into finished articles, and the Nigerian Government may enter into agreement with the recipients of any  repayment, guaranteeing the continuance of repayments for periods up to ten years.In addition to these concrete financial inducements, the Federal and Regional Governments of Nigeria made a declaration of policy in 1958 which, till today, remains the Code of Conduct by which the existing Federal and State Governments are guided in their dealings with foreign investors. The declaration of policy reads as follows:‘Profits and dividends arising from sterling or non-sterling capital investment in approved projects may be freely transferred to the country of origin and such capital may be repatriated at will. Nigeria is a member of the Sterling Area and there is no reason to anticipate any change in this situation.

‘Our Governments have no plans for nationalizing industry beyond the extent to which public utilities are already nationalised, nor do they foresee any such proposals arising. Nevertheless they are anxious that there should be no doubt in the minds of overseas entrepreneurs that Nigeria will provide adequate safeguards for the interests of investors in the event of any industry being nationalised in the future.

(To be continued)

SHOULD this occur, then fair compensation, assessed by independent arbitration, would be paid. As a result of all these incentives, a good number of foreign-owned pioneer industries have sprung up in Nigeria - there were 110 of them by 1967 - most of which make large profits; indeed some of them make fantastic profits, which are tax-free. Recently, because of the present emergency in the country, it became necessary to tax, in the current 1968/69 fiscal year only, those of these industries whose profits exceed £5,000 in one year, on the understanding that the pioneer periods of the affected companies will be extended for another year. The tax yield is estimated at £2m.

The economic subservience of Nigeria is conspicuously evident from and indisputably established by, the foregoing facts which we have marshalled in support of its economic underdevelopment.None the less,for the purpose of emphasis only, we would like to make one or two relevant observations.

Only an infinitesimal proportion of all of Nigeria’s export products are consumed locally. The masses of Nigerians are too poor to consume the end-products to which these export crops are put. Consequently, in regard to these primary products, we are completely at the mercy of foreign consumers. When this unique peculiarity (which economists refer to as monopsony) of our export produce is coupled with the high inelasticity of its supply, andwhen it is recalled that these products constitute 73% of Nigeria ‘s total exports which since 1960 have proved insufficient to pay for our imports, the total dependence of Nigeria ‘s economy on foreign countries needs no further elaboration.


Business enterprises, industrial ventures, and mining activities in Nigeria are dominated by foreign investors. In 1965, according to Dr. S. A. Aluko, 63% of total industrial investments in Nigeria was in the hands of foreigners. Britain had the lion’s share of 45%’ Nigerian businessmen are, incontrovertibly, people with very small and outmoded capital, and with very limited technical and managerial skill, competing most feebly and ineffectively with the giant and consummate foreign entrepreneurs,

When this state of affairs is viewed in the light of the guarantee of absolute freedom for the repatriation of profits, dividends, and capital, and of the euphoria bestowed on foreign investors by the three Acts to which we have referred, the exploitation and deployment of Nigeria’s total resources by foreign entrepreneurs for the benefit of themselves and their countries of origin are proved beyond the possibility of any plausible equivocation or cavil.

It only remains for us to remark, in this connection, that the conditions and strings, attached to those much-publicised foreign loans and aids about which we hear so often, are, from our intimate knowledge of them, such as no self-respecting and economically free and self-reliant country would ever consider, much less accept.. None the less, because of its economic circumstances, which, we hope, we have fairly well described, Nigeria continues to hanker after and receive these loans and aids.

What does Nigeria do then to break the shackles of its economic subjection, abolish want, and become economically free and prosperous? The answers to these fundamental questions are the theme of the next chapter.

Social Objectives.
THE GOALS which Nigeria must pursue are quite clearly two. There is the immediate goal of economic freedom, and the ultimate one of being counted among the developed countries of the world. The two goals can be achieved almost simultaneously, provided they are pursued in the order in which we have stated them. We hold the view, quite strongly, that in the pursuit and attainment of economic freedom, economic prosperity is inevitable. But not the other way round. Every attempt on the part of an underdeveloped country to achieve economic prosperity, without first of all taking steps to ensure its economic freedom, is not only patently doomed to failure but would also make the country’s economic enslavement more certain and tighter.

In order to attain the goals of economic freedom and prosperity, Nigeria must do certain things as a matter of urgency and priority. It must provide free education (at all levels) and free health facilities for the masses of its citizens. It must breed and constantly maintain an adequate number of professionals, technicians, managers, and administrators. It must, from year to year, produce enough to raise the level of consumption as well as of the standard of living for all the citizens, and, at the same time, to ensure that the quantity and quality of its capital formation progressively increase, so that it is sufficient for its successive investment purposes.

Since the welfare of the people is the aim of all economic activities, it must foster and insist on a balanced growth in all the sectors of its economy. In this connection, the equal dignity of all forms of labour must be proclaimed and practically demonstrated; and all those who, because of disability, infirmity, or age, are unable to earn a living should be fully provided for from the public purse. It must discipline its citizens to eschew all forms of ostentatious consumption, be they traditional or foreign-inspired, as they tend and are bound, in the long run, to distort the utilization of resources, and generate endemic social disequilibrium, which will in turn encourage foreign exploitation and economic enslavement.

The full employment of all the natural resources of the country is not practicable at present or in the immediate future. But it is certainly practicable now so to organize the economic affairs of the country as to abolish the unemployment and underemployment of its human resources, and to ensure the exploitation, mobilization, and deployment of its natural and human resources so as to benefit all Nigerians much more substantially than ever before, and without discrimination.

(To be continued)

Thank you Kunle, great revelation!

Part 1.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNPzWW3kXVg&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Part 2.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErVSJKMRyhM&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Part 3.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk83xIRwI2o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

una go kill person o. Ok, i will drop the lectures in its original recording.

IN other words, it must maintain a constant state of full employment of its human resources, and must, from time to time, seek to exploit, mobilize, and deploy its natural and human resources much more effectively. It must considerably improve all its systems of communications, in order to bring about greater mobility of resources and outputs.

It must resolve to be self-sufficient in nondurable consumer goods. At any rate, it must endeavour to export enough to pay for all such consumer and capital goods as it has to import. It must avoid, like the plague, an adverse balance of trade or payments on consumer accounts, because it is this kind of economic factor, more than anything else, that forges, with ruthless effectiveness, a country’s chains of economic bondage.

Foreign capital should be admitted only for the purpose of executing capital projects which are designed to strengthen the country’s economic freedom and self-reliance, as well as its self­sufficiency in durable and nondurable consumer goods. Above all, it must guaranteesocial justice at home, and self-respect for itself and its citizens abroad.

These then are the social objectives which we consider to be indispensable to the goals of economic freedom and prosperity. In a nutshell, they are designed to achieve and maintain for Nigeria the requisite quantity of Capital and Organization and the requisite quality of Labour, Capital, and Organization.

Having stated these social objectives, the next important question is: how do we achieve them? Before we proceed to answer this question, however, there are two equally important questions which deserve immediate attention. Are these objectives essential to the attainment of economic freedom and prosperity and are they practicable? Unless we can satisfy ourselves as to their necessity and practicability, it would be a waste of time and effort to embark on ways and means of achieving them.

Many educated, literate, and articulate Nigerians hold views which are divergent from those which we have just stated. They believe that the quickest and most dependable way to the economic freedom and prosperity of Nigeria is energetic and rapid industrialization of the country. For this purpose, foreign’ investment and loans, in partnership with indigenous capital provided by Nigerian entrepreneurs or by the Government, should be welcomed. When the country is industrialized, workers would get more money to spend on food, clothing, housing, and on the education ‘and health of their children, themselves, and their wives. Farmers, traders, artisans, and others who cater to them would also benefit, and there would be an all-round rise in the standard of living. This, they argue, was the way it was done in Britain, America, and other developed countries, and this is the way it should be done here too. If the country were to pursue the objectives stated above, they insist, monies and resources which should have been utilized in industrializing it would be wasted, and our position, materially, would either be worse than before or remain the same.

Only a few thinking Nigerians understand the forces at work in these matters, and give full support for the social objectives which we have stated. But even some of these doubt their practicability. As for the masses of the people, they whole-heartedly support the objectives; but they do so without bothering their heads as to whether they are practicable or not.

In the discussion of the stated objectives, it must be constantly borne in mind that there are two nuclei around which the others revolve, and by which alone these others can be constantly kept in their proper places in the social orbit. They are: education and health.

It should be clear to anyone that it is not his anatomical superiority, or the climatic conditions under which he lives which make the British farmer or worker so much more productive than the Nigerian farmer or worker. No, not these. What makes the British farmer or worker more efficient and more productive than the Nigerian farmer or worker is the education and health of the former, the quantity and quality of the capital equipment he uses, and, where necessary, the efficiency of the management under which he works. Experiences of unassailable reliability have shown that if you give a Nigerian, or any other African for that matter, the same education, health, capital equipment, and efficient management, he will produce as much as any farmer or worker in any part of the so-called advanced countries.

The more complicated the operation, and the more sophisticated the capital equipment, the greater the skill, mental alertness and resourcefulness, and physical fitness required.

In this era of ever-increasing scientific discovery and invention, the capital equipment required in all the sectors of the economy is becoming more and more sophisticated and complicated. But its mastery means greater productivity and higher standard of living. It is for this reason that the so-called developed countries of the world are investing more and more in education of all kinds, more especially in scientific, technological, and professional education. Britain now spends as much as £30,000 to produce one scientist or technologist because it regards this class of people as the creators of its wealth.

(To be continued)

THE United States of America spends more than Britain to produce a scientist or technologist.     

And it is because the U.S.A. pays the members of its ‘technostructure’, to use one of Galbraith’s neologisms, better salaries, and employs more sophisticated capital equipment in production, that it now constitutes a disturbing brain drain on Britain to the tune of as many as 42% of her young scientists and technologists. It is generally accepted that the_productivity of an American worker is higher than that of a British worker.

Experiences have also shown that an educated manual labourer or so-called unskilled worker is, other things being equal, more efficient and hence more productive than his illiterate and uneducated counterpart.

In the light of these modern trends, the falsity or untenableness of the contention of those who advocate industrialisation before education is visibly and tangibly exposed. But the historical falsity of the contention should also be exposed.

In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, the capital equipment in use in the factories, compared with that now in use, was primitive. It was simple, and required little or no mental exertion to operate it. The Agrarian Revolution, which had preceded the Industrial Revolution, had thrown and continued to throw off many people from the farmlands. They were an illiterate and unsophisticated lot; but they provided the type of cheap labour which fitted very comfortably into the mechanised manufacturing system then in vogue, as well as into the prevailing factory conditions. At that time in the late eighteenth century and for many years thereafter, education or literacy was not essential to the efficient operation of the crude machines in use in the factories; and the industrialists themselves cared nothing about the education and health of their workers. There were so many people available for employment, in any case, that premature and epidemic deaths did not create scarcity of labour.

Today, the position is different. In order to increase productivity and enhance the levels of our living standards, as well as maintain the parity of our currency with other currencies, modern capital equipment is necessary. But its economical utilization demands skilled and sophisticated operators. Otherwise, this equipment would be ruined and the capital invested in it would be lost. The only alternative is to bring foreigners to operate such equipment, and pay them, mostly, in their own currencies, several times more than the indigenous operators.

Furthermore, the lesson which the history of industrialised countries in Europe and elsewhere has taught is that industrial revolution must be preceded by Agrarian Revolution. The greater the productivity of the farming population, the smaller the number of people required to produce food and raw materials, and the larger the number of people thus made available for industrial and other economic activities. There is an obvious contradiction in the advocacy of the industrial school of thought in Nigeria. In one and the same breath, they advocate industrialisation as well as the compulsory return to land of the educated youths who have drifted into the urban areas in search of work if Nigeria is to become truly industrialized, then our aim must be to reduce the number of people who work on the farmlands, by modernising and mechanising agriculture in such a way as to ensure that fewer and fewer farmers produce enough for the increasing food and raw­material requirements of the country. Some of the youth who have deserted the rural areas should certainly be sent ‘back to the land’. But they should be sent back to modern agriculture, not to primitive methods of tilling the land. The rest of the youths should be absorbed in other productive and gainful employments.

In the course of this book, we have, again -and again, stressed the extreme importance of land as the static cornerstone of all economic activities. It is the foundation on which all the intricate, mighty, and far-flung superstructure of modern economy is erected.

In the words of Professor Arthur Lewis, if agriculture fails, industrialization cannot succeed. Granting then that education and health are essential to a high standard of economic proficiency, why make them free? Why not leave it to the parents to educate and provide for the health of their own children? At the secondary and post-secondary levels, it is suggested, scholarships may be awarded to the more brilliant amongst those pupils and students who are unable to pay their fees; and, for the rest of this class, why should some form of loans not be sufficient?

As we have seen in Chapter 5, the rights to education and health are among the fundamental rights which each family regarded ­ and properly so - as inalienable, at the time when it voluntarily entered, or was compelled by conquest or subversion to enter into a political association with other families. It is now too late in the day to take these rights away. All the attempts in history to deny or suppress these rights have been among the chief contributing causes of the worst forms of social instability. Many of the developed countries of the world have now recognized the dangers attendant on the denial or suppression of these rights, and have, accordingly, conceded them to their respective peoples.

(To be continued)

(in continuation)

FOR some years now, it has been Britain’s national education policy that no able boy or girl shall be prevented by lack of means from taking advanced courses at a university or elsewhere’. In pursuance of this policy, over 90% of university students in Great Britain are aided from public or private funds.

The same policy applies to post-secondary institutions below university level. While primary education is free and compulsory and books and school equipment are also free at this level, secondary education is practically free, in Britain.If all families were equally well off, the most sensible thing to do would indeed be to leave each of them to educate and cater to the health requirements of its members, as much as it desired. But we know that this is not the case, and that only the few well-to-do families are able to pay the high fees demanded at educational institutions, especially at the secondary and post-secondary levels. In such circumstances as this, it is indubitable that many a potentially outstanding talent would remain for ever buried, simply because he has been accidentally brought to this world by poor parents, while at the same time, a good deal of resources would be wasted on palpably mediocre elements, simply because their parents are rich enough to afford the alchemist’s costly but fruitless venture of trying to transmute lead into gold.

On purely humanitarian grounds, it is cruel; and from the economic stand-point, it is inconsiderate and thoughtless to saddle a young person, just entering into full productive life, with indebtedness.

As compared with his contemporaries who are not so unfortunately circumstanced, his morale, and hence his efficiency, is bound to be seriously adversely affected, to the detriment of the country’s total volume of output.Some people have argued, with callous self-satisfaction, and in complete ignorance or disregard of the contribution of the individual to the total wealth of a society, that since it is the individual young person who benefits financially, by way of salary, from higher education, it is he who should be called upon to pay, not the Government. Micro-economically, this argument is valid; it is the young, person who benefits personally and directly from the money invested in his higher education. But macro­economically, the society also benefits directly, and probably more than he does, from the higher productivity and output which investment in his higher education has made possible.

It is a truism, which can bear repetition and emphasis, that the greater the efficiency of the individual, especially in the categories of high­level and intermediate-level manpower, the higher his productivity, and hence the larger the GN.P. or what is popularly called the ‘national cake’.

Any scheme, therefore, which is certain to lower efficiency is not at all in the country’s interest, and should be rejected and scrapped.Above all, the proposals for free education and health facilities are, as we have seen in Chapters 5 and 8, in strict accord with the basic understanding by which families are united in society, and with the principles of socialism.

Having, we hope, established the essentialness of free education and health facilities as a means to Nigerian economic freedom and prosperity, we now come to the issue of practicability. We will deal with this issue on the hypothesis that Nigeria remains a capitalist economy.It must be confessed that many of those who readily admit the essentialness of free education and health facilities express serious doubt as to their practicability under a capitalist dispensation. Where, they ask, are we going to find the money to meet the costs? This is the big question, and we now proceed to answer it.

In 1965/66, the total number of students in our five universities was approximately 8,000. The total expenditure incurred by the universities in that year on these students was approximately £12m. The average cost per student was, therefore, approximately £1,500. The total fees paid by students in that  year amounted to £ 1.1 m, an average of about £138 per student. Out of this total of £ l.l m., about £600,000 was paid by the Federal and Regional Governments in respect of Government scholarship holders, leaving a balance of £500,000 which was paid by parents, guardians, and privilegde sponsors of scholarships. In other words, all that the universities demanded from private coffers in 1965/66 was approximately 4% of the total expenditure incurred by them in that year.

Comparable figures for 1967/68 are substantially different; and we think that, for reasons of fairness, they should be exhibited. The estimated cost of maintaining 6,837 students in that year at  Ahmadu Bello, Ibadan, Lagos, and Ife, was  £9.601., an average of £I ,500 per student. The total fees expected in the same year was estimated at £ 1.1 m., an average of £172 per student. But the amounts undertaken to be paid by the Federal and Regional Governments on scholarships totalled £650,000, leaving a balance of .£450,000 due and payable from private sources. This amount is 4.7% of the total expenditure incurrable in 1967/68 by the four Universities mentioned.It is crystal clear, from these figures, that university education in Nigeria is already virtually free. And by refusing to make it actually free, we have been doing nothing more and nothing less than straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel. It is necessary to point out that, in this misguided refusal, the Federal and Regional Governments are doing themselves less than justice.

(To be continued)

Jarus:

Seun is now having a sense of humour, although I have never seen him use these emoticons:

Exactly!!

For upcoming debate topics, here are few thoughts to ponder:

1. On Social Policy

Population of Nigerians
170,123,740 (July 2012 est.)

Age Structure
0-14 years: 43.9% (38,232,053 male/ female 36,483,243)
15-64 years: 53.1% (44,862,457 male/ female 45,484,314)
65 years and over: 3% (2,325,682 male/ female 2,735,991) (2012 est.)

*data from cia factbook.

THOUGHT 1.
In 25yrs time the 0-14yrs age range will be in their 25-39yrs old and they will be the productive strength of our labour market. What social policies should be formulated to drive their development and readiness for socio-economic participation?

What educational policies and forecasts and models do we need to insert in the 25yr vision?

THOUGHT 2.
The 15-64 bracket will be parents, grandparents and great grandparents 25yrs from now. What emerging issues are they likely to face and how will they combat it? Health, food and nutrition, family support, community development, ......

THOUGHT 3.
In recognition of the cultural role that women play in our society and the value of their engagement in the community, should we not propose employment laws that shield and protect them from the vagaries of abusive exposure under discriminatory labour contracts?

Jarus: At your service, Chief. Was about slamming him the ban before I saw his hello

I was shocked he said hello. I was formulating another username just in case my tokens for mischief had run out.

Seun: hello!

Rankadede! I told you we go put you for Senate. No sweat, na small small....this one wey Jarus don start go get leg reach Aso rock sef.

Seun: You should create a different thread for each debate so they can be found easily.

Seun, you sneak up in here don't even say hello to Chief Negro.
Next time you do that I ask these mods to slap a two weeks ban on you.

_bear, i agree. I will sit mah negro a*s down and watch this debate.

[quote author=ekt_bear]I guess it depends from whose perspective you are looking at it...one can argue that from the perspective of those in the southern protectorate, it was pretty harmful.

But there are others involved of course.[/quote]...in fact, make that from every perspective. The 1906 Amalgamation was wrong and a bad deal, so much so that the Southetn protectorate ended up with three administrative capitals - Calabar, Warri and Lagos.

The lessons of that bad mixture should have instructed the governor not to do any more amalgamations....but their greed prevailed against the welfare of the people and so they sealed the 1914 contract.

IT has been argued that, if university education is free, many more students than usual will enrol in our universities, and the cost will thereby soar.

In our own judgment, and having regard to available statistics, probably a few more students would enrol; but certainly not many more. There is a limit to the number of secondary school leavers who have the innate capacity for doing a university course. For example, in Britain, where university education is free, only 8% of secondary school-leavers are capable of doing or pursuing university courses, and are, therefore, admitted into British universities. In Nigeria, the percentage is as high as 28. What this figure appears to indicate is not that Nigerian secondary school leavers are of higher calibre than their British counterparts, but that, here in Nigeria, we have gone to the very bottom of the barrel, either because the standard for admission to our universities has been lowered; or because we have treated as university courses subjects which do not qualify for such elevation; or - and this is more likely to be the case - since attendance at post-primary and post-secondary institutions means, in our peculiar circumstances, the survival of the fittest, because practically all the very best among our students have already fought their way through secondary schools to the universities by all manner of legitimate means, including borrowing, working hard to save money for this purpose, and organizing the extended family to share the inevitable burden.

It is also argued that if education were free at all levels, the expenses would be absolutely insupportable. Those who urge this view are doing so in complete ignorance of the facts, or have given little or no thought to the matter.

The decision to introduce free primary and post-primary education will not immediately increase school and university populations phenomenally. The introduction of a scheme such as this, from our experience, requires a good deal of careful planning and preparation. In order to have the required number of graduate and non-graduate trained teachers, about five years will elapse between the time when a decision is taken to introduce the scheme and the actual launching of the scheme. If the scheme is introduced before the graduate and non-graduate trained teachers are ready, it will be a failure or only a qualified and unsatisfying success.

Furthermore, it will be at least six years after the launching of the scheme before there is a large influx into our secondary schools, reaching its peak about eleven years from the time of launching. The first real influx into our universities, and the peak at this level, will not come until thirteen years and sixteen years, respectively, from the launching year.

The point is not at all overlooked that under our Constitution, primary and post-primary education is a residual subject, and that university education is a concurrent subject. This being so, the question then arises as to whether each State can embark on a free primary and secondary education. Our own categorical answer is in the affirmative. In substantiation of this answer, we would make use of the Western State as an illustration. In this State, free primaIy education is now in operation and has been so since 1955. Recently we have given a good deal of  thougbt to the problem of introducing free education at the post-primary and post-secondary levels, in this State. Our findings are that the Western State Government will have to incur an additional expenditure of £5.2m, in order to make education free at all levels. Where is this money going to be found?

At the moment about 55% of the taxable male population, that is 1.2 million people, are evading tax in the Western State. We hasten to remark that this is a legacy of the sickening and sordid politics of the past few years. Women pay no flat rate tax at all, even though many of them are more well off than most males. By  a more effective tax collection organization than at present, therefore; on the supposition that the population of the State is 8 millions not 9 millions; and at a flat rate of £3 per head of male taxpayers, at least £3.6m more would be brought into the revenue of  the Western State. In addition, a special education and health levy at an average rate of £2 per head can be imposed, but so that those in the flat-rate brackets do not pay more than 10/- per head.

This will increase the revenue by another  £4.4m. Thus a total of £8m can be brought to revenue without any undue protest, if the purpose is to make education free at all levels and health facilities free to all. This amount can be further increased by about £ 1 m at least, if all the fringe benefits now enjoyed by Government functionaries in the State are abolished. It is clear, therefore, that the money is there; it is the exercises for extracting it that are lacking. And they are lacking because the majority of those who govern the State do not appear to be alive, and willing to dedicate themselves, to the rigorous planning, hard work, and the personal self-sacrifice which such exercises demand.

(To be continued)

WHAT we have said about the Western State Government applies with greater force to the other Governments in the Federation, including the Federal Government. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that it was possible for all the Governments of the Federation to save as much as £5m on fringe benefits and other wastes alone, and to raise as much as £310m in revenue, that is 25% of Nigeria’s GN.P., in the financial year of 1967/68. But as it was, they all raised among them an aggregate total of £190m, leaving a gap of £120m. It is abundantly clear from what we have said, therefore, that if our Governments and our leaders are sufficiently enlightened, and are sagacious enough to embark on all these exercises, our revenues will be enlarged, and it will be possible for us to introduce free education at all levels in all parts of the Federation, without tears. The present persistent complaint, which is echoed with unsolicited gusto by our foreign friends and economic overlords, that expenditure on education and health is eating too much into our revenue, will become utterly irrelevant.

With regard to university education, officials of the Federal Ministry of Education have recently done a projection up to the year 1971/72.. According to them, the student population of our universities, in that year, will be about 20,000. In this connection, two important preliminary observations are called for. Firstly, whilst university expenditure will increase, fees charged to students will not necessarily increase pari passu. It would be a retrograde step, and indeed suicidal, for any Government in Nigeria to attempt to raise university fees proportionately to the increase in university expenditure. Secondly, as the number of students increases, other things being equal, the cost per student may decrease. But whether this is so or not will depend wholly on the other factors. If it is necessary, as it is more likely to be the case in this age, to step up the standard of, and the quality of aids to instruction in our Universities, the cost per student may increase rather than decrease. It is apposite here to recall that Britain now spends as much as £30,000 to produce a single scientist, and this staggering amount is considered by the Jones Committee on Britain’s ‘brain drain’ to be inadequate.

Granting, therefore, that we continue to spend as much as £ I ,500 per student in our Universities, the cost of university education by 1971/72 would be approximately £30m. This is what is going to happen in 1971/72, whether university education is free or not. It follows, therefore, that our Governments must be prepared either to (I) find this amount of money, (2) close down some of the Universities, (3) peg the number of students to be admitted to an arbitrary figure, or (4) raise university fees by about 300%.

Again, we take it that no Governments in Nigeria will contemplate any of the last three alternatives. On the contrary, it is safe to assume that everything will be done to find the expenditure involved. This, we believe, as we have already shown, can be done without undue hardship.

Now if, as at present, only 4.7% or 5% of total expenditure is collected as fees from private sources, then only £ l.5m. will be received. If our Governments refused to bear this burden, as many as 2,000 - 4,000 potential high-level manpower talents would be wasted, as a result of their inability to pay their fees. In the face of the inevitable expenditure figures for our Universities, it would be patently senseless and criminal to allow this to happen. If we could swallow the camel of £30m, we should, gracefully, responsibly, and honourably, refrain from straining at the gnat of £l.5m.

With regard to health, the insistence of the various Governments of Nigeria on the collection of fees from patients is blatantly ridiculous, In 1967/68, the Federal Government spent £6.7m. on health, and collected £95,000 from patients. In the same fiscal year, the Western Region spent £1.9m., treated children up to the age of eighteen free into the bargain, and collected £ 160,000 from patients. For the same period the Northern Region also spent £4.6m, and collected £44,200, whilst the Mid-West spent £Im. and collected £45,000, In 1965/66 the Eastern Region spent £2.7m and collected £226,000.

The aggregate total spent on health in the periods in question by all the Governments of the Federation is £16.9m., as against collected fees of £570,200. What a molehill of revenue against a mountain of expenditure!

It is unreasonable to suggest that if health facilities were declared free, many more people would be likely to take advantage of the facilities, and the costs to Governments would be substantially increased immediately. We don’t think this would be the case. Fear, superstition, strong belief in black magic, and supreme faith in the native medicine-man are formidable obstacles which will continue for some years to keep the majority of our peoples back from modem medicine and health facilities. In this connection it is highly probable that there are qualified medical practitioners who have greater faith in juju-men and medicine-men than in their own scientific acquirements, and regularly consult these men in the course of their professional activities. Making health facilities free, therefore, will not necessarily increase the number of patients.

(To be continued)

(in continuation)

BESIDES, if the emphasis were placed on preventive medicine, on the promotion of environmental hygiene and sanitation, and on the need for better food, less money would be spent in the process of these preventive projects and campaigns, and many fewer people would show up for treatment at the hospitals.

In all this discussion about free education and health facilities, we have only dealt with the recurrent expenditures. We have so far said nothing about the capital expenditures that would be incurred. In view of what we have just said, there is not likely to be a sudden need to build many more hospitals, health centres, dispensaries, and maternity centres. Even if these were necessary, the enthusiasm and burning desire of the people for these amenities should be harnessed in providing them. In rural areas where these amenities are more inadequate, land and community labour will be provided and given free in the erection of the required buildings. If, in addition, as we insist should be the case, we avoid costly prestige structures, and confine ourselves to the erection of cheap temporary buildings which will last for say 30 to 40 years, we should have little or no headache at all in this regard.

What we say here about buildings for health facilities, applies with equal force to buildings for educational facilities at all levels. Not all the structures for our primary, post-primary, and post-secondary institutions need be permanent. What is important is that buildings should have sound foundations to damp-proof­course level, be safe for human habitation, and be decent. Our immediate and pressing obligations in these matters are for the present generation. It is their duty to provide for those coming after them, in the light of their prevailing circumstances. In any case, most of the permanent buildings in our secondary schools, and most of our permanent hospitals and health centres would become slums and be demolished in 40 years’ time or so. Since we cannot afford, and it is at any rate extreme folly for us, to embark on permanent prestige buildings that will last for centuries, we should content ourselves with building for, say, 30 years at a time.

In this way, our present slender resources, bolstered by community efforts, will go much further than would otherwise have been the case. Lest we are accused of being impractical, we would like to say that this was precisely the policy pursued, in regard to primary school buildings in the Western Region, when it was decided to introduce free primary education in 1955.

In the urban areas, the problem is different. But it can be solved as it was in the Western Region. There are many existing Government buildings which can be converted into primary and secondary schools, and which are now being occupied more or less free, and unjustly so, by Government functionaries. Furthermore, the money for acquiring land and paying contractors to erect temporary buildings can be found. All we need to do is to attach top priorities to buildings for education and health instead of to buildings required for the housing of Government functionaries. Every year, the Governments of the Federation spend millions of pounds on building inessential houses and offices. They will need much less for capital expenditure on education and,health facilities in one year, if the policy is to erect temporary structures.

There is an old saying which is as true as ever in the context of this discussion. .’Where there is a will, there is away.’ If  we have the will, and the iron resolve to embark on free education and health facilities for our people, the way to their successful accomplishment will open. The present civil war is an apt case in point. It may sound incredible, but it is true, that for the nine months of 1 September, 1967 to 31 May, 1968, the Federal Government had spent on the civil war, in local currency alone, an aggregate total of £48m., an average of £138,300 per day. When ,it is remembered that the total revenue available to the Federal Government, for the whole fiscal year of 1967/68, for spending.on its own services, is £93m., it can be seen quite vividly what the will of man can achieve when it is focussed on a problem.

It is our conviction, which we believe will be shared by most Nigerians, that ignorance and disease are deadlier enemies than the rebellion which has demanded and is still demanding so much sacrifice from us in money, property, and lives. The war against ignorance and disease must, therefore, be waged with at least the same grim determination and resolve. In this creative, life-saving, and nation-building war, the cost in money will be much less; the only casualties will be ignorance, disease, and poverty; and the victorious survivors will be a united Nigerian community which is economically free, and which is prosperous and happy.

It will be seen from the foregoing exposition, that the case for the practicability of free education at all levels and free health facilities for all, even under our present capitalist and subservient economy, is conclusively established. If these schemes are essential and practicable under the capitalist system, a fortiori they are more so under the socialist system.

(to be continued)

@OP,

Excellent article, very brilliant!

To those criticizing that he did not offer solutions, you cannot recognize solution if you saw one. The author indeed offer solutions. I believe you meant to say he did not present strategies. He is an awakener, not a strategist.....and that is enough in his capacity.

***A thoughtful idea to introduce as a topic of debate in the NL monthly sessions***

FOR the avoidance of doubt, we would like to emphasize that when education becomes free   at all levels, it is imperative that the courses of instruction should be such as would help effectively and efficiently to promote and achieve the country’s social objectives. Otherwise square pegs would be produced for round holes, and the country’s resources would remain as under-utilized and mis-utilized as ever.

We now proceed to show how the social objectives which we have stated at the beginning of this chapter can be achieved.

In Nigeria’s efforts to attain to these objectives, one of two paths are open to it: the capitalist or the socialist system. To an under-developed country like Nigeria, groping its way to economic freedom and prosperity, the capitalist system is very tempting. Its achievements are not merely a matter of theoretical exposition, or of the recorded history of a distant past; they can be seen everywhere around us, particularly on the continent of  Europe, and in North America and Australasia.

Besides, the cardinal virtue of the capitalist system, which is naked self-interest or greed, otherwise known as private enterprise, has special appeal to every man and woman. Until he or she has been completely seared, and rendered prostrate and helpless by the evil forces of the system, everybody believes that the capitalist system is the best, and specially designed for his or her personal economic advancement and aggrandizement. We have in two previous chapters almost exhaustively examined the capitalist system; and our considered verdict is that in the long run it is doomed to extinction, and that, as long as it lasts, it is bound to generate secular social injustice and disequilibrium, and persistently widen the gap between the rich and the poor, in the society in which it operates.

On the other hand, because of the attributes of the socialist system which we have abundantly indicated, it is clear that this system is undoubtedly superior to the capitalist system. To be sure, socialism, as a practical economic way of life, is only fifty years old. Even so, by the achievements of the U.S.S.R., Eastern European countries, and-People’s China, it has shown its superiority as a more dependable and surer means of securing material well­ being and social justice for all and sundry, than capitalism in all its more than two centuries of existence.

If, therefore, the aim of Nigeria is the attainment of economic freedom and prosperity for all its citizens, at a ccomparatively early date, then there is only one choice open to it. It must, forthwith, adopt the socialist approach to all its social problems. In this connection, it must be emphasized that social justice, which is the sum and substance of the social objectives adumbrated by us at the beginning of this chapter, is only attainable in a social order in which the welfare of one is the concern of all, and vice versa. The name of this social order is socialism; that is, socialism as we have amply defined and described it.

In order, however, to tread the socialist path, a.§suredly and successfully, three things must be done simultaneously.

The first is the vesting in the Nigerian Governments, subject only to the dictates of prudence, efficiency, and pragmatism, of all the means of production, exchange, and distribution. This is necessary in order to bring about the effectives;o-ordination of all economic activities, and to effect the direct control, by the Governments, of the forces of supply and demand and of the margin, with a view to taming, humanising, and canalising them for the good of Nigerians in general.

The second is that there must be a thoroughly efficient and effective organization of all economic activities to ensure that the country produces enough:

(I) for consumption compatible with a decent standard of living; and
(2) for a rapid growth of capital formation.

The third is the regulation of’ production and consumption by legislative acts. This is necessary in order to ensure:

(I) that production or utilization of resources is directed towards essential ends;
(2) that the country is self-reliant and self­sufficient in the short run in consumer goods, and in the long run in capital goods as well;
(3) that, from year to year, whatever happens, the country consumes so much less - but without danger to good health and efficiency-  as to bring about a rapid growth of capital formation; and
(4) that the country exports enough not only to pay for the imports of capital goods and other absolutely essential items of consumer goods, but also to enable it to contribute to the enlargement of world trade and prosperity as well as benefit from international division of labour.

To these ends, certain modi operandi commend themselves.

First, the Constitution of Nigeria must declare the country. a socialist republic. This is to say, in effect, that those Nigerians who believe in socialism must from now on bend all their energies and employ all the resources of their minds to and for the achievement of this indispensable and momentous declaration.

Secondly, it must be realized that Nigeria cannot become fully socialist, in one fell swoop, without chaotic social upheaval. In our considered opinion, the country needs about five years to launch and place itself into full socialist orbit. That much time is required for ideoiogical adaptation and orientation, mental weeding, and moral disinfection and disinfestation, in all the sectors of our society. Indeed, that much time is required to embark upon and accomplish an intensive programme for the production of a highly qualified cadre of  professionals, managers, technologists, and administrators.

(To be continued)

(in continuation)

WE should not be taken as suggesting that nothing should be done during the five-year period to vest the means of production in the Governments. On the contrary, there should be a progressive taking over by the Governments. The programme for taking over should be meticulously phased. The more sensitive and strategic sectors of the economy should immediately be vested in the Governments, while the rest should be completely taken over by the end of the five-year period.Thirdly, it must be constantly borne in mind that two of the attributes which so sharply and boldly distinguish socialism from capitalism are planning and discipline.

Without planning and discipline, socialism has no chance of success. The co-ordination and harmoniaation of all economic activities relating to consumption, production, exchange, and distribution call for the most expert and detailed perspective and short-term planning that Nigerians can muster through the discipline of body and mind. It is imperative, therefore, that Nigeria possesses a hard core of Nigerian leaders and experts with unflagging socialist orientation who will dedicate themselves to the great objective of making socialism work successfully in Nigeria. While some foreign experts may be required in the early stages to assist Nigerian leaders and experts in making and executing the necessary plans, it would be most unwise for Nigeria, and for any socialist-inclined country for that matter, to rely almost wholly or even heavily on foreign guidance. Such undue dependence on foreign guidance can only lead to ideological enslavement which, in our candid view, can be worse than economic subservience under the capitalist system.

SINCE the emergence of homo sapiens on this planet, he has never been at peace with himself or his neighbours. In the beginning, he waged his war with flint; then with bow and arrow; and recently with the atom bomb. He now threatens to employ weapons of indescribable destructive power such as the hydrogen bomb.All the ingredients of, and motivations for, man’s incessant and internecine rivalries - greed, self-interest, abuse and misuse of power, enthroning of might over right - are as present today as ever before.There are two Chinas and two Koreas; and Vietnam is in the violent process of being permanently split into two. At the base of these unjustifiable divisions lie the naked self-interest, greed, and national aggrandisement of the U.S.A..

In the Middle East, 60 million Arabs have vowed to destroy the State of Israel, and drive away or wipe out the 2 million-odd Jews who constitute that State. Understandably, Britain, the U.S.A., and France uphold the cause of Israel. Also understandably, the U.S.S.R. and East European countries give full support to the Arab countries. We say understandably, because it is the undisguised policies of Britain, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. and other big powers to divide the world into economic and ideological spheres of influence, in pursuance of their national self-interests and aggrandisement, and of the mutual hatred and hostility which exist between the so-called Western and Eastern blocs. There is, otherwise, no rational basis for the capitalist Western bloc to give succour to socialist Israel, or for the socialist Eastern bloc to come to the aid of the Arabs who have always either killed, or kept firmly in detention, every known communist in their midst.Africa continues, as hitherto, to be the butt of all manner of inhuman treatment and degradation.

To the Whites in South Africa and Rhodesia, Africans are nothing but anthropoid apes, as Hitler contemptuously termed them. The White settlers in South Africa and Rhodesia have forcibly expropriated the aboriginal Africans of all the larger and richer portions of their lands, and relegated them to the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water.In the U.S.A., the Negro Americans suffer grave social disabilities, so much so that there are now clear signs that the recent violent riotings by the Negroes may degenerate into civil war between White and Black Americans. The latent colour prejudice which has always existed in Britain, but which has hitherto been cleverly suppressed, is now bubbling to the surface; and there is a real danger of racial violence rearing its head soon in Britain.

In the pursuit of their naked self-interests, the developed countries of the world continue to exploit and cheat the underdeveloped countries by means of every contrivance and artifice which man’s ingenuity can invent with the result that the gap between the one and the other widens with the years: the rich getting richer, and the poor getting relatively poorer.To cap it all, the great powers of the world have grouped themselves into two mutually antagonistic ideological camps, and seek feverishly and frantically to entice the weaker and underdeveloped countries into their respective spheres of influence.

To this end, aids are proffered in kind and cash to the poorer countries. But the prospective donors always make sure that each aid or loan carries with it a host of humiliating strings and conditions which tend materially to help the donor countries more than the poorer countries, undermine the strength and vitality of the recipient countries, and ensure their permanent dependence on the donor countries.

(to be continued)

(in continuation)

IN spite of this, it is incumbent on Nigeria, like all other countries, to discharge a three-fold obligation. Firstly, it has the primary obligation of catering to and promoting the welfare of its peoples to the end that they may live a full and happy life. As we have repeatedly noted, one of the purposes for which a State is ordained is the protection of its citizens against external aggression. In order to achieve this purpose, Nigeria must, by skilful and clean diplomacy and constructive propaganda, bring about a state of peaceful co­existence between it and its neighbours; it must foster mutually beneficial commerce with its neighbours so that it and they may derive obvious advantages from inter-territorial division of labour; it must put itself, to the knowledge of its neighbours, in such a state of military strength and preparedness as to discourage external aggression, or successfully resist such aggression if it comes.

It is an accepted diplomatic practice, of the Machiavellian type, for one country to foment troubles in another country with a view to thwarting the evil intentions and designs of the latter country against the former. It is also an accepted practice for one country to try to subjugate another by subversion. These are practices which are indulged in by all the big powers through various secret, powerful, and thoroughly ruthless and satanic organizations. It is our candid view that no obligation is placed on any country to do evil against another country, or to subvert its neighbours under any pretext whatsoever. A cardinal principle of world order must be that the sovereignty and integrity of every State are sacrosanct.

Accordingly, Nigeria should eschew these diabolical methods, and confine itself to the constructive and practical means ofachieving peaceful co-existence with its neighbours, including a defensive military build-up which is capable of deterring any aggressor  at its own level. We have used the phrase at its own level advisedly.

In our view, Nigeria can only place itself in such a position of military strength as would deter any of its underdeveloped neighbours from contemplating, much less committing, aggression against it. It certainly cannot and should not aspire to acquire military resources large and potentially effective enough to deter any of the big powers from committing aggression against it. It is our firm belief, based on the sound principles of dialectic, that if Nigeria is economically free and strong and socially stable, and plays a constructive, consistent, and peace-promoting role in world affairs, the big powers as well as Nigeria’s immediate neighbours will refrain from entertaining aggressive intentions towards it, and will positively seek to live in peace with it. But if, in spite of  such a role, any of the so-called big powers chose, for any reason, to commit aggression against it, the only course of action open to it would be to give a good account of itself in the battlefield, and at the same time invoke the combined assistance of the other members of the United Nations Organization, in repelling such aggression.

Secondly, Nigeria owes an obligation to Africa to help in securing for all the African States political and economic freedom, justice, dignity, and equality of treatment in the comity of nations. In discharging this obligation three considerations are worth bearing in mind.

ONE: Today, Africa is a continent of competing Beggar-States. They vie with one another for favours from the developed countries, especially their former colonial masters. They deliberately fall over one another to invite neo-colonialists to come to their respective territories to preside over their economic programmes, and exploit their resources. In short, they are politically independent and sovereign, but are economically subservient; and the big powers are leaving no stone untumed to keep them so.

TWO: In spite of the O.A.U.’s declared policy to eradicate from Africa all forms of colonialism, the Whites in South Africa and Rhodesia are determined to continue to treat Africans as sub-humans, whilst portugal is unwilling to let the peoples of Angola and Mozambique go.

THREE: Most African leaders appear to lack the vision, sense of mission, and mental magnitude essential to enhance the status of the States under their charge to the level of self-respecting and respectable economic entity.It will be seen, therefore, that Africa suffers from three grave disabilities: inhuman degradation, lack of sufficiently dedicated leadership, and economic subservience.

By Article 11 of its Charter, and by the terms of some of its declarations, the O.A.U. is committed to the following policies:

(i) the unity of all the peoples of Africa;

(ii) the eradication of all forms of colonialism from Africa;

(iii) the intensification of economic co-operation designed to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa; and

(iv) the formulation of proposals for harnessing the natural and human resources of the continent for the total advancement, welfare, and well-being of all the peoples of Africa.

(To be continued)

(in continuation)

THE economic and eventual political unity of Africa is an ideal which is not only worth working for, but also one which can be realized. The present developments in the world confirm the well-known theory that other things being equal, the larger the population and the more expansive the territory of a State or economic entity, the greater the chances of its effective and more rapid economic progress. Africa with a population of 200 millions and an area of 11 1/2 million square miles (the Sahara Desert covers 3  1/2 million of the area), if united, would compare more than favourably with

(I) Russia: population - 200 millions, area  -  8,598,678 square miles;
(2) China: population - 650 millions, area - 3,876,956 square miles;
(3) U.S.A.: population - 160 millions, area- 2,974,725 square miles; and
(4) India: population - 450 millions, area - I,709,500 square miles.

But the problem of uniting, under one Government and under one leadership, a continent which lacks the racial, cultural, and linguistic homogeneity of U.S.A., the centuries-old cultural and (political unity of China and (to a great extent) of India, and the ideological cohesion of Russia must not be underestimated. The distinguishing factors which we have just mentioned are complicated by the fact that Africa has peculiar internal stresses and strains, divisions and conflicts, inherent in its political, economic, and cultural evolution.Nevertbeless, the economic unity of Africa is an attainable goal and should be pursued relentlessly.

This is the greatest obligation which Nigeria owes to Africa: to work for the quick advent of its unity and thereby hasten the attainment of economic freedom and material prosperity for all the peoples of the continent. In this connection, the recent emergence of regional economic groupings such as the East African Common Market, the West African Common Market, etc., is a healthy and commendable evolution. It should be encouraged. But these groupings should be regarded as no more and no less than steps in the right direction. For one thing, in scale and potential, they are incapable of meeting the challenge of the gargantuan economic groupings which are now taking place in Europe and the Americas. For another, there is the danger that these regional African groupings might engage in destructive competition among themselves, unless their activities are co­ordinated and canalized at an Africa-wide level.It is acknowledged that international organizations like the E.C.A. have done a tremendous amount of work in studying the economic and social problems of Africa, and in formulating solutions for them. It is also ackfiowledged that African States have participated actively in the work of these international organizations and have derived some benefits from their activities. But it must be admitted that these international organizations are far from being adequate; nor are they compatible with the intense desire of African States for economic self-determination and independence.

Africa’s attitude to these international organizations should be to regard them not as the Alpha and Omega of its economic salvation, but as trail blazers for its own permanent, all-embracing economic community.We have deliberately stressed the economic aspects of the O.A.U. declaration of policy, because we regard economic freedom and prosperity as the be - all and end - all of Africa’s salvation. As long as Africa or most of its States remain underdeveloped and economically subservient, so long will poverty, ignorance, and disease persist in the continent, together with their concomitants of colonialism, neo-colonialism, lan-Smithism, Vorsterism, and Salazarism.

Thirdly, Nigeria owes it as an obligation to its peoples in particular, and mankind in general, to promote the peace, progress, and prosperity of the world and its entire multitudes and diversities of races. The fundamental principle which must be borne strictly and constantly in mind, in this connection, is that all the good or evil things of this world are indivisible; and  more so now that the world is much smaller than it used to be, and all countries are now, so to say, one another’s next-door neighbours.But the world in which we live is so crazy, and its affairs are so chaotic, that the temptation is very strong for any underdeveloped country, like Nigeria, to want to throw in the towel and let the forces of unreason and madness take their courses. For the reason which we have just stated, that is of the indivisibility of all the good or evil things of this world, this temptation must be resisted at all costs.

The question which then arises is this: what modus operandi should Nigeria adopt in order to discharge effectively its three obligations which, as we have seen, do not always harmonize, because of the conflicting and divergent self-interests of all the countries that compose the world?First of all, Nigeria must recognize the difference between foreign policy and foreign affairs. It must then proceed, most carefully, to formulate and declare for itself an abiding foreign policy, which will remain immutable through all the buffetings and vicissitudes of international conflicts and collisions.

(To be continued)

(in continuation)

THERE is, in our considered view, a good deal of difference between the declaration of external policy, and the conduct of external affairs. The one is strategy, and the other  is tactics. When a ship puts to sea, and is destined for a particular harbour, it can be said that its policy is to sail to that harbour, come what may. Whether it pursues one of a number of alternative routes which lead to the specified harbour; and what manoeuvreing, detours, and digressions it makes in the  course of the journey; all these depend on the daily circumstances of the voyage, including the state of the weather and of the sea. But since the choice of harbour must be necessitated by the need to satisfy the customers, it is not open to the shipowners, arbitrarily, to choose and vary the ship’s destination, as their own pleasures and fancies dictate.

As with the shipowners in our analogy, so with a State; and so with Nigeria. Nigerian leaders cannot and should not be permitted to determine and vary the country’s policy - external or domestic - without strict regard to the welfare and happiness of the Nigerian peoples.In the last four chapters, we have dealt fully with the political, economic, and social policies which Nigeria must follow, if it would promote the welfare of its people and make them live a full and happy life. Granting that it is blessed with the right type of leadership to adopt these policies, then its external policy must be guided by the latter. In such circumstances, Nigeria must espouse abroad the course which it pursues at home, without necessarily seeking to impose its views on other countries which have divergent domestic policies. For instance, it cannot afford to be socialist at home and capitalist abroad; it cannot afford to observe democracy and individual freedom at home and condone oppression and tyranny abroad;’ indeed, it cannot afford to enforce unity at home, and instigate disintegration or subvert unity abroad. And so on, and so forth. It must be borne in mind that to practise one thing at home, and advocate or do the opposite abroad is evidence of lack of direction, and of abiding faith in any fundamental policy.

A man cannot hold contradictory views or pursue contradictory courses of action at the same time, unless he is a downright scum or a bare-faced hypocrite or both.Granting, therefore, its adoption of the blueprint outlined in the last four chapters, and its adherence to the basic principles expounded in Part II of this book, the external policy of Nigeria may be expressed in more concrete and detailed terms as follows:

(1) The active promotion of international understanding, and of the universal brotherhood of man.

(2) The constructive and peaceful encouragement of the spread of socialism to all parts of the world, as the only economic and social concept which can eliminate greed and self-interest, and foster mutual love and altruism among all mankind.

(3) Active and enlightened co-operation with the other countries of the world, in so far as they genuinely believe in and respect the ideals for which Nigeria stands.

(4) Respect for the independence, sovereignty, and integrity of all States, and non-interference in their domestic affairs.

(5) Settlement of international disputes by peaceful negotiation either by the direct mediation of one or more countries invited for that purpose at the instance of the disputing States, or through the agency of the U.N.O.

(6) Non-involvement (i) in military pacts or acts of aggression; or (ii) in any treaty designed against the interest of any other country.

(7) The promotion of free and mutually beneficial economic intercourse and cultural and scientific exchange among all the nations of the world.

( 8 ) The solemn observance of the principles and objectives enshrined in the Charter of the UN.O. and of the O.A.U; and

(9) The extermination of apartheid, and the termination of the subjugation and inhuman treatment of Black peoples in Africa and elsewhere, and the mobilization for these purposes of the material, intellectual, and spiritual resources of all the States of Africa and their friends.

The tactics which will, from time to time, be adopted in achieving these objectives will depend on the prevailing circumstances, at any given time. The policy, however, must never be abandoned nor should anything be allowed to dim Nigeria’s clear vision of it.In pursuing and prosecuting the country’s declared policy, as set out in clearer detail above, compromises may be given and accepted. The compromises must be such as do not in any way amount to the slightest derogation from, or even pretended abandonment of the country’s declared policy.

In this matter, to adapt a journalistic maxim, external policy must be regarded as sacred, whilst the conduct of external affairs is free within the bounds delimited by the country’s avowed and stated policy.It is fashionable these days  for all underdeveloped countries including Nigeria to describe their foreign policy as ‘non­alignment’, and to pride themselves on belonging to a Third World bloc.

This, in our view, is a sign of an inferiority complex, or of confused thinking, or both. The external policy which we outlined above certainly cannot bear the label of ‘non-alignment’. If it is necessary that it must be christened, then its name would be WORLD SOCIALISM.

(To be continued)

Obinoscopy: I'm sorry what you're wrong again especially as it concerns the bolded in your quote

.....no conscientious Nigerian who means well for the progress and well being of the peoples constituting this citizenship will ever swear on their credibility that the 1914 amalgamation was the right direction to take the Yorubas, the Igbos, the Hausas and every other peoples of this nation.

...for other reasons maybe!!! I want to hear which side of reason you are on.

(in continuation)

AS I said in the preface to it, this book THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA is a follow-up to THOUGHTS ON NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION and THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC, and the last in the series which I planned, in Calabar prison, to write on the politico-economic aspects of Nigeria's problems.In all these three books, apart from other objectives, it was my aim to raise the level of our public debate on the subjects discussed in them, from the low and barren depth of inter-personal, inter-ethnic, and inter-party abuse and strife to an exhilarating height where clearly stated ideals and programmes dominate public attention.

There is too much criminal complacency and intellectual indolence and superficiality in our approach to our many problems.It was also my aim, if possible, to try and rescue the afflicted from these dangerous maladies.The pattern of the book is clear from the CONTENTS page. There are three groups of objectives: Economic, Social, and Political and Constitutional. These have been followed by the order of priority  in which these objectives should be pursued, and the institutional organisations which, in my opinion, are essential for their successful pursuit and implementation.The objectives, priorities, and institutional organisations have been stated in the form of imperatives or mandatory assertions. Each group of imperatives is followed by a commentary in which I have tried to marshall the reasons justifying the declaration of the mandatory assertions.

As will have been noticed, I have dedicated the book to THE ASPIRING YOUTHS OF NIGERIA of whom there are myriads: they are still struggling to win their spurs, and are not yet so self-satisfied as some of their fathers, mothers, and elders. But the message of the book is not confined to the aspiring youths of Nigeria lone. It is addressed to all those who year after, and are prepared to spare no efforts or pains in working exceedingly hard for the rapid transformation of Nigeria into a developed economy and a modern State. In this connection it is apposite to refer to what I have said in the last paragraph of Chapter 6 of the book as follows:I now want to add, for explanation, that what I have repeatedly described in this book, as THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA is the post-war Nigeria: united afresh - washed - purged - and purified - by the sweat and tears of our people in all walks of life, and, more particularly, by the blood of our youth, shed profusely - loyally - and patriotically - in the fields of battle.

It is to that brave new Nigeria, of the great and glorious morrow, that I address the message of this book.It is not my intention, at this launching ceremony, to go over the grounds already covered in the book. But it is certainly my intention to seize the opportunity offered by this occasion to underline some of the salient points made in the book by answering some of the criticisms which have, again and again, been levelled against my persistent advocacy for full employment, free education at all levels, and free health service for all.It must be regarded as a matter of grave and alarming national concern for some leaders and intellectuals, whom we look up to for guidance and expert advice on such matters, to argue, with an air of authoritative finality, as they sometimes do, that full employment is an unattainable ideal and a practical impossibility in Nigeria.

It is easy to understand that when a person is unemployed or underemployed, it simply means that in the case of a worker there is either no job opportunity at all, or not enough job opportunity for him. If he is a self-employed person, it means that either people don't want his goods and services at all, or do not want enough of them to keep him fully employed. In other words, unemployment or under- employment simply means non-utilisation or under- utilisation of human resources, as well as under-utilisation or - misutilisation of natural resources.

(to be continued)

alj harem: Interesting read. It's good to share knowledge once a while. Thanks man

Always, my dear Awori Prince.

Obinoscopy: Not true. You'll see

Im not sure the moderators have a good grip on this project to be honest.

On whethet or not amalgamation is a good thing, there is only one way to answer that......it is BAD! There is no division of opinion on that. The reality is self evident.