Centenary of Misrule: Living the Legacy By Abimbola Lagunju

There is a Yoruba proverb that says if the wrapping leaves of a piece of soap are left for too long on the soap, the leaves turn into soap. A very apt proverb for the Nigerian existential experience in the un-abating atmosphere of misgovernance that has dogged this country since 1914. But for a few gruntlers, who, as soon as they shout foul are silenced with a Russian salad of plum appointments and loads of cash in all possible colours, we, the masses have learnt to accept failure of governance as a norm. Our norm. Misgovernance permeates every aspect of the Nigerian life. Homes, communities, schools, hospitals, government and religious ministries, banks, companies local and foreign, embassies etc. all revel and thrive in the most atavistic human instinct of survival of the fittest. No rules, even in the era of rule of law. For Nigeria, it has always been law of Rulers. The masses, who take hard knocks from the wooden rulers in the misguided hands of our Rulers, only have themselves to blame for their coconut heads. In short we are and have always been victims of social Darwinism. Social Darwinists (Herbert Spencer, Andrew Carnegie, William Graham Sumner), and their theory (now of blessed extinction on saner shores) argued that social existence was a struggle among individuals with different capacities and traits. The better the traits the more the chances for success and wealth; and those with less capacity and weaker traits became poor. Graham Sumner pushed it further by claiming that “it is not the function of the State to make men happy”. This odious social theory has been consigned to the dustbin of history and replaced with saner social policy by many countries of the world. Nigeria is not on the list of these countries. In fact it appears that Nigeria has decidedly embarked on a continuous exercise of reinvention and re-engineering of social Darwinism.

Ninety-five years (since Lugard) of misrule in different shades of colour, modes of dresses, ideologies, religions and constitutions is a very long time. Our Rulers have faithfully kept the banner of misrule flying. The legacy of misrule is being passed on from generation to generation of Rulers, each adding a new standard to surpass his predecessor. And the once virgin leaves of the masses are turning into this perfidious soap. We have no reference in our history for good governance. Scratch the veneer off our celebrated heroes and see what lies underneath. And because we know this, and cannot do anything about it, we are unconsciously metamorphosing from our state of submission into a copycat state. We copy misrule. We thrive in misrule. We worship misrule. We practice misrule in our homes, neighbourhoods, places of work, in the streets, places of worship and indeed everywhere. We have learnt to become vicious miniature Rulers; practitioners of social Darwinism. Everyone oppresses anyone oppress-able. The gateman of a company in his cubicle rules without the rule of law, policemen with one or two stripes rule the streets, cashiers rule the banks, secretaries reign supreme in the outer office, and messengers are kings who disappear files at will. These small Rulers will in turn be ruled and oppressed by their immediate bosses, who will then be oppressed by their bosses and the chain of oppression moves up the ladder. Haven’t you ever seen a special adviser to a governor or a councilor behaving like a mini-god? You think I am generalizing? Let him without sin cast the first stone. Think hard before you pick the stone though.

Nigerians have learnt to revere the legacy of misrule in all spheres of our life. We do not question the sanity of what has been handed over to us. Indeed we flaunt our deep knowledge of the legacy in courts, in the streets and even in distant lands. See the way our Traditional Rulers wrestle with each other in courts either over small border disputes or who should wear a beaded crown and who should not among them. And what documents of reference do our learned lawyers use to prove their points in these strictly traditional cases in courts? Documents handed over by the colonialists who misruled us and who twisted our logical order of reasoning. And our hallowed judges go on to rule on the basis of these same documents. No questions as to the sanity of who wrote the document in the first instance, neither are questions asked about the motives of the colonial administrator who wrote the document and worse still is that our over-learned compatriots do not even bother to ask themselves the relevance of these documents to our condition and existence. Suffice that it has been written by a warped colonial mind, it becomes sacrosanct in the hands of our learned citizens.

We cherish documents, good or bad. We worship any document written in the guise of a policy by anyone (with superior traits) who manages to get to sit on the throne of our nation. It does not matter if the ‘policy document’ out-rightly denies us of all rights; it is sacred if it is written. We are dead scared to think of making changes that will save our lives and enhance the quality of our existence. We are even more scared to throw out the document along with its author into the dustbin of best forgotten history of our nation and come up with something else. Nigerians live this fear in the macro and microcosms of our daily existence. At the national level, we are scared of touching the military 1999 constitution. We cannot amend it, we cannot change it and thinking of throwing it away altogether is a nightmare scenario. At the state level, we brandish about with pride despicable edicts of military governors and administrators some of whose names we have even forgotten.

“It is not the function of the State to make men happy”! If people want to be happy, they must do something about it individually or collectively, but they must not expect anything from our nation state. The State represented by the Rulers abdicates its responsibility and declares itself to be on a long, probably permanent vacation. Nigerians have learnt to live this, but it beats all sense of decency when this State on vacation imposes the responsibility which it has abdicated on the citizens through an edict. The State asks the citizens to carry out its obligation while it is away on holidays! One Mr. Chinyere Ike Nwosu, a one-time Military Ruler of Oyo State made an edict in December 1995 called “Mobilization of Community Development Committees Amendment Edict” through which he ordered the citizens of Oyo State to “contribute financially for the sustenance of vigilante groups and execution of projects embarked upon by the Community Development Committees to safeguard security of their neighbourhoods”! In a most outrageous display of ignorance of the responsibility and functions of a State, this Ruler went on to impose sanctions against non complying landlords and tenants: “A landlord or tenant who unreasonably refuses or fails or neglects to pay an amount fixed by his ward as his contribution for the sustenance of the vigilante group or for the execution of a particular project to safeguard security of his ward shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine of 200 Naira for the first offence and a fine of 400 Naira or a term of imprisonment of two months for a subsequent offence….” This document, written in the twentieth century conjures up in one’s mind a pre-historic state of nature where there is no structure, no state, no police and where small group of individuals with clubs in hands come together for their collective security. The document was rightly sent to the dustbin of aberration and forgotten when the Ruler left.

About fourteen years later, a group of well-meaning landlords somewhere in Oyo State exhumed the Edict and circulated it in their neighbourhood. They will like defaulting landlords to pay up their dues, and having run out of ideas to get these recalcitrant landlords to take up the responsibility given to them by the holidaying State, they resurrected the Edict. The soap of misrule has permeated the virgin leaves of our psyche. I am sure these bright landlords can do better than wavering about a despicable testament of misgovernance and ignorance of the role of a modern State.

As we all prepare for the centenary (1914-2014) of misrule in our nation, I will like to remind our different rulers, small and big, that there is another African proverb that says no matter how long a log of wood stays in water, it will never turn into a crocodile.

New Generation Nigerians and the Rebuilding of the Nigerian Nation-State By Abimbola Lagunju

Jean Jacques Rousseau in his treatise on Social Contract contends that at a particular moment in the development of man, the forces against him overwhelm his individual brute power to defend himself and his immediate family. In order to ensure his survival, he makes alliances with others to improve his security situation. In forming the alliance, he gives up his own natural liberty in order to acquire civil liberty, within which he becomes a member of an indivisible whole, which meets his security needs and rights to property. As Jean Jacques Rousseau puts it "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." This, according to Rousseau is the basis of the creation of a state. This whole, this collective will called the body politic or the state, has the responsibility of assuring the individual and collective security of the constituent members. This obligation holds true even when the nation-state is an artificial and imposed one with unwilling and dissenting members. The imposed illusory state may, with a lot of conscious efforts transform into a real and viable entity when it learns to function as a real state founded on a real social contract. One way of achieving this status is to install democracy, where the people of the illusory nation-state go through the process of learning to give up their natural liberties through their votes to acquire civil liberties and rights. This process demands a commitment of the people involved and the transparency of those in positions of responsibility in the society. When any of these two important pre-requisites is lacking, the dream of the creation of a nation-state remains a dream, and the likelihood of disintegration becomes real.

In poor multi-ethnic countries with defective or absent democratic processes, the notion of a state is reduced to bloodlines, clans and ethnicity, and the country’s borders only exists on paper and in the mind of the rulers. In such countries, the ‘state’, though with internationally recognized borders is distrusted by its citizens and there is an almost unbridge-able disconnect between the central ‘government’ and the ‘citizens.’ If the state is the collective will of the people, then such fractionalised ‘states’ bear the unmistakable signs of failing or failed states. They only exist on paper and in the minds of those who occupy the presidential palaces. This is the case with many African ‘countries,’ which were artificially created at the end of 1884/ beginning of 1885 at the Berlin Conference by the colonial occupiers.

More than forty years post-independence, most of the artificial African nation-states are still holding together, despite the dismal performance of the political class, poor economy and numerous ethnic wars which the continent has witnessed and is witnessing. What is responsible for this? Why haven’t things fallen apart? When one excludes the intrusive ‘mediation’ role of international community and the manacling aid, which are primarily linked to the economic interests of the members of this ‘international community,’ the thread that holds the collective will together within these incongruous nation-states may lie in individuals who, despite enormous odds strive to make a difference. These individuals, through their exemplary behaviour, vision and actions, whether in the private or public sector are the bearers and beacons of hope. Luckily for Africa, each generation has been blessed with such individuals in the political and private arenas.

Nigeria has had its fair share of such individuals, and despite our pathological disposition to squander vision, goodwill and hope, the remnants of the legacy of these individuals have in a way taken roots, albeit struggling-for-survival ones. The legacy of these individuals manifests in the national spirit with which certain members of the present generation, whether acting in their individual capacity or as part of a private or public enterprise put themselves at the service of the collective. They are the new purveyors of hope for an otherwise disenchanted body politic divided against itself. These individuals or institutions quickly become our national reference point, the role model that breaks ethnic and religious barriers. Individually or collectively, Nigerians are proud to be associated with them. We hold our heads high when we say we come from the same nation as these individuals. We write off our politicians as the undesirable exception of our lot and we seek representation in these individuals and the institutions which they represent.

In the common parlance used to differentiate the non-functional from the functional, the chaff from the grain, (and which has nothing to do with age), these individuals and their institutions are the New Generation Individuals and Institutions. Malam Nuhu Ribadu, formerly of EFCC, Dr. Dora Akunyili of NAFDAC, Mrs. Carol Ndaguba of NAPTIP are examples of the beacon of hope, the purveyors of vision, and the true foundational members of the Nigerian nation-state. They, along with others, through their engagement, actions and vision have committed themselves to make the emergence of a true Nigerian State a reality. Despite the fact that the institutions that they head were created by politicians as signs of intentions rather than actions, these individuals have not only transformed the institutions, but have converted them into symbols of pride for millions of ordinary Nigerians within and outside our borders.

And there are other individuals too, who do not head any institution, but who respect the collective will of the people by executing with fervour and honesty, the tasks which have been entrusted to them by the people. It is much more difficult to encounter this category of people in the public service, particularly in Nigerian Police Force. But one officer stands out. Mr. Francis Ojomo, the Divisional Police Officer of Akobo Police Station in Ibadan is a New Generation cop. During a recent visit to Nigeria, I had the opportunity of meeting with different people who live within the jurisdiction of the police station headed by Mr. Ojomo. As is common to many formal and informal gatherings in Nigeria these days, the problem of security found its way on top of the agenda of an informal gathering of neighbours, to which I had been invited by a friend. To my utmost surprise, and very much contrary to what I had expected to hear, the people gathered were full of praises for Mr. Ojomo. Adjectives like hardworking, brave, responsible, responsive to people in distress and honest were used to describe him. Mr. Ojomo was not at the gathering and he could not have known that a social party in which he was being discussed was holding. I have never met Mr. Francis Ojomo, and I do not know his rank; but one thing is certain from what I heard at this party: the gratitude and the goodwill of the people in the area under his command in Akobo will forever surpass whatever promotion he gets until his retirement in the Police Force. Unknowingly, Mr. Ojomo has made himself a life-time honorary citizen of the area presently under his command.

Failing states cannot use as excuse the lack of examples or exemplary individuals for their descent into failed states. In the case of Nigeria, we have an abundance of exemplary individuals with visions. The common Nigerians value the New Generation individuals and for their sake, the question of the validity of the existing body politic and the demand for a redefinition of the social contract in the place of an imposed one is put on the back shelf.

Our rulers, whom we hope will become leaders one day have the moral responsibility to strengthen the existing threads which holds the collective will of the Nigerian peoples together and also to nurture the emergence of New Generation Nigerians. And most importantly, they must stop squandering the legacy of those committed to the emergence of a true Nigerian nation-state.

Sarkozy to the Rescue: Lessons to Unlearn By Abimbola Lagunju

Sometime at the end of October, a plane with a group of 6 French Aid Workers, 3 French journalists, 2 Spanish pilots and 4 members of crew and a Belgian were arrested while trying to fly out 103 children who the Chadian authorities claim to have been abducted by the French aid workers.

As the story unfolded, it was found out that the children were not Darfuri orphans as claimed by the aid workers, but Chadian children with living parents and relatives. It turned out that these aid workers had, under false pretences, convinced the parents of these children to entrust them to their care for education in nearby towns.

While the drama of arrest of the group was going on in the town of Abeche, unsuspecting French foster parents of these “orphans” were waiting anxiously in the airport for the arrival of the plane bearing their foster children. Each of these foster parents had indeed been made to pay some money in advance by the “charity association” for the “logistics and administration” of bringing the children over from Africa.

There is no doubt that this looks and smells like an advanced case of 419. Not having famous section in their Criminal Code, the Chadian authorities immediately charged the group with “abduction,” “kidnapping” and “conspiracy to traffic” children. In Nigeria, the group would also have been charged under the 419 code in addition to the two Chadian charges. In the spirit of good neighbourliness and African fraternity, Nigerian authorities will do well in sharing this famous code with their Chadian counterparts in order to increase the burden of guilt on future adventurers.

Enter the French president! On hearing the case, Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy acted the judge. He said “I think they were wrong to do what they did.” This gave a cue to his Chadian counterpart, who delved into history books and declared “they treat us like animals….it is dreadful, I am revolted. I cannot accept it….here is the truth about this Europe that portrays itself as helping, this Europe which seeks to give lessons to Africa.” He vowed that the culprits would be punished according to Chadian laws. Mr. Idriss Deby also acted the judge.

About a week after the incident occurred, Mr. Sarkozy went to Chad and by the evening of the same the day he was flying back to France via Spain with seven of the detainees – three journalists and four Spanish hostesses. Somehow, the two judges in a private Ndjamena court session, probably over lunch, decided on the case. They acquitted some and decided to review the case of the others at a probable next sitting. Mr. Sarkozy, apparently the senior judge, later declared that the others would be released whatever the outcome of the sidelined Chadian courts. According to BBC, the French president said he would go again to Chad “and bring back those who stayed behind, regardless of what they have done.”

It is indeed laudable that a president passionately seeks to protect its citizens in any part of the world “regardless of what they have done,” however the behaviour of Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy in the management of this crisis needs an analysis in the light of the utterance of Idriss Deby that Europe seeks to give lessons to Africa. Here, there are some examples of lessons which have to be unlearnt. Firstly, the French president usurped the role of courts of law. He became the law himself and pronounced the group of sixteen guilty. Then he appealed his own judgement and reversed his decision about the collective guilt. Mr. Sarkozy acted as if France did not have any institutions in place to handle the matter.

Secondly, not satisfied with usurping the role of the President of the Supreme Court of France, he also took over the role of the Ministry of foreign affairs. He became the Ambassador and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the same time. He personally took the four hostesses to Madrid and ceremoniously handed them over to the Spanish Prime Minister. This was not the first time that Monsieur Sarkozy would assume all these roles. The whole world was astonished when a few weeks after assuming office, he was able, through his ex-wife, to secure the release of 5 Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor who had been accused of infecting over four hundred Libyan children with HIV virus and had been sentenced to death. The six medics were also flown in the French presidential jet to Sofia. Even the European Union was surprised.

It beats the wildest imagination that any African president, whose citizens have been found to have contravened the laws of a western country will fly to the country to directly “negotiate” the release of the citizens. He will probably meet with a very junior official without an office space. And he will be given loads and loads of lectures on the respect of the rule of law to take back with him on his return trip. Is it imaginable that an African president, under any circumstances, whether in a foreign land or in his own country, could have taken these Sarkozy steps without being flayed by the world press for not respecting the rule of law? He would have been given names like “strongman,” or “dictator” to transmit the image that he tramples over all the institutions in his country. One cannot help but think of Monsieur Sarkozy as a strongman too. An international strongman, that tramples not only upon the institutions of his own country, but also of other countries, and in this case, the institutions of a poor African country to which “Europe seeks to give lessons.”

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize – An absurdity By Abimbola Lagunju

Created in October 2006, the Mo Ibrahim Foundation launched a five-million dollar prize for “good governance” for leaders of African countries. This African Leadership Award has as its potential beneficiary, any elected African leader that voluntarily steps down at the expiration of his term. Mo Ibrahim says the prize is to discourage African leaders from clinging to power at all costs, to encourage good governance and discourage corruption.

Three key words/phrases, namely “elected,” “good governance,” and “step down” figure prominently in the qualification requirements for this award. “Elected” presupposes an election process, an exercise during which the people of a country decide who they want to lead them. It is a ceremony of the signing of a contract; an employment contract with the conditions that the leader, the employee of the people will, during his term of office deliver goods of public interest to his employers. A condition sine qua non for the validity of any contract, its monitoring and successful execution is that both signing parties fully understand the conditions of their agreement. This is a mandatory first step in signing any agreement. Herein lies the root of good governance. In Africa, it is generally presumed that the mere process of going to the polls in the presence of observers, both local and international implies that the employer and the employee fully understand their duties and obligations in the contract. The Constitution, a complicated document only interpretable by the best minds in the legal profession and often written in the adopted official European language of the country is put on the table as the people’s conditions for the contract with a would-be leader. In a largely illiterate population, it goes without saying that the people, the employers, have no notion of the terms of their own contract. Needless to say that they do not have an informed knowledge of what steps and procedures to undertake when their employee flagrantly breaches the conditions of the contract. They are invited out in a jamboree, in the name of “democracy” to put their hands on a document which they do not understand; and by so doing, the beneficiary of this manipulative exercise claims his dubious legitimacy. The employee, armed with the foreknowledge that his employers have little or no idea of the terms of his employment, buys out the vocal dissenting few through juicy appointments or outright bribery and then puts the majority at his mercy. The international community then comes to the “rescue” of the employers when the employee betrays them. In the process of the “rescue,” very often, the employers are sidelined by the rescuers and the people do not understand the role of the “rescuers”. The “rescuers” may be seen by the historically traumatized majority as interfering in their internal affairs or having a neo-colonizing agenda. The plundered employers then take sides with their merciless employee.

The use of any form of inducement, financial or international recognition to supplicate the leader (employee) not to mangle his employers (the people) does not solve the basic problem of lack of understanding of the conditions of the contract by the employers. The employers need to be assisted to fully understand the duties and obligations of their employees and must be empowered to take appropriate actions against defaulting employees. Mo Ibrahim’s prize does not address this fundamental need. Rather it seeks to reward the employee according to its own criteria. It is not clear if this prize is supposed to represent the gratitude of the people for the execution of a contract of which they have no notion. Or is it a token of appreciation of the foreign arbiters of democracy? Or is it a belated reward for unchecked economic predation under the guise of “liberalizing the economy”? This huge sum, (which some African States crawl on their faces to get from creditors) can strengthen democracy by empowering the people. And one way of doing this is to translate the Contract agreement (the Constitution) into diverse languages of the different nations that make up our continent, so that people in the remotest rural villages will understand the duties and obligations of their leaders, and will be able to clearly differentiate rights from privileges.

“Good governance” is not a gift that the employee bestows on his employers. It is not a privilege to be given or withdrawn at the whims of the leader. It is a right of the people. It is the very foundation of the contract that links the people with their leader. Rewarding a leader for “good governance” reduces the concept to a prerogative of the leader; to be bestowed or not. It confuses right with privilege; and reinforces the existing confusion of these two concepts, not only in the minds of the leaders, but also in the minds of the people. If there would be any prize at all for good governance, it should go to the people for demanding this right from their leaders and for ascertaining that the leader does not confuse his obligations and duties with “benevolence” as is the case in contemporary African “democracies.”

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize also seeks to discourage corruption by African leaders. In Mo Ibrahim’s words, “few Africa States can afford to provide their ex-leaders with money to enjoy a comfortable retirement,” and his prize seeks to redress this! In order to discourage African leaders from dipping their hands in to the public purse, Mo Ibrahim Foundation will provide comfortable retirement funds for them!

Firstly, it is not the responsibility of a corporate mogul to reward a former employee of the people. If the leader serves the people according to the letter of the contract of his employment with them, then he and his family will forever enjoy the goodwill of the people after the leader has stepped down. Julius Nyerere, Thomas Sankara and Samora Machel are such examples of leaders whose children, grandchildren and generations to come will always enjoy the goodwill of African peoples. The recent 20th anniversary of the death of Thomas Sankara that attracted thousands and mobilized the solidarity of millions beyond the borders of Burkina Faso is a good example. Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s extravagant five million dollar prize can never buy this goodwill.

Secondly, the targeted leader is not the only public servant that at one time or the other will have to go into voluntary or forced retirement. So what happens to the others? The prime ministers, the governors, the ministers, the district administrators and the whole army of the civil service? Do they not deserve “a comfortable retirement” too? By singling out the president for this award, this Foundation has reduced the whole democratic process to the person of the leader only. The leader is the embodiment of democracy! Everything begins and ends with the president. This reductive prize contradicts the spirit of democracy itself.

Thirdly, how much will the dangling of the carrot of this prize in the faces of serving African presidents influence them to facilitate their nations’ markets for Celtel of which Mo Ibrahim is the chairman and an important shareholder in expectation of this lavish prize? It is an indirect way of currying favours with serving African leaders. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation may be accused of what it claims it wants to eradicate.

Corporate social responsibility is not an investment in a serving or in an ex-leader. Provision of useful social services, the strengthening of democratic institutions and the true empowerment of the people constitute some useful examples of corporate social responsibility.

The Mo Ibrahim Foundation African Leadership Prize should be scrapped. The people come first, not their employees.

World Social Forum Nairobi 2007. My views.

World Social Forum 2007 - My thoughts on the Slogan "Another World is Possible"

I couldn’t help but to think that many governments must have been wondering why the idea of social forum has not died and what the teeming masses of “representatives” of the oppressed peoples of the world gathered at the World Social Forum in Nairobi between 20th and 25th January 2007 were actually discussing. They must have been asking the same question that we ask them: “Do these civil society groups have the legitimacy to speak or act on other peoples’ behalf?” A big question by all means. A question of legitimacy versus legitimacy. A question of “relativeness” - who is more legitimate, the civil society without a flag or the governments with their flag of democracy and their delusory consent of the governed?

The banners were many, indeed of many sizes, colours and with strident messages on as many diverse issues: minority rights, slum dwellers’ rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, religious rights, gay rights etc. and even the civil society’s rights. Interestingly, there was no banner on “majority” rights –the very argument, from which “democratic” governments claim to derive their illusory legitimacy. When all the banners (which I suspect, if stitched together will stretch all the way from Nairobi to Washington) and their messages are added together, then the question of where the so-called “consent of the governed” taunted by these governments came from arises. This generalized discontentment brings the practice of democracy under question. It appears that democracy has taken on a new definition: the government of the people by some people to the detriment of the people. Indeed, there is something fundamentally wrong with the democracy structure. The legion of discontentments of the governed (not only from “oppressive” and "underdeveloped" countries, but also from “functional democracies”) manifested at the WSF underscores the irresponsibility of those entrusted with power. Political responsibility towards the governed has become only a malleable rhetoric. Goods of public interests are ignored at will, and the general welfare of the governed and their environment are sacrificed for a variety of reasons, ranging from poverty in the south to security in the north. If those in power had any legitimacy at any point at all, they have squandered their representation-legitimacy capital and have no moral right to claim the contrary under any guise.

An analogy can be drawn between their democracy and a building: Imagine for a moment a beautifully painted multi-storey building with the windows falling out, the walls cracking, the plumbing rotten and leaking, the electrical system short-circuiting, the doors broken and a part of the roof caving in. The tenants are in an uproar. The guards ignore them, and with their state of the art digital cameras, the guards take pictures of the edifice from a distance, touch up the images on their computers, and print out very fanciful post cards and brochures, which they sell to unsuspecting willing and unwilling prospective tenants. These brochures do not mention the state of the building. The state of the building continues to deteriorate. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to do something before many lives are lost. Firstly, there is no doubt that the contractors and the builders did a shoddy job and must be sent to jail for a very long time. They pose a threat to the society. So also, the con artists called guards. Their charges? Conspiracy to commit murder, 419, abusive use of power in compelling unwilling tenants to occupy the edifice. Secondly, the tenants should be evacuated from this about-to-collapse edifice. Thirdly, after having taken the contractor, the builders and the guards out of circulation, a serious assessment of the building should be undertaken and a decision be reached on the viability of the edifice. If it can be repaired, mentally sound contractors and builders should be found by the tenants to undertake the repair job. If it cannot be repaired, then the edifice should be brought down and another erected in its place. The tenants must have a say in the elaboration of the plan, in the identification of the builders, in the choice of building materials, and they must supervise the building at each step. The new building does not need to have as many floors as the previous one. Indeed, it needs not be painted. What all the tenants want are functional utilities, security and comfort for all.

And the civil society? The civil society cannot be accused of having squandered any representation-legitimacy capital. They did not obtain one in the first place, but people tend to ally themselves to one cause or the other which the civil society represents. Civil societies appear to do more good than harm (see the abolition of slavery), whereas, those entrusted with power tend to do more harm than good. Committed members of the civil society are the guardians of morality and values that tend to check the tendency of those in power to steer humanity towards the savage state of nature where brute force is paramount – a world, where the survival of the fittest becomes the rule.

The disdainful claim of lack of constituency and thus representation-legitimacy of the civil society by those in power is a puerile attempt to discredit and discourage any form of organized challenge to their perilous-to-humanity power-driven excesses and negligence. If they would pause for a minute, they would remember that the social contract that binds individuals into a state allows for only one social contract with the government for their wellbeing. When individuals no longer trust those entrusted with power, they seek new alliances and form new social contracts. The emergence of these new contracts is the beginning of the end for any government – small or big, strong or weak, rich or poor. It is an unmistakable sign of a major crack in the edifice of the state, a sign that social relations between individuals and between groups of individuals and their governments have to be redefined.

There is no doubt that another world will emerge when those multitudes gathered at the World Social Forum in Nairobi become armed with the representation-legitimacy from the majority which they represent. A new social edifice in the place of this non-functional, and irresponsible one will emerge.

“Another world is possible” was the slogan for Nairobi World Social Forum. When this new world comes, those in power today shouldn’t claim that they did not have enough warning.