Are Revolutions Really Worth the Hassle? – By Dr. Jideofor Adibe

Posted by admin Articles, Columnists, Jideofor Adibe, PhD, NNP Columnists Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

By Dr. Jideofor Adibe, London, UK – July 27, 2011 – The report by the Vanguard of July 8 2011that tens of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets to defend the ‘revolution’ that toppled President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt in February 2011 was very instructive. According to the report, the protesters directed their anger at the new military rulers over the slow pace of reforms. One protester was said to have carried a banner, which read: “We haven’t felt any change. We removed Mubarak and got a field marshal.” He was referring to Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which took power in February. The armed forces, hailed as heroes at the start of the uprising for not siding with Mubarak, have come under fire from local and international rights groups for alleged abuses.

The speed with which the heroes of yesterdays have become the villains of today in Egypt raises the question of whether revolutions really accomplish anything, especially at a time when calls for revolution in our country has gone mainstream. While the goals of any revolution are usually lofty and populist – a desire to quickly change the society or its institutions for the better, the tendency for revolutionists to use a very simplistic approach for a highly complex problem also means that when the dust settles after the revolutionary flourish, so many unintended consequences usually beget the question of whether the entire effort is worth it. Apart from the recent demonstration in Egypt, consider also the following examples:

The American War of Independence (1775-1783) was spurred by a noble protest against taxation without representation. Though America’s victory helped to spread a belief in the principles of republicanism, it also sharply polarised the country and subsequently led to a bitter civil war. Some critics today argue that looking at how America has shaped up since independence in terms of education, freedom of expression and quality of life, it is not substantially different from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which did not follow such a revolutionary path. The cost of the war was also to bankrupt France, without whose military and financial support, America would not have won the war.

There was also the French Revolution (1789–1799), fought primarily to overthrow absolute monarchy with its feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy. The revolution, fought under the noble ideals of ‘freedom, equality and fraternity’, quickly became a caricature under Robespierre and his Reign of Terror. Not only did the revolution fail to give France a representative government by the people, or prevent a rapid return to autocratic rule, ‘revolutionary’ France also fought the most savage of all wars in the 1790s to preserve slavery in Santo Domingo (present-day Haiti and Dominican Republic). So much for freedom, equality and fraternity! In fact, some historians today regard the French Revolution as a terrible waste of time and blood because whatever positives came out of it were equally accomplished by many countries such as Britain with much less bloodshed.

Again consider the Russian Revolution – a collective term for the series of revolutions in Russia in 1917, which succeeded in destroying Tsarist autocracy and creating the Soviet Union. Today, the Soviet Union has since imploded and Russia is not more democratic or more economically advanced than most other European countries that did not embark on such a revolution. Many historians today question whether there was indeed any benefit from that revolution, which led to the loss of millions of lives and replaced Tsarist autocracy with other dictators – from Lenin and Stalin to Putin.

Consider equally the Iranian revolution that toppled the rule of Mohammed Reza Shah more than 30 years ago. The revolution ushered a period of unprecedented hostility to the West and helped to radicalise the Middle East. Almost overnight, the West’s most steadfast ally in the Muslim world became a violent and volatile enemy, where mass crowds raised their fists to chant “death to America”. Within months of the revolution however, the euphoria had evaporated as rival factions began a brutal battle for the control of the country, which ended with a repressive state that imprisoned and executed thousands of political prisoners – including many of the revolutionaries. Today some Iranians, including those who participated in the revolution, openly wonder whether it was worth it and what the country really achieved from it.

In Nigeria, benefits from what could be called our own ‘revolution’ are also questionable. Consider this instance:

In 1966, Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu’s Supreme Council of the Revolution of the Nigerian Armed Forces, which said it wanted to “establish a strong, united and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife”, ended up unleashing forces that culminated in a civil war. Today, more than forty years after Nzeogwu’s ‘revolution’, Nigerians look with nostalgia to the society the young Majors riled against.

From the above, my personal opinion is that the system dynamics in most countries favour evolutionary social progress rather than a revolutionary one. While the philosophy of most revolutions has an emotional appeal, in reality, only few revolutions are successful or worth the effort. This for me should be a caution to those advocating for a revolution in the country. True, there is a justifiable anger at the direction that things are going in the country – palpable decadence, pervasive insecurity, endemic ethnic and religious strife and a country perpetually tethering on the brink of collapse and mediocrity – the solution may not be to destroy the house and rebuild it from scratch. We will still need the building to shield us from the elements while the reconstruction is going on.

I believe the most urgent challenge facing the country today is finding a strong and focused leader who will be a unifier, a healer of wounds which each and every constituent part of the Nigerian arrangement feels it has suffered. Our nation-building project has truly come unstuck. Without the cogs in this project being carefully removed, we will only be dancing in circles. At the moment we seem to have Nigeria without Nigerians – or at best Nigeria with only half-hearted or episodic Nigerians. Unfortunately the process of de-Nigerianisation – many otherwise ‘proud Nigerians’ by birth consciously or unconsciously renouncing their Nigerianness or subordinating it to other primordial identities – appears to be increasing at an alarming rate. If Jonathan’s presidency can resolve the crisis of the nation state, that will be an incremental progress that can be worth more than any revolution. If a succeeding regime fixes the electricity problem in a sustainable manner that too will be a remarkable piecemeal progress. The worst nightmare for Nigerians will be a regime that leaves no lasting legacy or squanders those he or she met on the ground.

UBA’s self-inflicted PR disaster

A new rule at the United Bank for Africa increasing the minimum balance for savings and current accounts for customers of the bank to N25,000, has turned out a PR disaster for the bank. The new rule, which takes effect from September 1, 2011, led to a flurry of de-marketing text messages from the bank’s justifiably angry small customers. The negative messages, which were also transmitted through the social network media sites like Facebook and Twitter claimed the new account balance regime in UBA was a means by the bank to cover a hole in its books. As if this was not enough, the Deputy Governor, Banking Operations of the Central Bank Tunde Lemo was reported as saying that the new minimum bank balance directive did not receive any approval from the banking sector regulator.

Despite UBA’s explanations, I strongly believe that its new directive will seriously undermine current efforts to bring the un-banked and under-banked Nigerians into the banking system. It was pathetic the way most customers of the bank learnt of the new directive.

Jideofor Adibe is a columnist for the Daily Trust (Thursdays back page) and on the paper’s editorial board. He also teaches political science at Turkish Nile University. He is equally the publisher of Adonis & Abbey Publishers (www.adonis-abbey.com), a London-based publisher of books and journals. He can be reached at: [email protected]wp_posts