IN LIEU OF AN
INTRODUCTION:
THE WORLD HISTORIC
CONTEXT:
The defining characteristic of the present moment in world history
are; the Global and comprehensive crises of capitalism on the one hand; and the
Global and intensifying Resistance of the Victims of that crises on the other
hand!
The first has led the Global Ruling Classes and their allies not
being able to continue to rule in the Old Way (implementation of austerity and
belt tightening measures across the globe; cuts in social spending – removal of
subsidies; massive layoffs of workers; collapse of transnational corporations
and whole country economies and their consequent bailouts; brought
forward/early but inconclusive elections, and resultant hung parliaments and
resort to coalition governments etc): While the second has arisen from the
oppressed, exploited and ruled classes being no longer willing to be ruled in
the Old Way (hence the massive waves of strikes in response to the financial
and economic crises across the globe; the Arab spring; the Global Occupy
Movement; the general strikes across Europe – UK, Greece, Spain, Portugal,
France, Germany etc; the growing protest movement in Chile, India etc; The
January Uprising in Nigeria; The February Uprising in Senegal; and along with
all these, the toppling of governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Greece, Spain,
Portugal, Yemen, and ongoing civil war in Syria, etc). [This entire section is
an elaboration based on Lenin’s conditions for Revolution].
The resultant effect of the combination of these two sets of
conditions have been the ongoing and unfolding Global Revolutionary Crisis, of
which the January Uprising in Nigeria [and the act that triggered it – the
January 1st announcement of the hike in fuel prices] is an integral
part.
Both the Nigerian ruling class which adopted the mantra of subsidy
removal as the corner stone of its economic policy; and the Nigerian citizens,
the oppressed and over exploited working majority, who responded in anger and
unleashed the January Uprising were acting within this global context, within
this global social dynamic, within this global overt class struggle, and within
this global historic confrontation between the elite privileged and indulged
ruling class on the one hand; and the exploited, disdainfully dismissed
oppressed ruled working classes on the other hand.
However, it is important and significant to point out that whereas a
revolutionary crisis does exist globally as well as in our country; it is not
automatic or historically fated that the outcome will be a victorious
revolution. There are in fact three possible broad outcomes; A revolutionary
victory, leading to the taking of steps to begin the revolutionary social self
emancipation of the oppressed and exploited classes, and the revolutionary social
transformation of the society; A second possible outcome, is the victory of the
counter revolution – either by conservative [those who intend to main the
essence and appearance of the status quo intact] or by reformist [those who
recognize the urgent necessity to change the appearance of the system in
response to the demands and anger of the revolution, but who are intent on
retaining the essence of the system intact] wings of the ruling class; And
finally there is also a third possible outcome – the mutual exhaustion of the
opposing classes in struggle, that is of both the revolutionary and
counter-revolutionary forces; and the elevation into power of a third force,
arising from the middle classes, wedded to the ruling upper class, and
attempting to arbitrate between the contending classes while granting reforms,
intensifying repression, and retaining the essential character of the old order
[Fascism was such an outcome, the various police state dictatorships under
military jackboots, are some other variants of this outcome].
It is in this sense that it is true that every revolutionary
situation is also conversely, that is at one and the same time, a
counter-revolutionary situation; because revolutionary victory is by no means
automatic and inevitable.
THE JANUARY UPRISING:
If anyone still doubts the revolutionary implications of the January
Uprising, then we should take a deeper look at interpreting the actions and
inactions of the major social forces who were locked into this historic, and
quite overt class confrontation, which had moved from the realm of the mere
daily and routine class struggle, to the realm of the more intense class
warfare in the space of days.
The January Uprising was triggered in the immediate sense, by the
instant debilitating impact of the January 1st announcement hiking
fuel price by the unprecedented 118%. The effect on living conditions was
immediate and generalized touching both the lower and middle classes adversely.
Trotsky it was who once said that to a slap on the cheek, human beings react
differently; but to being hit by a sledge hammer, human beings will react in
the same way. This was what the impact of the January 1st
announcement led to: generalized anger and a willingness and yet unconscious
determination to fight back.
It was this seismic shift in popular consciousness which the regime
and the fractions of the ruling class cohering around it failed to understand,
factor into their calculations or eventually recognize when it hit them in the
face! They were unable to understand this seismic shift, manifested in this
generalized anger and action because from the very beginning their analysis of
the situation refracted through the bighted spectrum of the comfort of the
ruling and privileged elite, had prevented them from ever contemplating that
such an action would have such a grave impact on the poor, let alone the middle
class! Those elevated to the position of running our economy could not and did
not understand the very nature of that economy; the centrality of the availability
and affordability of petrol to the stability of the conditions of existence of
the ordinary citizens in particular, and the stability of the economy and
polity in general! Haven never had to pay for petrol from their own pockets
over the last decade and a half, they could not understand the impact of their
policy of hiking fuel prices on the majority of the citizenry who have to pay
for the product from their meager earnings, and who also do not have access to
looted state funds!
But confronted with the anger which erupted into organised mass
protests almost immediately, and particularly from the 3rd of
January; and which became significantly enhanced with the conscious entrance of
organised labour through the two labour federations from the 9th of January;
the regime became overwhelmed by the scale, scope, and also [let it be said]
implications [immense potential] of the Uprising.
It was in this sense that the regime began to put pressure on the
leadership of the uprising, and began to strategically deploy psychological
warfare on the leadership. One approach was to continue to hammer on what it
called the deteriorating security situation; the hijack of the protests by
hoodlums [impoverished youths created as a result of the policies of the ruling
elite, which have exiled a sizeable portion of the population to live on the
fringes of society]; including the allegation that the general strike and mass
protest was providing a platform for their political opponents in the
opposition to undertake what the regime called
a regime change agenda. And every now and then, throughout the Uprising,
and in the course of the engagements between the government side and the
leadership of the uprising, the specter of bringing in the army to restore
order was always brought into the fray. The leadership would also be reminded
that the army is not trained to control crowds but to suppress the enemy!
It was because the regime was aware of the revolutionary
implications and potential consequence of the January Uprising that it raised
the boogie of deteriorating security situation [whose security? The peoples’
security? Or the regime’s security? Throughout the Uprising there was no single
threat from Boko Haram etc!]; the boogie of a regime change agenda by the
political celebrities; and the subtle threat of bringing in the army to crush
the resistance, which it termed restoring order.
But why was the political opposition slow to organise its own
protests under its own banner, but quick to seek to take advantage of the
popular protest and literally graft itself to the revolutionary podiums
provided by the uprising? Why was it quick to sensationally associate itself
with and project the limited regime change agenda? Because it felt that an
Uprising was taking place, outside of its control, capable of overturning the
status quo, and sidelining it, relegating it to a foot note in the historical
process. So for two reasons, it had to seek to intervene in the process and be
seen to be intervening on the side of the popular masses. So it had to graft
itself to the podiums everywhere across the country, and sought to take control
of the process. It was helped in this process by a media steeped in
sensationalism, and who unwittingly became a tool in the hands of the political
opposition, and began to ascribe the movement and the protests to the
leadership of the opposition. But let it be said very clearly; the opposition
parties played the most deceitful roll in the uprising. We know the ruling
party had an official position backing the regime’s policy; but the opposition
parties which made public declarations against the policy and in support of the
popular protests; had their leading representatives on the joint government
delegation which engaged with the joint labour-civil society delegation; which
with one voice and one voice piled pressure on the protest leadership to call
off the strike and mass actions, and which were part and parcel of the
psychological warfare strategy deployed against the joint labour-civil society
delegation/leadership.
But why did the joint labour civil society leadership also act in
the manner that they acted throughout the Uprising?
From the very beginning there was a common awareness, even if not to
the same degree and level, of the potential of the crisis to deepen and raise
more fundamental questions about control of state power.
Although there was no common agreement on how this possibility might
be handled. The labour leadership was limited by the structure and horizons of
the trade union movement; the historic role of the trade union is to mediate
between employer and employee, and the historic role of the leadership of this
trade union therefore is to organise and undertake this mediation. So from the
very beginning, unless it broke with tradition and convention, unless it is
compelled by a force from outside of the union movement, it would structurally
limit itself to negotiation and mediation. It was in this sense that this
labour leadership found itself in a bind, when compelled by its alliance with pro-labour
civil society and citizens organisations [primarily organised into the United
Action For Democracy (UAD) & Joint Action Front (JAF); it was given the
mandate of total reversal to 65 naira – that is to say a mandate not to
negotiate any new price, but only to negotiate a return to the status quo
before January 1st and the conditions under which proper all
embracing dialogue, consultation and negotiation would take place. [By all
embracing it is meant, a discussion that includes tackling all the issues in
the petroleum sector – corruption, state of refineries, determining actual
daily consumption, etc].
Noticing that the labour leadership felt uncomfortable being in this
bind, and was therefore more susceptible to pressure and psychological warfare;
the joint delegation of the regime [including leadership of the NASS,
Representatives (7) of the Nigeria Governor’s Forum, and Representatives of the
Federal Executive Council of the Federation] began to implement an agenda of
subtly introducing a wedge into the Labour-Civil society alliance, disparaging
civil society as being unrepresentative, beholden to foreign interest and local
political interests etc.
The impact of this was the effective [temporarily in historical
terms – because our alliance is a conscious and obligatory solidarity, not an
act of charity] ‘parting of ways’ between the labour [NLC & TUC] &
Civil Society [UAD & JAF] components of the Labour-Civil Society Coalition
[LASCO] which became apparent in the late evening of Sun 15th
January into the early hours of Monday 16th January 2012. This
division which was already visible in the composition of the delegation that
met with the presidency and the joint government team during this hours, became
even more evident when the separate components of the alliance addressed
separate press conferences on the 16th of January 2012 – Labour, at
labour house at 1pm; and Civil society at CDD office at 2.30pm. At the 1pm
press conference, the labour leadership announced the unilateral call off of
the general strike, after earlier unilaterally announcing in a press statement
the unilateral call off of the mass actions and street protests! At the 2.30pm
press conference and in subsequent separate press statements [by UAD & JAF], the civil society component of
the alliance announced their rejection of the newly imposed price regime in the
January 16th address by the president, and the unilateral call off
of the actions by the labour leadership.
Why did this happen? Both the labour [NLC & TUC] and civil
society [UAD & JAF] had come to an understanding of the deepening character
of the crisis, anticipated by the civil society leadership from the beginning;
but each drew separate conclusions from this understanding. For the labour
leadership, it was time to retreat, to safe guard the unions from repression
which was imminent and had already been placed on the agenda; and which was
going to be unleashed from the 16th of January if there was no
resolution by the 15th of January. For the civil society [UAD &
JAF], this was the time to intensify the actions, to up the ante, by for
example beginning the shutdown of oil operations and the actual more or less
permanent occupation of strategic places across the country. We had no doubt
that if the deepened general strike and mass protests entered the second week
across the country, that the regime will be faced with the choice of either
throwing caution to the wind and beginning a brutal repression as in Syria or
Libya before it; or will cave in and return to status quo ante. After-all we
had offered the regime a 90 day window of opportunity after a return to status
quo ante within which a genuine dialogue process aimed at addressing all the
issues in the sector would take place.
So in very concrete terms all the parties to the conflict
encapsulated by the January Uprising were aware of its revolutionary
implications and potentials, and were guided in their responses by these
awareness and the various class interests that they sought to protect in the
crisis.
THE UPRISING ON THE
STREETS:
There can be no doubt now that the January Uprising was
unprecedented in the history of our country, both in its scale – active mass
protests & general strike (occupying of the streets and work stoppage); in
its scope – happening simultaneously across the country (in virtually every
state of the federation and across well over 50 cities and towns); but also as
well as in its impact on popular and pan Nigerian consciousness – the retreat
of primordial identities (muslims & Christians praying and marching
together – 1st undertaken in Kano even in the pre January 9th
days; people from different parts of the country and from all works of life
marching together across the country).
The most significant expression in language of this new Pan Nigerian
Consciousness and Unity, was the concept and symbolism of OCCUPY! Every city
where action took place described itself as Occupy; some new groups emerged and
actually adopted the name Occupy Nigeria [which was expressed as either Occupy
Nigeria City-State Chapter e.g Occupy Nigeria Abuja chapter; or as Occupy –
name of the city/state, e.g Occupy PortHarourt & Occupy Kogi. In one of the
most visible expression of this new emergent reality; all media coverage was
filled with stories of Occupy activities; and security agents also admiring the
new Occupy spirit of Nigerians as in the expression by some security agents:
‘Nigerians are just Occupying everywhere’.
One other clear manifestation of the spirit of the new times, which
demonstrates the nature of the seismic shift in popular consciousness and the
real opportunities for change and transformation were incidences on the street
when members of the police force actually either joined/participated in marches
or very clearly cooperated with protesters during the protests; or when
security guards at the gates of the National Assembly [NASS] or the gates of
the villa, whisper to the joint labour-civil society delegation not to
compromise and to protect the interests of ordinary Nigerians!
More significantly however was the actual build up of the street
protests and mass actions in the course of the uprising! Each new day, a new
city or town would join; and each new day the population actively participating
in the protests would double or increase significantly! Lagos and Kano
attracted active participants in the millions; and Abuja attracted
unprecedented population of active participants in the region of half a million
by Thursday 12th & Friday 13th of January 2012.
The slogans on the street were also changing and with it came more
political demands! The regime and its supporters had thought and even boasted
that the protest would not take place; and when it actually began, that it
would not last more than 2 or 3 days! This was responsible for the flurry of
activities including the House of Representative resolution procured during an
unprecedented session of that house (– on a Sunday and with members recalled
from holiday!) on January 8th on the eve of the general strike and
nationwide mass actions! It was also responsible for the panic mode of the
regime after Wednesday 11th January, when the federal government and
the governor’s forum through the instrumentality of the leadership of the
Senate took over the negotiations and engagements, with the active supervision of
the presidency. From that moment on it was clear that the regime wanted a
resolution within that week!
The firs flurry of activities spearheaded by the House of
Representatives was to prevent the general strike and the nationwide mass
action taking off; the second flurry of activities under the presidency and
anchored by the Senate leadership was to terminate the general strike and
nationwide mass actions as soon as possible, and to prevent it entering a
second week.
In this everyone seemed to be agreed that entering a second week
without some resolution would deepen the crisis to a degree where its outcome
could no longer be safely predicted. On the streets in response to the
disbelief of the regime in the sustainability of the mass street protests by the
masses; such slogans as: ‘They said we shall be tired after 3 days; but if they
do not meet our demands, we shall be tired of them after 5 days’! The import of
this on a sitting government could not have been overlooked!
UNDERLYING THE SEISMIC
SHIFT IN CONSCIOUSNESS:
Driving this popular anger unleashed was the deleterious and
instantly debilitating impact of the January 1st announcement on the
overwhelming majority of the citizens. It was this anger, which neither the
regime nor the ruling class fractions cohering around it could understand; that
also drove the deepening of positions on the streets as the intransigence and
insensitivity of the regime became even more manifest.
Two sets of social forces in broad generational terms, came together
to make the Uprising: The first were youths, and their new formations, inspired
by the Arab spring, threatened by the impact of the global financial and
economic crisis, and unencumbered by the tempering experience of previous
defeats, since they had not been parts of those earlier upheavals, and had
therefore not directly tasted in the defeats even if they had been inspired by
tales of those experiences.
The second were the veterans of the past upheavals, experienced,
having a clearer understanding of the situation and its potential, but hampered
by excessive caution, a product of past defeats and repression.
But the coming together of these two generational activist forces,
over the previous period of organising, mobilising, and awareness raising in
several forums and through several media, including active and political use of
the new social media; produced a combustible mix which was set alight by the
impact of the January 1st Announcement!
Of course neither of these generational activist formations acted
outside of class; rather they acted more or less consciously within parameters
defined by the class struggle; and played more or less class conscious roles in
the making of the Uprising from the beginning of active awareness raising in
about July-August 2011, to the tentative and preparatory direct mass class
actions undertaken in a number of cities between October and December 2011
[Benin, Ibadan, Lagos, Osogbo, Ilesha, etc].
THE IMPLICATION OF
OCCUPYING:
What does it mean to Occupy? And quite a number of seasoned and
experienced activists had either dismissed or questioned the strategy of Occupy
in the period leading up to the January Uprising.
To Occupy is to project a counter power to that of the ruling class,
to that of the status quo; or any of its institutions being targeted. So it
presents a range of counter power projections from say the management of a
corporation/business; through the symbolic power of whole sectors of the
economy (for example Wall street symbolizing the financial sector]; through the
political power of a part of the state and or its territory [say against a City
council etc]; to the political power of the state/country – through the initiation
of the Dual Power Situation [as with the Occupation of Tahir Square, Benghazi
etc] and the victorious supplanting of the existing state power by the popular
organ of power which had been at the core of the initiated Dual Power
Situation.
Therefore to proclaim an aim To Occupy Nigeria; and proceed to
organise mass actions executed as Occupying parts of the territories of Nigeria
as part of Occupy Nigeria; is to at the very least declare an unconscious
intent to radically transform the nature of the polity and the social order. It
is a call to revolution, a prelude to revolution.
To want to Occupy Nigeria; is to seek actively or passively,
consciously or semi consciously the Revolutionary Social Transformation of the
Socio-economic Order in the Country; it is to desire a rupture with the past
and present so radical and abrupt as to constitute a Revolutionary remaking or
reconstitution of the entity.
This is what the ruling class understood by our actions in the
January Uprising, but which consciousness was and is still not yet equally
clear to all the social elements, social forces and individuals who
participated in the January Uprising.
And against the backdrop of the continuing rot in the system, the
continued business as usual processes as if nothing happened in January; this
is what needs to happen to Take Back Our Country From the alliance of Treasury
Looters and Cabals in Business and the Economy. It is this sense that we need
to find ways of deepening our revolution; prepare for the next uprising [which
will soon enough be forced on us again]; and Continue Our Revolution until
victory!
LESSONS OF THE JANUARY
UPRISING:
In lieu of a conclusion; what can we learn from our January
Uprising? What must me take from this uprising to inform our participation in
the next uprising in such a way as to assure a different, and revolutionary
outcome from this time around?
1.
2.
This political platform must
retain the alliance with organised labour, but must be autonomous and strong
enough to actually be a check on the waverings of the labour leadership, and
act without the labour leadership while taking the mass of working people
organised in the trade unions with along with it.
3.
The Social Media can and have
played a quite significant role in the mobilisation of popular consciousness
and in raising awareness; but it cannot substitute for real live organisations,
and concrete real live organising activities. In this sense it can only
supplement the organisation. It can play effectively play the role of a
collective Organiser, Educator, Mobiliser for a conscious political platform.
If we do not take concrete steps to build this political platform,
we leave any uprising that again occurs open to being hijacked by dissident
sections of the ruling class, or what is saying the same thing; we risk letting
these opportunist elements, who have a stake in retaining the essence of the
status quo, become the beneficiaries of the uprising; as they became in the
aftermath of our anti military struggle and the Uprising triggered by the June
Twelve Crisis!
By
Jaye Gaskia
National Convener
United Action For Democracy [UAD]
March 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment