By Jaye Gaskia
For better
or for worse, whether we are conscious of it or not, the recently inaugurated
National Conference is and has become a very hotly contested political process
and institution, a theater of increasingly intense overt Class [Political]
Struggle.
Why is this
so? From its very beginning, social forces and social formations represented at
the conference had begun to reach out, to announce the political demands of
their platforms, to seek to build possible alliances, as well as to maneuver
for domination of the conference.
Let us go
through a series of hotly contested processes within the National conference to
highlight the way and manner that this National Conference is fast becoming the
main political arena of class struggle in the current period.
Each of the
battles that have been waged have been won, lost or stalemated. One of the very first battles was over the
rules and procedures as a whole. Before the inauguration of the conference, a
set of rules had been compiled, and printed out in booklet form, dated March 10th
2014. It did not read proposed draft rules; its title was very clearly put as
the Rules of the National Conference. From this it was clear that a number of
delegates were suspicious, and that it was possible to read into the printing
& publication of the rules into booklets, a possible intent on the part of
the government to present the published rules as a fait acompli; otherwise why
was it not just typed out in A4 sheets, titled proposed draft rules, and
presented to the delegates before being printed, published and dated? The first
battle and victory was to get the rules to be subjected to the process of
plenary deliberations and adoption.
Secondly
there is also the major battle over how committees were to be constituted.
Delegates fought for and won the right of delegates to not only play a
determining role in the constitution of the conference committees, but also the
right of committee members once constituted to elect their own presiding
officers. This is a significant battle and victory in that it represented a
successful process of reclaiming control over the National Conference
proceedings by the delegates. Once we factor in the fact that the bulk of the
work of the conference will be undertaken in the committees, the significance
of this battle and victory becomes amplified. Why does this represent a process
of reclaiming control over the conference? Because of the very fact that the
convening authority is the FGN, and it had exercised that authority in
appointing the presiding officers of the conference. There were speculations
that the government and the appointed conference leadership had already
prepared a list of committees and their presiding officers. The very obvious
reluctance of the conference leadership to accept the decision of conference to
have committees elect their presiding officers gave some credence to this
speculation.
Again there
has been a very hot contestation on the authority and mandate of the
conference; and there have been angry defense of the existing constitutional
order as well as angry assertion of the supremacy of the NASS and existing
status quo over the National conference. These assertions have also been as
hotly and angrily disputed, with an emergent notion of the autonomy of the
conference by a few but increasing number of delegates. In this view the
processes of the ongoing National Conference, depending on the eventual balance
of forces and power within the conference, propelled by altered balance of
power and forces outside the conference could lead to the emergence of a new
constitutional order, even possibly the inauguration of a new social
transformation process.
This very
debate and contestation is very closely related and linked to the contestation
over where sovereignty lies, with the state and its institutions; or with
citizens. This sovereignty debate is reflected in the position around the call
for or against a referendum as the mode of validating the outcome of the
conference.
The
contestations over supremacy and sovereignty will continue throughout the life
of the conference and beyond; in particular with respect to what to do with the
outcome of the conference when it has concluded.
Also related
to the dispute and contest over the referendum is the contestation over whether
the National Conference should be open to active participation of citizens
through the submission of memos or not. Again forces in defense of the status
quo came out opposed to participation of citizens through submission of memos.
A Gain the forces of change on this matter won a clear victory with the
overwhelming approval by conference to seek for memos from the public. The
committees once constituted will continue to deliberate and receive memos
simultaneously. Sections of the elite ruling class are scared and
antagonistically opposed to any idea which they consider represent an opening
for the intrusion of the masses into active political life in general, and
active life of this very political national conference in particular.
We must add
to these the contestation over press coverage. After long and again contested
debates, conference expunged from the rules a clause which if retained would
have meant effective gagging of the press. Furthermore a move to have some
so-called executive sessions of conference plenary held behind closed doors and
without media presence was also defeated.
Taken
together, the debate on supremacy of the conference, on sovereignty, on
referendum, on taking memos from citizens and on media presence and live press
coverage go to the heart of the issue of popular participation in the
conference, and popular ownership of the conference.
And of
course a major battle has crystalised around the basis for decision making in
the conference; whether this should be on the basis of consensus or not is more
or less now fully agreed. Conference delegates will try as much as possible to
reach consensus on issues. But if the conference fails to reach consensus, as
will happen with many fundamental issues, how is a binding decision to be
reached? There are now two views being hotly contested, and over which the
conference has stalemated during this week. These are whether decisions should
be reached by a three-quarters majority as proposed in the rules; or by
two-thirds as is being canvassed by a majority of delegates.
Although it
is important and will be quite significant to aim for consensus on issues, but
the very class character of interests forecloses the possibility of consensus
in the class struggle every time or even many times.
A compromise
of 70% maybe reached by the select committee now saddled with the
responsibility of finding a way out of the impasse; and this may be agreed by
the entire conference in plenary early next week.
Nevertheless,
what is becoming clearer is that there is a broad range of interests within the
conference across the political spectrum from the far right and ultra
conservative forces, through the center to the far left.
Furthermore these
broad range of social forces are crystalising broadly into two emergent
alliances engaged in a struggle over the present and future of Nigeria, and
over the relationship between classes. One of the broad category is clearly engaged
in a battle to conserve and preserve the status quo; while the other broad
formation is engaged in a battle to transform, transcend and change, if not
overcome the current status quo.
The very
depth and intensity of this contestation by this emergent, fluid and dynamic
broad alliances, which is at the moment not yet fully conscious of themselves;
can be gauged by some of the unguarded utterances on the floor of the
conference, the threats of walkouts, driven by panic and fear over the sudden
and increasingly manifest realization that this conference is opening a Pandora
box for the ruling elites; that it can go anywhere, and that it can lead to yet
undetermined outcomes which will be very detrimental and unpalatable to the
collective and factional interests of the thieving treasury looting ruling
class.
It is
because the National Conference as a contested Arena of political class
struggle, because of the internal and external dynamic of the class struggle,
that the National Conference retains its inherent character of a potential,
that requires to be activated and realized.
It is in
this sense that it is upto us to decide and determine whether this potential is
worth activating and realizing through robust critical engagement with the
content of the conference, with respect to the issues that will be hotly
contested within the conference; or whether the focus should rather be a
continued insistence that flies in the face of reality that this conference is
a distraction, and therefore insist on continuing to engage with trivialities
with respect to the form of the conference.
But whatever
the choice we make individually and organizationally; let us be clear that it
will amount to an engagement with the conference; with the fundamental
difference being whether this engagement is with the fundamental issues or with
trivialities; with the content of the conference or with its form.
On our path
we have made a conscious decision to with; this conference’s potential is worth
exploring, worth activating, worth realizing; and through a robust but
critical, inside-outside, and during-after engagement with the issues and
content of the conference as a process.
(Follow me on Twitter: @jayegsakia
& @[DPSR]protesttopower; Interact with me on FaceBook: Jaye Gaskia &
Take Back Nigeria)
