Adventures in the Spirit

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision…” I once received a public scolding from an “intellectual” for making allusions to God, faith and spirituality in this column. In that fellow’s thinking, such “anti-intellectualism” was infradig given my stature as an analyst and commentator. I ignored the guy of course!!! “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” This column is named “Economy, Polity, Society” for good reason-man is the object and subject of society, and even though he is concerned with economics and politics, as well as social forces confronting society, he is in his essence, also a spiritual being. It is difficult for non-spiritual persons (notice I didn’t say non-religious!) to understand how vivid and tangible God’s communications with His children can be-clearer and infinitely more precise than any earthly medium or alternative altar could be, informing those who rely on Him of the thoughts and plans of men, and of matters seen and unseen! I am a fan of Malcolm Gladwell and I have been reading his newest offering “David and Goliath” in which he examines in multiple contexts how apparently weaker entities defeat their “stronger” and “bigger” rivals and how initial “disadvantages” can turn out to be beneficial. Gladwell of course finds many “intellectual” reasons why David prevailed in that epic encounter with the Philistine giant, but for me it was a much more simple matter-“Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel…”. As with David, so Esther and Mordecai; Daniel; and the three Hebrew children! Of course the fate that befell Goliath was shared by Haman and the powerful people-princes, governors, captains and counselors, who conspired to throw Daniel into the lion’s den. As well as Pharaoh and his armies! Secular writers on power and politics often caution potential revolutionaries to beware not only of the kings they seek to overthrow, but often also the potential beneficiaries of their mission. I see a hint of this phenomenon in the case of Moses-“And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked that way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? Intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known. Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses.” May God save us from evil and spiteful brethren! Yet in spite of its obvious dangers, it is the duty, indeed the destiny of persons of integrity to speak truth to power and to seek to change society for better! That is what Jesus Christ, the prophets before him; and the saints and martyrs afterwards did!!! Even a little teenage girl, who probably never read the Bible, Malala, spoke against the Pakistani Taliban! However do not expect everyone to be like Christ, Elijah or Stephen! The Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Council and “religious” people never confront power-political, economic or religious!!! From the time of Christ, their “ministry” as outlined in Chapter 23 of the Book of Mathew has not changed! The real altars at which these categories worship are those of Caesar and Mammon! Many have become disillusioned and concluded that God has no role in saving Nigeria; that our easy resort to faith has become part of the problem, rather than solution; and our people instead of acting to confront societal ills, indulge in escapism of asking God to intervene. I agree. Yet I remain convinced that Nigeria’s problems are at least partly spiritual. Can you build a successful nation upon the blood of innocent people? Can a nation whose leaders indulge in unspeakable evil prosper? Can any good come out of evil covenants and spiritual bondage? Can a system founded on diabolical practices endure? Will God not look at many and say “These are the men that devise mischief, and give wicked counsel in this city”? Yet I believe Nigeria will become that which it could and should be, even though this may not happen in its current form. I deeply believe Nigeria will have to re-examine its structure and purpose. I speak both of our constitutional and federal structure and our spiritual essence. For those who continue to stand against Nigeria’s potential for their selfish interest, I have a retort-“This city shall not be your caldron, neither shall ye be the flesh in the midst thereof: but I will judge you in the border…”

The Politics of Boko Haram

I have previously written a two-part serial, “The Evolution of Boko Haram” on February 1 and 8, 2012 that chronicled the various phases and people in the emergence of that fundamentalist terrorist organization. My conclusion based on all the facts and analysis was that contrary to the contrived and pointless hair-splitting over whether it was religious, political or economic, “Boko Haram” like all human and social phenomena was multi-dimensional. There was religion of course at the core-an extremist religious ideology of a specie of political Islam which opposes secular or western education, advocates hatred and murder of Christians and Jews (and even opposing Islamic clerics), tolerates and even endorses suicide killings on promised reward of paradise (plus seven heavenly virgins!) and seeks to overthrow the secular constitution in favour of an Islamic Caliphate. How can anyone deny that these are religious motivations? There are social factors which predispose adherents to such mindless extremism-illiteracy, ignorance and social exclusion; and excision of young boys at very young ages from the family system through the Almajirai system of half-baked religious education, begging and occasional deployment by politicians, clerics and traditional institutions for violence in pursuit of political objectives; there are critical economic dimensions-poverty, unemployment, a complete absence in millions of young people, especially male, of any skills or competences and therefore their divorce from modern economic systems, and of course corruption which denies society the resources required to chart a different course for its citizens and leaves them without opportunity or hope. There are even aspects of a Kanuri “Liberation Movement” in the mix! Finally there are political factors-the early origins of “Boko Haram” in a clear political alliance with mainly All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) governors in the North-East Region of Nigeria and Kano; its ostracism and attempted destruction by its estranged sponsors and appropriation by new mentors and financiers; its transmutation from a locally-focused to a national political agenda as federal power slipped into Goodluck Jonathan’s hands; and its deployment as an instrument of undermining the credibility of the Jonathan presidency, both at home and in foreign embassies and capitals. This article focuses on these political aspects of “Boko Haram” and how the “amnesty” discussion fits into the overall picture. There is no doubt that in its early days, Muhammed Yusuf’s “Boko Haram” (BH) enjoyed a close relationship with the Borno State Government under Senator Ali Modu Sherrif and that Yusuf actually nominated a member of Sherrif’s cabinet. There is also no doubt that the group played a political purpose as enforcers to ensure ANPP’s defense against the federal PDP. The broader point in fact is that ANPP as a political strategy adopted Islamic intimidation as a bulwark against the rampaging PDP. While Modu Sherrif deployed BH, his Zamfara counterpart, Sani Yerima launched “political Sharia” and virtually all ANPP governors followed suit. While Modu Sherrif’s romance with BH is well documented, the group probably played a role in other ANPP states-plausibly assisting in the party’s take-over in Kano in 2003; Bauchi in 2007; and its successful retention of Yobe-Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim is an open and unapologetic supporter of Boko Haram’s agenda! There is evidence that some ANPP states made regular payments to BH. In the heydays of BH’s alliance with ANPP, its presidential candidate, both in 2003 and 2007 was General Muhammadu Buhari who is inextricably linked through his public comments before he became a politician, with the agitation for Sharia! There is no doubt that the underpinning of Buhari’s popularity in Northern Nigeria is the fact that the Islamic base trusts him. Soon however Modu Sherrif would fall apart with Yusuf and the group and would seek to destroy the Frankenstein he had nurtured! A second governor would have similar incentives (and this is little discussed)-Isa Yuguda of Bauchi who was on his way back to the PDP having married then President Yar’adua’s daughter. The attempt to destroy BH did not wholly succeed and the group would re-surface in 2010 as a pure terrorist organization! It also changed sides in Borno, apparently (as the matters of Senators Ali Ndume and Zannah, and late Ambassador Pindah suggest!) to the PDP!!! At the same time, national politics was changing and a Christian Southerner was defying Northern intimidation and opting to contest the 2011 polls. Soon BH’s agenda would transcend local and state politics! In spite of its military successes against the terror group, it is evident that the Jonathan Presidency lacks the local insight and support required to completely eliminate BH, and that having resolved to ensure Jonathan’s 2015 re-election plan is thwarted, the region has no incentive to help him solve the BH problem. As it is, Jonathan has two distinct but inter-related problems-the challenge of very difficult re-election prospects and a widening and intractable security challenge that undermines his governing credibility. “Amnesty” is being proposed to Jonathan as a magic wand to solve the two headaches, but I suspect it will solve neither! Amnesty will be meaningless to the core, religious BH and the spinoff Ansarul, for in their minds, they do the work of God and have reinforcing links to AQIM and Al Shabab. But a political/security BH will emerge to accept the amnesty and receive the funds appropriated for that purpose. This other BH will merely be an instrument for extracting political and economic concessions for the Northern elite from Jonathan.

Lessons from Benedict and Francis

Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger on 16 April 1927 served as leader of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2005 to 2013. Benedict was elected on 19 April 2005 in a papal conclave. Ordained as a priest in 1951 in his native Bavaria, Ratzinger was a highly regarded university theologian and was appointed full professor in 1958. After a long career as an academic, serving as a professor of theology at several German universities, he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977. From 2002 until his election as Pope, he was Dean of the College of Cardinals, primus inter pares among the Cardinals. He was "one of the most respected, influential and controversial members of the College of Cardinals" and was one of Pope John Paul II's closest confidants. Benedict XVI was elected pope at 78, the oldest person since Pope Clement XII (1730–40). He had served longer as a Cardinal than any Pope since Benedict XIII (1724–30). On 11 February 2013, the Vatican confirmed that Benedict XVI would resign the papacy on 28 February 2013, as a result of his advanced age, becoming the first Pope to resign since Gregory XII in 1415. In modern times, all popes have stayed in office until death. Benedict is the first pope to have resigned without external pressure since Celestine V in 1294. Benedict cited his deteriorating strength and the physical and mental demands of the papacy and declared that he would continue to serve the church "through a life dedicated to prayer". Pope Francis born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on 17 December 1936 is the 266th and current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. A native of Buenos Aires, Argentina, he was ordained priest in 1969. He served as head of the Society of Jesus in Argentina from 1973 to 1979. In 1998 he became the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and in 2001 a Cardinal. Following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February 2013, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi. Besides being the first Jesuit pope, he is also the first to choose the name Francis, and the first from the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was one of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant railway worker. Cardinal Bergoglio became known for personal humility, doctrinal conservatism, a simple lifestyle and a commitment to social justice. He lived in a small apartment, rather than the elegant bishop's residence, took public transportation and cooked his own meals, while limiting his time in Rome to "lightning visits". Instead of accepting his cardinals' congratulations while seated on the Papal throne, Francis received them standing, an immediate sign of a changing approach to formalities at the Vatican. During his first appearance as pontiff on the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica, he wore a white cassock, not the red, ermine-trimmed “mozzetta” used by the previous Pope Benedict XVI and the same iron pectoral cross that he had worn as Cardinal. Francis began his first blessing with "Buonasera" ("good evening"), breaking with the traditional formality at the event and asked those in St. Peter's Square to pray for the pope emeritus, Benedict XVI and for himself before offering his own blessings. At his first audience on 16 March 2013, Francis told journalists that he had chosen the name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, and had done so because he was especially concerned for the well-being of the poor. In both his first homily as Pope and in his first address to the Cardinals, Francis talked about walking in the presence of Jesus Christ and stressed the church mission to announce him. He emphasized the concept of "encounter with Jesus" and stressed that "if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord." He went on to teach that "When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil... when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly" (Sources: Wikipedia and news reports). Benedict and Francis offer refreshing and significant lessons in leadership to the world and to our nation. At a time in which people embrace power and high office for its own sake, Benedict walked away from one of the most powerful offices in the world because he recognized his inability to offer his best in that position. All over the world, and particularly in our Nigeria, many would have opted to stay and enjoy the benefits of the position. In a world in which so-called “leaders” do whatever the polls favour (whether its homosexual marriage or legalizing marijuana!!!), these are individuals who retain a moral and spiritual compass, irrespective of what the current liberal fashion is! At a time when many religious leaders are pre-occupied with worldly power and money, Pope Francis’ focus on the poor and shunning of the trappings of wealth and luxury is a positive reminder of the essence of our faith and his counsel against a worldly church (which is more or less a charitable NGO) is timely!