Address by

His Excellency President Olusegun Obasanjo

on the occasion of Burundi Peace Negotiation

Arusha, Tanzania 27 March 2000

GOOD GOVERNANCE & PEACE

THE NIGERIAN EXPERIENCE OF THE MILITARY

PROTOCOL

It gives much pleasure to be here and to address this meeting where the noble objective is to find lasting peace in our brother nation of Burundi.

I wish to commend my dear Brother Madiba Nelson Mandela for his efforts and contributions to the realisation of this meeting. Madiba has drawn strength and energy from his well-deserved retirement to demonstrate an African value which we must always cherish: namely, that we care for our brothers and sisters. It is part of that tradition that peace is indivisible, the pain of one is the pain of all.

Madiba, as we know, took over this responsibility from another great son of Africa, the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. When asked once what he would most like to be remembered for among his outstanding leadership achievements, Mwalimu answered: ‘for trying’. This peace process for which we are gathered here today is one of numerous monuments to a life dedicated to the service of our beloved continent of Africa by Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. He has tried and we must continue to try.

First and foremost, the one cardinal lesson we in Nigeria have learnt in nation building is that there is no substitute for democracy, and there are no shortcuts within the process of nation building and development to the attainment of democracy.

In the multi-ethnic setup of Nigeria, like most other African countries, there is bound to be differences as to the goals and objective of building a nation. These differences have to be given expression. It is a fundamental right of every individual to freely express his or her thoughts about the nature and management of the society to which he or she belongs. This is why dialogue is an imperative for democracy. For it is only through the process of dialogue that mutual understanding can be achieved. And without mutual understanding, it is virtually impossible to even begin to logically and sensitively consider the positions of those whose views may be different for the purpose of reaching responsible, fair and just solutions.

One of the fallacies of military intervention in politics is that it seeks a forcible solution to the socio-political problems arising from conflicting views within the society. Unresolved differences often lead to violent confrontation with obvious threat to the stability of the nation. The planners of the first coup in Nigeria believed that politicians were behaving irresponsibly by allowing their differences to stand in the way of national progress. They thought they could simply suppress those differences, kick everybody into a disciplined commitment to national goals and all other problems would automatically be solved. They were wrong and tragically so.

As you are all aware, rather than stay suppressed those differences exploded, the consequences of which was the bitter civil war that many soldiers like myself fought most reluctantly but nonetheless to the very end because it was the only way we could rescue our nation from disintegration. At the end of the civil war, the solution to our political problem really started when we established a constituent assembly of representatives of our people to fashion out a new constitution and terms of co-existence with one another.

The other lesson which Nigeria has to learn from military incursion in politics is this: When the military says it is handing over power, the decision must not only be unequivocal by the leadership and within the military, but must also be seen by the general population as total commitment.

Let me now illustrate with my personal experience. In 1975, a section of the Nigerian military saw that dilly-dallying on the question of handover to democratically elected government was beginning to breed resentment and damaging the image of the military. Hence the change of government in 1975. The new regime which I was part of and eventually headed, had at the top of its of agenda: the return to civil by rule. First we drew up a programme that was time specific, then we proceeded to keep to that programme in minute detail.

In order to stick to our programme we had to resist all temptations to the contrary. And there were a few of those: what if the elections failed to produce clear results? What if the civilians made a mess of things and the country was sliding into chaos? What if the logistics of the elections failed? What if the politicians were to once again start quarrelling among each other? And what of the possible influence and interference from external interest?

And many other scenarios that would seem to require that we hatched a contingency plan. But for us any of these scenarios would be mere excuses, and to consider them would pose a strong risk of nurturing self-fulfilling prophecies. By this time we had resolved that all problems will have to find democratic solutions in which there was only one way for the military regime: out!

Twenty years later, the second successful transition of last year further confirmed that the only way to achieve military exit from politics was in the determination of the military themselves to quit for good. By this time, my immediate predecessor in office had even stronger reason for not contemplating any other options:

►     1] The image of the military as a corrective regime had been irreparably shattered.

►     2] The military had woefully failed to solve virtually all political, social and economic problems

►     3] In the face of hostility from the general population the military regime retreated into itself and could only justify its existence through repressive tactics and escalating tyranny.

►     4]The existence of military rule had made Nigeria into a pariah nation within the international community

►     5] There was pervasive corruption epitomised at the highest level of government.

►     6] The demise of professionalism in the military - the one attribute that made military regime seemed appealing in the first place.

Having survived to tell the tale, we can look back now with a sigh of relief: Nigeria was on the edge of a precipice, any suggestion of a day longer for the military would have tipped our nation into disaster of unimaginable dimensions.

It is a delusion that the military has quick-fix solutions to the human problems of the society, particularly such culturally and ethnically diverse societies that we have in Africa. Inevitably military rule, which is rule of force, destroys its hierarchy and professionalism through corruption, nepotism, favoritism and tribalism. The military will destroy itself in true fulfilment of the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the society, with its innate resilience, usually survives but with the trauma of picking up the pieces.

I believe I speak for the majority of my countrymen and women that 29 years of military rule, out of the 40 years of independence was more than enough. We thus say never again! to military rule. One year of the current democratic dispensation has afforded an opportunity to internalise that lesson. In 1983 there were severe problems with the elected government of the day, hence the euphoria that greeted military intervention. We now know that it was a monumental error to have denied the electorate the chance to pass its verdict on the Government. The electorate is responsible for electing a government, and the electorate should be the final arbiter on whether or not that government is good enough for them. Any other process of removing or replacing a government would be tantamount to short-circuiting the democratic process, and that will invariably lead to disaster.

That after 40 years of independence and nation-building, we in Nigeria still talk of learning process, is part of the price we are paying for military incursion into our politics. I personally estimate that military period preceding our Administration set the country back by no less than twenty years. Whatever the merits of military rule, it is by nature antithetical to democratic principles, and therefore cannot inculcate it as part of the progress of society. To put it bluntly,the longer the military are in power so long will the society lose its vital habit of thinking creatively and democratically and solving its problems accordingly. And come the day the military have to leave power, as they invariably must, the society will begin from scratch to imbibe democracy.

The process of building democracy after military rule is of necessity a rough and bumpy one. The recent events in Nigeria bear testimony to this harsh reality. I refer to the tragic events surrounding the Sharia debate that many of you may have heard about in the international news. This episode, like some other minor ones, are products of cleavages within our society since the beginning of nationhood. We have record of democratic efforts to resolve them, but the military in its usual style repressed them. Now they are bubbling to the surface. And we thank God for that, as democracy means we can all sit down and discuss them, understand them, and reach conclusions of just, equitable and lasting solutions that are, most important of all, agreeable to all. Only democracy can make this possible. This is because the first premise of democracy assumes that every citizen has a stake in the society and with it the responsibility to find ways and means of co-existing with others, no matter their ethnic origin or religious creed.

In Nigeria, we are irrevocably and totally committed to the path of democracy as the only way forward. Realistically, there is still the possibility of setbacks and hiccups, but we will not be deterred because there is no alternative to the goal of democratic ideal.

Our brothers and sisters of Burundi, must note that peace is not a means. Peace is an end in itself. A life without peace is not worth contemplating. Your stake in the society is peace, so also is your dividend from the society. To those Brothers and Sisters who now hold the reins of power, I say: the greatest and the most enduring legacy is peace. Peace is the foundation of all development and progress. It is either there or not there: We need peace everywhere - at home, at work, in our family, in our community, in our locality, in our country, in our continent and in our world. There is no substitute for peace. And any sacrifice is worth making for peace.

May the God of Peace grant us all this abundance of peace.