The speed of the Taliban overrun of Afghanistan, despite 20 years of conflict with the United States, has continued to send shockwaves globally and generate recriminations. The almost complete lack of resistance of the Afghan security services and the flight of the nation’s political leadership triggered one of the largest airlifts in history, as NATO moved to evacuate Afghans who had worked with the coalition and, with good reason, feared for their lives in a government led by the Taliban and its Deobandi fundamentalist form of Sharia.
Here at home, the reactions to the Afghan catastrophe have been varied. In the middle of our nagging security crises, there have been various talking points that have been raised by many, with diverse conclusions drawn from them. But rather than seeking real lessons, many have used it to strengthen already held beliefs.
The similarities between Nigeria and Afghanistan are more than skin deep. Both are large countries with a multiplicity of tribes that maintain strong identities independent of the state and have a history of conflict amongst them. They also have a history of weak, corrupt governments and an elite class that have grown disconnected from the masses. Both countries have also struggled with large religious fundamentalist insurgencies that have weakened the state and conflicted with attempts to build a democratic society.
These similarities raise serious concerns about the short and long term trends for the Nigerian state. The recent security challenges confronting the nation in recent times, including a recent attack on the nation’s military training academy, highlights serious shortcomings in the protection of lives and property. This has come despite the allocation of significant resources to the various security agencies. The increasing deployment of military forces, including airpower, to confront internally raised groups is a pointer that many of the soft power tools have either been abandoned or do not yield significant results. The ability of secessionist groups to ground activities in South Eastern states, despite threats from the governors, shows how eroded their authority has become.
The recent dispute between the Federal and State governments, and amongst different states, on the collection of Value Added Tax is a warning that even amongst the political elite, informal means of dispute resolution are being abandoned for more public, confrontational approaches. However, we must also realise that there are stark differences between the countries. The Nigerian state, despite various challenges, has continued to exist as a continuum since independence in 1960. The various mechanisms of government have continued to act in their various capacities despite periods of significant disruptions. And the authority of the state, although constantly challenged, has never been fully overthrown except during the civil war of 1967-70.
Even when the state has been challenged in a contest of arms, no single group has exercised the kind of unity, resilience and acceptance that the Taliban has achieved to seize power in Kabul. Even among groups acting in the same area or towards the same goal, they dissipate as much strength engaged in internal power tussles, undermining each other as they do confront the state. And when these groups cross the redlines of authorities, the government has shown its ability to degrade these groups, even though they have shown far lessurgency to answer the social, economic, cultural and historic questions that allow such groups to thrive.
What this implies is that should the state ever fall, it will more likely be a descent into multiple fiefdoms run by warlords with a weak nominal centre rather than multiple groups uniting under a single banner to overrun the centre and establish a new government. Even today, what the various security issues demonstrate is more of a failure to proactively identify and resolve longstanding grievances that breed conflict rather than an incapacity of the state to impose its will. However, as the multiplicity of crises and riots have shown, enormous costs (both human and economic) can be imposed while the state struggles to restore law and order.
In all of the noise and hubris, the most important lesson of Afghanistan hasn’t be heeded. Despite almost 2,500 American military casualties and $2 Trillion in defence and civilian expenditure, the Afghan government was brought down primarily by the corruption of the Afghan elite and their failure to look beyond their self-interest to build a state that caters to the majority of the governed. When the Taliban began their offensive, many cities fell with little resistance as provincial and military leaders either abandoned their troops or took bribes to order them to lay down their arms. Despite promises of resistance, President
Ashraf Ghani fled Kabul before the Taliban threatened the city, precipitating its fall and causing the frantic rush to evacuate westerners and over a hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. What is clear is that no amount of military force can overcome the structural deficiencies that continue to undercurrent Nigeria’s ills. Political leaders must seek to identify the needs of ordinary Nigerians and meet them where they are. They must begin and sustain the reforms that, while robbing them of power, will ensure the long term viability of a peaceful Nigerian state. Only until when they realize that the current issues aren’t outliers but a new trend of those left without opportunities turning against the system. Only by building the state, and opportunities for those who live in it to make a respectable life, can we turn around the trend of violence-for-profit that continues to bedevil our society. This means that the state, and those who govern it, must change direction soon. Before Nigeria looks even more like Afghanistan.
Olawuyi, an aircraft engineer and geo-security analyst,sent the piece from…
END
Be the first to comment