I am enormously pleased to be in the midst of distinguished delegates from the private and public sectors, including members and non-members of the Nigerian Institute of Management (NIM) for the 2019 annual National management conference. I am also highly honoured to speak on a paper with the sub-theme “Security Conflict and Information Management,” and to be the moderator for the break-out session.
Read Also: Citizens’ role in Nigeria’s global affairs
At the dawn of the 21st century, Nigerians agitated for a re-introduction of democracy as a possible answer to persisting problems of bad governance, instability, economic hardship and insecurity that seem to characterise the country then. Since 1999, Nigeria has embraced democracy as the system of government.
Democracy, with its flaws and weaknesses, is truly suitable for us, provided it can be made to work effectively and, even more importantly, fairly. For almost a decade, anybody with an intellectual interest in national security cannot but be taken aback by the general climate of insecurity and uncertainty in the country.
Nigerians and our friends in the international community are concerned about what is responsible for this bleak security picture we witness today in Nigeria? Some scholars want to know if democracy can survive without security. Others want to know the link among security, leadership and development. How can Nigeria manage the challenges of democracy? Is our democracy threatened because we do not have a strong democratic culture?
Is it that our security planners do not have a clear perception of what is required to provide security for almost 200 million people? Or does the country lack the capacity-human and material to provide security for its citizens? Can we attribute the current insecurity to poor security management strategy? The questions are endless.
It is against this background that this presentation seeks to provide a platform for a robust discourse in order to proffer strategies to manage Nigeria’s security challenges.
Security
The concept of security is a complex one that covers every sphere of human endeavour. Security means different things to different people depending on their intellectual preference and/or socio-political perception. That is why it does not have a universally accepted definition.
People feel secure or insecure because of several reasons. Some people feel secure because they are self-actualised. For some, they see security as having to do with war. For this category of people, they feel insecure when there is conflict. While others feel insecure because of situations within their environment that cannot make them live long and enjoy a good life. There are people who feel insecure because of uncertainties in the polity arising from frequent loss of jobs, devaluation of the local currency, increased taxes and tariffs, and incessant supply of electricity.
There are also, non-military threats such as famine, ecological disasters, and even destruction of a nation’s resources without recourse to arms which are no less devastating than military threats. All these have a negative impact on people. In fact, some scholars see security from a broader angle to include the whole gamut of human security needs.
McNamara, however, got the crux of security when he claims that, “Security of any nation or entity lies not solely or even primarily in its military preparedness but also in having a stable economic development and political growth at home and abroad.” The common element to all perspectives on security is that of protection against threats either internal and/or external.
Nigerians and our friends in the international community are concerned about what is responsible for this bleak security picture we witness today in Nigeria
In a broad sense, security connotes freedom from, or elimination of, threat not only to the physical existence of the country, but also due to its ability for self-protection and development, and most importantly, the enhancement of the general well-being of the people.
Conflict
Conflict is a disagreement between parties when they perceive a threat to their interests and needs. Conflict can be between individuals, communities, or even countries. There are mechanisms to resolve conflicts. But when conflicts are not well managed, they gravitate to war between countries involved. War may be seen as something conventional. The use of armed conflict as war and war as armed conflict is semantics because both are pervasive human behaviour and are naturally destructive.
Indeed, the use of the conflict concept coinciding with peculiar wars of terrorism and insurgency as we have them currently may be an attempt to deny the damaging nature of such wars. The risk here is for policy decision makers and implementers who may not consider an evolving situation as war in the offing until it engulfs the polity with its mysteries.
This fear was brought to focus by an observer of the Nigerian polity who says in an article, “The great unravelling– the disintegration of the Nigerian state” that as the strength of the state wanes in Nigeria, communities are increasingly militarising themselves and resorting to self-help. The navel of his scholarship is that if the conflict continues unchecked, it’s not going to be a fiery event, but slow and lethal with pockets of conflicts pervading the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
In fact, other observers are of the view that: “If Nigerians continue to die in large numbers in the hands of insurgents, armed robbers, kidnappers, bandits, militants, herders, farmers, communal warriors, and cultists amongst others, then democracy as a system of government will be discredited and no one will raise a finger to save it.”
Countering terrorism and insurgency have become sustained endeavours of many nations of the world. There is no universal remedy for countering the affliction. However, a soft and hard approach have become methods of choice. On the soft side, good governance, dialogue, amnesty and the like have been employed. On the hard approach, the employment of intelligence to nipping their acts in the bud as well as paramilitary and military confrontation have also been used.
Some principles have been established such as the four D’s: “Defeat terrorists and their organisations; deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists; diminish the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit; defend your citizens at home and abroad.”
With respect to counterinsurgency, five principles have been emphasised: “Clear political objective, establish a stable and unified country; coherent plan, coordinating actions in economics, social, security, etcetera; secure government base areas; operate within the rule of law; prioritise defeat of political subversion.”
Insurgency and terrorism are wars of the 21st century and they do not just emerge but are triggered by many contending issues in contemporary time such as the environment, insecurity, growth in information and communication technology, globalisation, religion, ethnicity, bad governance, corruption, population explosion, nationalism and identity issues. (To be continued.)
MA Johnson
