Goodluck V Buhari: Illusion of Choice, Stockholm Syndrome Democracy And The Futile Search For A Messiah

I would love to see Buhari win the general election. Don’t get me wrong. I do not like Buhari I also do not trust him as far any inclined person can throw him. However, 2 things possible outcomes to him winning the election obviously appeal to me. One, he could be as magnificient a leader as his blind followers hope he will be – that can only be good for Nigeria. Or he could be as horrible as I expect him to be and how I would love to laugh in some people’s faces. FYI, I am currently taking down names. Jokes aside, it is disheartening to see people missing the point. We are engaging with the process in the wrong way. Let me illustrate with the following points.

The Illusion of Choice
We have been conned to believing that we have a choice in our destiny. Either choose Goodluck or Buhari. Those are your choices. Nothing else. By inference one of them must be credible, right? We just have to be discerning and the gates of nirvana in Nigeria will open. I hear you. A choice between Buhari and Goodluck is like making a choice between being shot in the arm or the leg. All the arguments in support of either candidate are a perambulation on how we can do without one limb or the other. I wish we could envisage a situation where no shooting can occur. We need to be smarter in our engagement with the governance process and not wait for elections to pretend as if we have a choice.

Religion/Faith
Preoccupation with the candidates’ private religious practices is misguided, disingenuous and wrong. It is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I urge all Nigerians to desist from it. International media does not help by insisting Nigeria is divided by a Muslim north and Christian south, as if that has anything to do with governance, leadership and politics. As a Christian person myself, I don’t think faith has anything to do with someone’s ability to do a job right. That is all the presidency is, by the way, a salaried job. (More about that later). I can imagine going for a job interview and saying, ‘these are my qualifications, this is my requisite experience and oh! Furthermore, my being a Christian (or any other religion) trumps all of that.’ Then I sit back smugly and wait to be ushered into the job like a superstar! Hmmph! That is as ridiculous as it sounds. So stop it!

Democracy/Good governance

I am not a fan of democracy. I do not know anyone who truly is for all the hype it gets. Democracy is an ideology, a state of absolute bliss a condition of often unattainable perfection of governance. It relies on viable institutional structures, engaged populace, accountability and consequences for improper use of the power of the state and abrogating the desires of the people. The history of democracy indicates that any nation-state that adopted democracy successfully evolved into it. Modifications were made to adapt it to pre-existing governance structures. Any nation-state upon whom democracy was imposed (mostly post 1960) suffers from an incongruence between democracy and pre-existing governance structures and international political ideology. Democracy thrives in societies that are individualistic and causes conflicts in states that are communitarian in nature, because it attacks the fabric of community; just like adversarial systems of dispute resolution destroys relationships while conciliation repairs them. The Nigerian mentality sees democracy as a means to eat to the mystic ‘National Cake’ (which no person has bothered to prepare). Democracy in Nigeria is purposively appropriated by the political elite and used to empower politicians and not populations. It is the currency at which our oppression is bought.

The Search for a Messianic-Saviour Leader
One of the biggest mistakes we make in elections and our articulation of them is the search for someone, whose position in the presidential seat will be a cure for all the ills of the nation. The person the ‘cap fits’, the ‘solution to our problems’, the ‘only man for the job’ as if there was any such thing! Firstly, if 160 million corrupt people have a righteous leader the nation will be corrupt and no change will ensue. The leader is a fruit of our own poisonous practices, only when we fail to disobey ordinary laws, do not appropriate funds, do not use our office to benefit our own stomachs can we ask a president to do the same. Secondly, the presidency is a salaried position, no more, no less! A lot of the manifestoes out there fall short of a job description. As long as our politics lacks ideology, we will elect personalities that we know nothing of. I do not personally know Buhari or Goodluck, but a lot of the arguments I am hearing in support or detraction of either makes me think that maybe some people are living with these men without the knowledge of any one else. Politics should not be about ideology, but about policies on housing, education, immigration, economic resurgence, defence etc. not about who used to be Buhari’s driver, honestly I don’t care a fig for that!


Stockholm Syndrome Politics
‘Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.’ [Source: Wikipedia] Sound familiar?

We have now, arrived at place in history that we believe that making the most of a bad situation is the only option. If we do not educate ourselves on the fallacies of the arguments placed before us, if we do not divorce ourselves from the groundless prejudices imposed upon us, if we do not learn our own history, if we do not take some responsibility for the governance of our country for our own sakes…then we are the clueless ones.

Ebola and R2P; Africa and the International Community: 5 Definite Lessons from the Ebola Crisis

I feel exceptionally well placed to write this piece. My Ph.D thesis was titled ‘R2P and the Responsibility to Prevent: A Legitimate and Structural Framework for an International Non-Military Responsibility to Prevent Mass Atrocity and Internal Conflict in West Africa.’ In my thesis I focused on the preventive arm of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and human rights violations, to emphasise the range of potential international responses to the crimes of R2P and systematic human rights violations that are available to the international community. However, one of the main aims of that thesis was to examine the tension between detrimental involvement by the international community in the internal affairs of states, on the one hand, and the responsibility which the international community may have in preventing human suffering in such states on the other. Therefore, I examined the interplay between national and international obligation, especially the obligation of the ever-elusive ‘international community.’

In April 2014, the first cases of Ebola were brought to international attention. The outbreak started in Guinea, but quickly spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone with isolated cases in neighbouring Senegal and a transported outbreak in Nigeria. Without a hashtag to cling to or an ice bucket challenge to surmount, the world largely ignored the outbreak. It was not till selfless American and British aid workers, who contacted the deadly virus, were flown to their respective homelands for treatment, that the mass hysteria of an imminent biological apocalypse caused several governments around the world (outside West Africa) to begin to consider what they may do to avoid the virus killing their own citizens. Nevertheless, by October 2014 infections had occurred in the US and Spain. There are various lessons which I would like to point out from the foregoing.

1.      The international community is pure fiction. While the phrase ‘international community’ is used to imply a common point of view, that commonality is almost always overshadowed by personal and political self-interest. The UN and WHO, both seen as evidence of the existence of an international community, have barely managed to get a handle on the crisis. The crisis could have been contained with adequate readiness by a cohesive international community in April 2014, but the lack of such a community has resulted in unnecessary loss of life and increasing expenditure. There is also no anticipated ended to this current outbreak. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29654974. Over 4 000 people have died and the WHO thinks the numbers may rise to 10000 before it is contained. Lesson one: Relying on the international community is like sitting on a chair made of tissue paper, it will let you down.

2.      R2P is severely handicapped by a non-existent international community. The core of the responsibility to protect (R2P) is simply encapsulated in this statement ‘Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.’[1] The responsibility to protect is divided into 3 parts; a responsibility to prevent, a responsibility to react, and a responsibility to rebuild. The vision of the architects of R2P clearly covers a situation such as the current Ebola outbreak, where populations in West Africa are suffering serious harm, and the states concerned are unable to prevent it. The international responsibility to protect cannot be fulfilled if there is no international community to bear such a responsibility. This is more so as regards the first part of the continuum, i.e. the responsibility to prevent. Lesson two – R2P without a functional international community is like a toothbrush with no bristles, completely redundant.

3.      If the international community is to be built, it should start from a sense of human oneness. Our understanding of community is based on the fictional presumption of shared values. These shared values rarely result in shared action unless, shared interests are at stake. This is exhibited in continuing multilateral military action in the Middle-East and inaction or delayed reaction to Ebola in West Africa. Concepts such as universal human rights will not gain any traction till we see the human race as one. When we do not need to appeal to people to imagine someone dying is someone we know, when the basic fact of their humanity will suffice to ignite our compassion, when all life has equal value, then we will have an international community. The existence of an international community does not require more resources, the world has enough, though unevenly distributed. The international community requires more humanity, not values nor interest, but compassion and human kindness, not rhetoric or bombast, but consistent acts of benevolence. Lesson three – calling the international community a community without any sense of communion is like calling a cactus plant a rose bush, placing it in your parlour and hoping the fragrance will adorn the premises.

4.      Africa must look to herself. Now more than ever, Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, must realise that self-sufficiency is required. Aid has solved no problems, interventions have probably done more harm than good, and the recommendation of constant elections, have become a smoke-screen for undemocratic democracies. Both Liberia and Sierra Leone are unable to handle the current Ebola outbreak due to the lack of manpower and infrastructure that have resulted from sustained yet preventable conflict (I suggest you read my thesis, its only about 99,000 words long give or take a few hundred). In contrast ever-tense Nigeria, and sporadic-conflict-hit Senegal contained Ebola WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL HELP. Imagine if those states were more functional. A cure would have been found a long time ago.  If you can contain Ebola, you can build up economies live in peace and achieve mastery of geographical space. Look to yourselves, adopt your own solutions, do good to all men. Lesson 4 – if a man lives at the bottom of a hill, during the flood, he should be the first to build flood barrier. Nevertheless, the fellow at the top of the hill who thinks he is safe, has no way of escape.

5.      We are one world, one human race. “The world has become like a drum – if hit on one end, the whole thing will vibrate.” We need to desist from alterity, stop playing the ‘us’ and ‘them’ game. I am you and you are me. They are us, and we are them. Lesson 5 – Different colours, shapes and sizes, different creeds, ideologies and religions – but we breathe in the same air, walk on the same planet, lie under the same stars and Ebola can kill us all.

---

[1] ICISS (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. xi, emphasis mine.

Who are we?

The everlasting conundrum of the people called Nigerians has raised up such phrases like “geographical expression”, “geographical entity”, “artificial creation”, “colonial creation.” Are we a state in the true meaning of the word state? Hobbes theorised that a state is created to bring and end to the anarchy or individualised existence and Locke proposed that the creation of state was for the protection of life and property. We all know that this does not apply to Naija.

Naija was created out of the consolidation of British ‘real estate’ adjacent to the river Niger. It was named by the lightskirt, and later wife of the ‘estate-manager’ of the real estate. It was never administered as a state but as a well-spring of resources to a greedy eyed empire. It only became a state at the end of colonialism because the US was throwing its weight around (what’s new?) and insisted on states being created as opposed to a return to status quo ante of the real estate.

54 years after ‘independence’ (supposedly we are independent) we still have no conception of who we are. This has been further obscured by irresponsible leadership, selfish international influence and apathetic ‘citizenship’. (can we call ourselves citizens if we do not belong to a state stricto sensu?) In 1966, the talented Mr. Peter Enahoro wrote a book titled “How to be a Nigerian” which while being comical and insightful managed to capture the essence of the southern-most part of Nigeria alone. Our 3 main languages are a great insult to over 500 languages spoken by ethnic Nigerians, which are slowly dying out in favour of those 3. The supposed main tribes of Nigeria are minor compared to the 400 others which nobody cares to know about. How can we be Nigeria when we do not know what Nigeria is?

We have had a state imposed on us, leaders imposed on us, languages imposed on us, a way of life imposed on us. At over 50 years we are reminiscent of a retarded vegetable, who will never answer to his name, we are abandoned, despised a paraplegic parasite, constantly soiling himself. A deranged billy-goat meekly being led to the slaughter while frantically bleating out the name of its ancestors. Now more than ever before, we need to take this moment in time, and the first time in history decide our future; throw of our chains; refuse to be led by morons. Now more than ever before, we have to find Nigeria and then find our way home, wherever home may be. For our children... for their future...

Personal Legal explanation of Oscar Pistorius Verdict

Here is my considered legal opinion to the reaction on the verdict in the Oscar Pistorious case. (Which we will all have forgotten about next week). I hope anyone reading will approach with an open mind...

It is for the prosecution to prove that OP is guilty and not for OP to prove that he is innocent, furthermore, we do not have all the evidence before us, but a summary distilled for us by a biased media.

So first we have the physical act of killing which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) this was not disputed by the defence. Second we have causation. i.e. did the act of the defendant OP cause the death of the Reeva? That was not also in dispute.

To sustain a conviction you have to prove BRD that the above happened while the defendant had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to R or another. The intention is not diluted by the intention to kill or cause GBH being directed to another. This is where I think the prosecution did not exercise diligent prosecution by trying to prove and 'either or' case. They tried to prove that OP had intention to either kill R in a fit of rage OR kill an intruder with intent.

What this means for the standard of proof is that each alternative weakens the proof of the other alternative.

Let me illustrate. Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP killed R with the requisite intent? No, because they suggest that he may have been aiming to kill an intruder. So intent is not proved BRD.

Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP intended to kill an intruder with the requisite intent? No, because they maintain that he may have had intent to kill R.

By maintaining both alternatives could have happened the prosecution introduced reasonable doubt that either alternative happened. I believe they intended to prove the OP killed R with intent, but while they were still sub judice (course of trial) they realised their evidence will not suffice for proof BRD. Had they evaluated their evidence properly BEFORE trial they should have gone with the second alternative.

Mistaken identity does not dilute intent. Thus if A intended to kill B but killed C, subject to the actus reus being proved, A will still be guilty of murder.

The difficulty in proving the mental element or mens rea of murder is why there is a whole raft of other convictions available for unlawful killing which give the judges the discretion to sentence relative to the seriousness of the crime, taking into account the purposes of the legal system in its penal regime.

The judgement is not that OP did not kill R. the judgment is that the prosecution has not proven OP guilty of murder - murder is a technical term having strict legal definition as is culpable homicide.

Judicial interpretation Oscar killed Reeva (caused her death), but he did not murder her. He was negligent in his actions which fell short of that of a reasonable person and thus caused her death.

Personal Legal explanation of Oscar Pistorius Verdict

Here is my considered legal opinion to the reaction on the verdict in the Oscar Pistorious case. (Which we will all have forgotten about next week). I hope anyone reading will approach with an open mind...

It is for the prosecution to prove that OP is guilty and not for OP to prove that he is innocent, furthermore, we do not have all the evidence before us, but a summary distilled for us by a biased media.

So first we have the physical act of killing which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) this was not disputed by the defence. Second we have causation. i.e. did the act of the defendant OP cause the death of the Reeva? That was not also in dispute.

To sustain a conviction you have to prove BRD that the above happened while the defendant had the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to R or another. The intention is not diluted by the intention to kill or cause GBH being directed to another. This is where I think the prosecution did not exercise diligent prosecution by trying to prove and 'either or' case. They tried to prove that OP had intention to either kill R in a fit of rage OR kill an intruder with intent.

What this means for the standard of proof is that each alternative weakens the proof of the other alternative.

Let me illustrate. Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP killed R with the requisite intent? No, because they suggest that he may have been aiming to kill an intruder. So intent is not proved BRD.

Did the prosecution prove BRD that OP intended to kill an intruder with the requisite intent? No, because they maintain that he may have had intent to kill R.

By maintaining both alternatives could have happened the prosecution introduced reasonable doubt that either alternative happened. I believe they intended to prove the OP killed R with intent, but while they were still sub judice (course of trial) they realised their evidence will not suffice for proof BRD. Had they evaluated their evidence properly BEFORE trial they should have gone with the second alternative.

Mistaken identity does not dilute intent. Thus if A intended to kill B but killed C, subject to the actus reus being proved, A will still be guilty of murder.

The difficulty in proving the mental element or mens rea of murder is why there is a whole raft of other convictions available for unlawful killing which give the judges the discretion to sentence relative to the seriousness of the crime, taking into account the purposes of the legal system in its penal regime.

The judgement is not that OP did not kill R. the judgment is that the prosecution has not proven OP guilty of murder - murder is a technical term having strict legal definition as is culpable homicide.

Judicial interpretation Oscar killed Reeva (caused her death), but he did not murder her. He was negligent in his actions which fell short of that of a reasonable person and thus caused her death.

Never Stop Singing

Like every Sunday I had spent on the university campus, this Sunday was no different. 8 am and I was dressed to the nines and cramped into the uncomfortable seats of the amphitheatre huddled up to withstand the biting wind, sometimes I wondered was this tradition or belief? But still I came. After a brief opening prayer, Timi took to the mic, to begin the opening praise session, as a member of the choir myself I understood the gruelling practice that came with leading the praise session. Timi and his four back-ups would have spent at least 8 hours in the previous week perfecting the routine. Such rigorous practice was not helped by the fact that as a student fellowship we could only afford crackly mikes and very, very substandard instruments, the drum-set sounded like pots and pans and the keyboard like a strangulated cat, but we didn’t let that deter us. Wires criss-crossed the stage in haphazard lines that spoke the fact that they had been hastily connected at 6 am that morning just to be disconnected at 10 am. Whatever sound produced by the singing team was quickly dispatched out of the amphitheatre to the open air surrounding it because the theatre was semi-covered.

We all stood to join in the singing despite the shortcomings I have hitherto listed. We had all learnt to ignore such things. Contentment actually comes from not having everything. So with great gusto we joined in the singing led by Timi. Timi being a guy of great exuberance had us dancing and clapping with such enthusiasm that MJ could not rival, supposedly. All was going well till we got to on of my favourite songs which has only one line sung differently over and over. “Lord you are an awesome God.” Maybe to signify how ecstatic he was Timi attempted to come down off the stage to join the crowd with this one. With the microphone in his left hand and his right lifted up to heaven he sang, “Lord you are an awesome God.” He took one step down the stage singing, “Lord you are an awesome God.” Unfortunately the wires I mentioned earlier had become wrapped around his foot while he had been dancing and singing.

As he tried to take the final step down, those wires gripped his foot so hard, it almost seemed as if a hand was wrapped around it. They pulled him back sharply so that in mid-descent from the stage he was dragged into a horizontal position for a split-second with his feet suspended over the stage and his upper body over the concrete floor. The next second with a resounding crash, he landed fully prone on the concrete floor. The back-ups sang on “Lord you are an awesome God.” While we waited to see if Timi had been called to heaven. Moving his mic hand to his mouth he sang “Lord you are an awesome God.” Raising himself on one knee he sang, “Lord you are an awesome God.” And finally fully upright he sang “Lord you are an awesome God.” And went on with the program as if nothing had happened.

After the program we checked him over to ensure that he was okay. He was fine. I haven’t seen Timi in years, but the message of his actions stay with me. Don’t wait till you are declared fine till you start again; don’t wait till you rise again before you continue; in short never stop singing.

The ‘Final Solution’ (not what you think) for Africa: How to solve Africa in 5 ‘easy’ steps

Africa has long become the poster child for war, famine and disease. Of course I really mean sub-Saharan Africa or in un-PC terms ‘Black’ Africa. I believe the solution is as simple as the solution I would give the fellow banging his head against a brick wall and taking paracetamol.

1.      The former colonial masters, in fact the rest of the international community should apologise and admit they got it wrong with the whole colonialism and state creation wahala (malarkey). It is interesting that there has never been any concrete apology for colonial rule. (Someone once quite ‘kindly’ told me that there should not be any apology since the colonists are no longer alive. I wonder why Bill Clinton apologised for the racist behaviour directed at Jack Robinson…). So what this apology signifies is accepting that it is undemocratic to create countries without the agreement of the people within their highly artificial borders. So all the fruits of the Scramble and everything that came before should be nullified, that is colonial states, post-colonial states, neo-colonial states, international legal recognition of any of these boundaries, any attitudes, policies or practices or attitudes that insist in the rightness of the foregoing.

2.      All Africans especially the leaders should accept the apology gracefully. Truly African leaders have no reason to be proud. At least the international community thinks they are taking the moral high ground by insisting on the rigid implementation of foreign Westphalianism by imprisoning people within borders and into situations they have no say in. African leaders have acted out of personal greed and extreme foolhardiness. No man steals from his own pocket… no man except African leaders. If you build roads, you are unlikely to have an accident on a bad road, if you build hospitals, you will have somewhere to run to in case of a medical emergency, if you build good schools, you will spend less on foreign education. The people are not blameless either, Africans seem to be struck by an intractable apathy about their own socio-political condition. We cannot be roused to protest government policies, but will be the first to queue up for a hand-out arising from dishonest government policies. Anyone swimming in a pool of ordure will climb out even if there is some personal risk of using the shaky ladder propped up beside them…Anyone apart from African people.

3.      Next, after all states and sub-state structures have been dismantled (which with the situation of post-colonial state in Africa should not take much) everyone has a choice to pledge allegiance to the place(s) where they live or their great-¹⁰grandfather’s place of origin.

4.      Once all towns have an idea of the people who belong to them, they should decide together how they want to be governed. They do not have to adhere to Westphalianism/market economy/democracy. If they want to form a partnership with another town, they should write a letter to request partnership. It’s a request; it can be rejected. Each town owns the resources within their territory. Any partnership agreement must be subject to an agreement to resource distribution and use (not control) and leadership structure.

5.      Why would anyone fight or starve then?

While I wish this recommendation will at least be given some consideration, greed and self-interest make that unlikely. Any with a better idea, I would definitely like to hear it. Honestly!

DrAjao: Nigeria vs Iran, World Cup 2014: My Crazy Interpre...

DrAjao: Nigeria vs Iran, World Cup 2014: My Crazy Interpre...: Super Eagle? Okay I'll just let you know I don't know much about soccer so stop me when I'm wrong. Nigeria faced Iran at 3PM...



An interesting interpretation

On the criminalization of offensive language in private conversation (aka the 'Sterling' effect) through the eyes of a Nigerian

I believe that in Nigeria, we are lucky not to have the politics of the 'other', a situation that implies the complete objectification of another group to help to get the primary group to a mental state that will permit the oppression of the 'other' without moral repugnance. There is constant use of 'othering' in race, gender and identity politics. In societies where this othering has formed part of the societal landscape e.g. the USA and slavery, there have been attempts made to 'unother' the 'other.' To do this attitudes have to be changed. Attitudes that 'other' are frowned upon and punished in various ways. But what is the content of the subject of punishment? In this case, its racism... a racist is punished to either cause him/her to change or to exhibit to others that such attitudes are repugnant to society. Now if we examine this clearly, we realise that what is being punished, i.e. the being racist, is a state of mind. A state of mind is a fact, but it is a fact that is impossible to prove. The only way to prove it is my words spoken in private or in public. Now the truth of the matter and the problem  rightly identified by many, is that in themselves words are not racist. Furthermore, a true racist is unlikely to use such terms in public as he/she is well aware of his own racist nature and will not want to advertise it. Therefore, we are left with the fact that an attitude/state of mind can only be punished and proven by statements - and that should not be conclusive proof. Depending on which society you live in, this will apply to race, gender, lifestyle, ethnicity, religion etc. My position therefore is this, racism, misogyny and intolerance of ANY kind is unacceptable. The purpose of punishments is to change people’s attitudes so the evidence will of necessity limit a person’s freedom of thought. The other option will be to allow people to continue in these attitudes and situations such as the Holocaust, Slavery, Genocide, Apartheid, Jim Crow, will occur unchecked. Because it is the IDEOLOGY that lives on in these events; the names my change, but its evil spirit lives on, stubbornly refusing to die, despite our resolute insistence that we live in a post-racial, degendered, multi-cultural world.

If I had to choose, I would prefer to curtail my talk in public and in private and give a rethink to my attitudes about groups I would naturally 'other' for whatever reason than to live in a world in which 20 million people would be stolen, subject to the horrendous Middle Passage, used as livestock and sexual objects, tortured and raped, their offspring though free persistently subject to degradation, discrimination and humiliation. This does not mean that I think it is a perfect solution, I just think it is the one we have for now. Any maybe one day, evil othering ideology will cease to be. We can always dream, can't we?

Hit the child

I read some comments yesterday about corporal punishment in a Nigerian primary school. They made me think deeper about our attitude to ‘discipline’. Why do we hit children? To punish? To correct? To change them? Do we HAVE to? Our response is that we were beaten and we are not damaged, but aren’t we? Looking across various societies in the world, we realise that ours is tinged with an element of violence. We do not hesitate to use a fist when a word will suffice, and if we are not of the physical bent to use a physical fist we use a verbal fist – our aim is to obliterate our opponent. We are not born violent – violent is learned. Now, I completely believe that if you spare the rod, you will spoil the child, but discipline is not as synonymous with beating as we seem to think it is, and the import of that verse is sometimes figurative. A life is delicate, and more so a child’s life, before leading a child down a spiral of violence, we need to take a step back and think. Think about your life and what ‘discipline’ did for you. Were you always beaten for the right reasons? I am not saying never discipline your child, but think each time would a word or a rebuke suffice? If it would why go for a beating?

I strongly believe that a lot of the violence in our society is traceable to growing up with in a society where violence is common place. We no longer bat an eyelid – a typical day you wake up:

Next door neighbour is whipping his son,

The other neighbour is cutting down her husband with her tongue,

On the way to work the conductor slaps a passenger,

A police officer rams his gun butt into an okada man’s face,

One of the Ogas in the office cuts everyone down to size with verbal missiles,

A customer threatens to use his contacts with army to show everyone pepper,

When you finally manage to log on to the internet you are faced with the usual stories…

A man who used his own child for rituals,

Gang rape, jungle justice, indiscriminate bombing, general loss of life.

We can pull back on the violence in our society a little bit, if when we can use our fists we stop and think about the best way to proceed, it’s not a reactionary measure, but should be well thought out. So before you hit the child, stop and think, of his/her tomorrow and all our tomorrows, before you hit the child.