• *BEING THE PRESENTATION OF DR. VICTOR TAIWO, SECRETARY-GENERAL 'COUNCIL OF YORUBA ELDERS' AND NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, 'NEW NIGERIA MOVEMENT' AT THE OCCASION OF THE OFFICIAL INAUGURATION OF 'OGBAKO NDIGBO NILE' (COALITION OF NDIGBO PEOPLE'S UNION WORLDWIDE) HOLDING TODAY SATURDAY 29TH JUNE, 2024 AT THE NUJ PRESS CENTRE OWERRI, IMO STATE NIGERIA*
     
    Topic: *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and the future, the Yoruba perspective*
     
    1.  *Greetings*
    My first courtesy goes to the great leaders of  the hosting organization *Coalition of Igbo People’s Union* newly christened *Ogbako Ndigbo Nile* in the person of His Excellency Ambassador Akpelu Azunna E. Ph.D who has always maintained the status of a decent Igbo leader and Nigerian patriot. I also pay a very huge homage to that erudite scholar of high repute Prof. Obasi Igwe who we have given the cognomen of *Divine Gift* in the circle of the New Nigeria Movement in his special recognition as a repository of knowledge. I, as well, greet all the executive and members of Ogbako Ndigbo Nile worldwide and the delegates of the New Nigeria Movement from the other zones of the country.

    2. *Felicitation*
    Away from the above courtesy, I need to congratulate all the leaders and members of this organization on the auspicious event of today whose purpose and impact will soon reflect as the foundation of a new development in the history of Igboland on one hand and Nigeria on the other hand.

    3.   *Our mission here today*
    What has brought us here right from our Yoruba region is to pay our solidarity with you people on the ephocal event of the inauguration of the Ogbako Ndigbo Nile which I can see is manifesting as the emerging central and global voice for the Igbo people worldwide. I, therefore, felicitate you all.

    4. *My humble capacity*
    You might want to ask, in what capacity am I speaking here? I am speaking in the capacity of the humble Secretary- General and Leader of the *Council of Yoruba Elders (CYE)* the most veritable voice for the Yoruba people across the world now. Also, I am speaking in the capacity of the Convener & National Chairman of the *New Nigeria Movement*, a national body created to launder a new Nigeria away from the presently bastardized one we are all witnessing and suffering from today. It is designed to bring together all ethnic organizations and well-meaning personalities from all the zones of Nigeria with the aim of restructuring the country into a sane system which will work for everybody and meet our individual ethnic aspirations. This is where and why the (a) Council of Yoruba Elders for the South-West and (b) Ogbako Ndigbo Nile for the South-East got involved among other groups from the six zones of the country. The identities of the other groups that form the New Nigeria Movement are as follows:
    (c) South-South People’s Nigeria Movement for the South-South, (d) North-East People's Assembly for the North-East (e)
    Union of the Natives of the North-West Nigeria for the North-West and (f) Middle-Belt People’s Forum for the North-Central.

    It is, therefore, on the basis of the solidarity with you great people of Igbo nation that I have been requested to present a paper entitled, *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and future, the Yoruba perspective*

    5. *My presentation*
    Without unnecessarily re- inventing the wheel, I will have to do some cullings from a couple of papers I have delivered at one event or the other, engage thorough modifications and string them into a cohesive, meaning whole as to meet the expectation of today. I am earnestly saying this so I don't portray monotony to those who have been reading me before now. I am only doing this to exert the emphasis of my drive.

    6. *The thrust of New Nigeria Movement*
    The thrust of this body is to champion the enhancement and/or facilitate the collective agreement of all Nigerians to sit together at a round table to work out the final solution to the multifarious problems of this country through the inevitable restructuring agenda via *Independent National Conference*.

    Without any gainsaying, there are serious problems in this country such that has driven the vehicle of the country to a cul-de-sac with all the structures of the country run to a halt. Do we need to start listing the multiple items of the crises rocking our boat into drowning? I think it is literally needless as we all know where the shoes pinch.

    7. *Diagnosis*
    Now, what I have always believed makes sense to all that have the faculties in their heads running is that whenever there is an ailment, thorough diagnostic examinations are required rather than mere fire-brigade approach. And so with the level of war of national and individual survival that we are fighting in the country presently, it is absolutely perforce we go to the laboratory for proper diagnostic examinations and adopt the proper medications for our respective continued happy life rather than merely deliberately treating leprosy with the drug meant for eczema. This I regard as self-deception and sheer foolishness.

    8. *Looking back into history*
    Looking back into history, we must have realized our continued co-existence in Nigeria is going to be a very difficult thing unless we the pioneer leaders of this Movement and all well-meaning, patriotic Nigerians are sincere and determined to make things work against all odds. If not, we have come to the end of the country called Nigeria whether we like it or not.

    Going back memory lane, history will always be there to remind us of the incidences that have culminated in the national tragedies we are contending with in Nigeria today such that all the forces in the world cannot cover the tracks of history and succeed.

    Kindly allow me to quickly run the following short tale which may look like unworthy self-adulating digression, but you will always get the point in it at the end of the day.

    In 1994 I wrote one of my numerous books entitled *NIGERIA ON GUNPOWDER* which, with all modesty, I boast of today as being the best compendium of Nigeria’s political history ever written by any author yet in the world.

    Some five years later I gave the manuscript to the Hon. Justice Adewale Thompson, one of the best judges ever produced by Nigeria, to write the foreword to it. When I got to him on the appointed day to pick the manuscript and the foreword, he looked straight in my eyes with utmost dismay and expressed his absolute admiration for me at the contents of the book. And he asked me of my age when I wrote the book. I told him I was just above 30 years. Then he said how come I was able to know the wonderful facts and figures contained in the book to which he was a witness when most of the events took place and when I was not born? All I said was, 'You gave us education sir and one of the aspects of the education is to learn about our past existence which is History.'

    The point I am establishing here is that the children yet unborn will read history and understand perfectly their past however much our government may strive to cover the tracks of history by removing History from our educational curriculum.

    Thus our past in Nigeria is shrouded in confusion as masterminded by the colonialists and aggravated by the incompatibility of the different strange bedfellows with different traits that constitute Nigeria. Should we deceive ourselves that Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Fulani, Hausa, Kanuri, Tiv, Nembe, Ibibio and the rest of the various nationalities in the country are related by consanguinity in the slightest way? Capital NO. Now can we say that the spirit the colonialists deployed to amalgamate us into one was a genuine and altruistic one that could make us sweep our differences under the carpet? No. Were our pioneer political leaders so much loving, tolerant and cooperative among themselves enough as to sacrifice their chauvinism for unity of purpose enough to thin away our background forces? No.

    Let us examine the submissions of the following masters of the birth and the evolution of Nigeria so we can use them to run through the past, examine our present and project into the future:

    a. 'The British expected Nigeria to break up' - Harold Smith, a former colonial officer in Nigeria.

    b. 'It is never an easy task to govern a country like Nigeria. It is somewhat artificial creation' - Margaret Thatcher , a former British Prime Minister.

    c. 'No European power was in Africa for purely altruistic motives, and one side of the dual mandate which Britain and the other colonial powers had undertaken in Africa was apt to succeed at the expense of the other. The Europeans’ desire to exploit African trade and resources was apt to be a stronger force than the feeling of obligation to help the African people to advance' - Lord Frederick Lugard, former Governor-General of Nigeria.

    d. 'Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no Nigerians in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘French ’. The word Nigeria is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not' – Obafemi Awolowo.

    e. 'It is better for us and many admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning then I will nurture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of Congo will be a child’s play if ever it comes to our turn to play such a tragic role' – Nnamdi Azikiwe in 1964.

    f. 'The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Uthman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the North as willing tools and the South as a conquered territory and never allow them to have control over their future' – Sir Ahmadu Bello.

    g. 'Since 1914 the British government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs, and customs and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite. Nigeria’s unity is only a British invention' – Abubakar Tafawa Balewa in 1948.

    h. 'The only way left for rapid progress of both countries i.e. Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria is to return to the good old days when the North and South were separate' – Shehu Shagari, a former president of Nigeria.

    i. 'North can survive if Nigeria divides' – Arewa elders.

    j. 'Our great country has by that amalgamation gone into hibernation. I don’t know how long it would be in that libenatory state. But as long as the Yoruba country is connected with the sea, we shall not fail, and one day we shall come out of that hibernation to be a free country again' - Alexander Sapara Williams, the first Nigerian practicing lawyer.

    k. 'The basis for Nigeria’s unity is not there' – Yakubu Gowon.

    Let us stop the above renditions of discordant lyrics and examine if there has ever been any streak of national unity of purpose in this country until we are now all grounded to the point of no advancement.

    9. *The way out*
    From all the above revelations, it is clear that Nigeria is not a nation of one people but different nations of different peoples of the traits or incompatibility. The question we shall, therefore, ask ourselves are these;
    a. Why have we gone together for this long in spite of our incompatibilities?
    b. Do we believe we can reverse the trend and bear the country anew for collective good purpose?
    c. Do we need to deceive ourselves that all is well with us?
    d. Do we need to coerce ourselves into the spluttering and burning cocoon in the name of unity by force?
    e. If some of us truly believe in the geo-political entity called Nigeria, can we ever evade sitting down at a round-table to discuss and agree on the terms of our working relationship?

    Thus what I consider as being the best question to answer is the last item - item e. We need to sit down with all sincerity to address the issue of our further co-existence. And I see this opportunity, talking prophetically, as the last opportunity we have at hand to do so. But here is my fear deriving from the submission of that great mind of yore viz. Samuel Akinola the erstwhile Secretary-General of Anglican Church in Nigeria:
    ‘A nation that is afraid of forming a forum where grievances can be amicably resolved and fundamental problem tackled is not ready for an enduring democracy, and any structure created on such a foundation ladened with suspicions and grudges will be short-lived’.

    Now with all the discrepancies among Nigerians, why has it been possible that we are still together till today albeit a union of discomfort? The reason is simple. The oil factor.

    10. *The oil factor*
    Prior to the era of unitary system brought by the military in 1966, the regional arrangement was fostering and giving the best result in the experiment of true federalism whereby each of the regions was sprinting to the best of its ability. Imagine the West making the best of agriculture with cocoa, imagine the North making the best of agriculture with groundnut and imagine the East making the best of agriculture with palm oil. But at the emergence of the unitary government and the discovery of oil in the country in commercial quantity, the rat race for the exploitation of the free money began. Nigeria was so rich from the oil that Yakubu Gowon said money was not the problem of Nigeria but how to spend it. Thus since then up to now, the issue has been oil, and oil and oil alone. Every other direction has no thoroughfare. So, the battle over oil is the battle of Armageddon. The oil comes from the Niger-Delta otherwise known as the South-South geo-political zone. The North will never compromise the oil so much that Muhammadu Gambo a former Inspector General of Police swore that the North would spill blood if anybody tried to take away the oil from them. Should I believe that the South-East is also afraid of cutting away from the Niger-Delta because they believe they can’t survive without their oil? You will have to speak out on this. This is a challenge I am throwing today. So, the oil matter is the cause for the forced cohesion of Nigerians.

    But here is the tragedy. The oil will either run dry one day or it will lose its value at a point. And come to think of another disaster, the oil has even been mortgaged by the previous government of Muhammadu Buhari that for a long time to come the oil being explored from Nigeria may not belong to us. These aside, even with the oil, where are we today with our economy where we are living on perpetual loans which we may not be able to pay back in the next 40 years? Can the oil sustain us any further and for how long are we going to remain chasing a mirage or, put the other way round, deceiving ourselves?

    I for one, as a veritable leader from the Yoruba Region, I am never interested in the oil from the South-South. After all, several great countries of the world do not have oil under their soil or water and yet most of them can buy up Nigeria in a twinkle of an eye. How much oil or quantity of oil do Germany, France, Britain, Israel, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Ukraine, Singapore, India, Portugal, Netherlands, Ireland, Panama, Cyprus, Lebanon, Barbados, Austria, South Korea, Mauritius, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Saint Lucia, Maldives, Mongolia, Australia, Sri Lanca, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Bosnia, Jordan, etc. have? Do they not survive? It is only vacuous-headed set of people who will swear that they cannot survive without the oil from another part of the world. This is simply the bane of Nigeria.

    So, if the intellectuals from all the zones even including the Niger-Delta cannot sit down and fashion out how it can survive without oil, I am afraid the backlash will be worse by the time the realisation of the reality splashes us in the face.

    Essentially, if each of the zones can begin to think outside the box of the free oil money from somewhere, then this restructuring project would be the easiest for us. But if our concentration is still on the
    Niger-Delta’s oil, I am afraid we might soon sink under the water.

    11. *Assessment of the Nigeria's situation*
    Now, coming to assess the current government, it is certain that, looking into the horizon with all intellectual apparatuses and doubling the vision with the employment of the crystal ball, sans all self-deception and sentiment, all the global economic indices for radical turn-around of a drowning country as ours are absolutely non-existent on the ground. This is a matter of absolute conviction. And so, the current menace of hunger, inflation and the general collapse of the socio-economic structures may not have an end looming. Therefore, if our case would not be Lilliputian to that of the Ireland's Great Hunger of 1845 where one million people lost their lives out of a population of eight million people, a very urgent and lasting solution must be incubated. No other solution than the quick restructuring of the country so every people can design their collective life according to their aspiration.

    12. *What modality of restructuring*
    Yes, the emphasis is that the solution to the problem on ground is the restructuring of the country. However, the question now is, what form of restructuring are we talking about? It is the restructuring back to regionalism or true federalism. But here is a snag. Are we saying we should revert to the old three or four regions? No. But there is always a way to it. Here is the clue:

    For God’s sake how do people equate Western Region or South-West zone to Yorubaland? South-West is not Yorubaland and Yorubaland is not South-West. The old Western Region extended from today's Lagos to Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Edo and Delta States. The point is, if Yorubaland extends to Edo and some part of Delta States namely, the Itsekiriland, how related are we to Asaba an Igbo enclave? Then how insanely could it be to regard Kwara State and the Okunland of Kogi State as part of Northern Region? Crazy, is it not?

    Thus the first and foremost exercise of the restructuring agenda is to do the proper re-delineation of the geography of Yorubaland which will emerge as the regional entity of Yorubaland namely, Yoruba Region or Re-defined Western Region with a new map projection.

    Ditto the sheer absurdity in the composition of the Eastern Region. The largest ethnic nationality in the old Eastern Region is Igbo. Today the enclave of Igbo people are by the current Nigerian arrangement restricted to five states namely, Anambra, Enugu, Abia, Imo and Ebonyi. But in real, practical terms, Igboland extends to 13 states of Nigeria namely, Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Ebonyi, Abia, Rivers, Cross-River, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Kogi and Benue.

    Let us leave the analysis to these two of the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria.

    Thus the restructuring has to begin with the identification of the ethic groups and their geographical spread for consummation from the disparate units into a cohesive whole thus moulding their watchword into ‘One people, one destiny’.
     
    13. *The modus operandi*
    Now, what is the modality employable? Either of two things - let the country be peacefully dissolved like in the experience of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, or we restructure the country without further procrastination. But coming to terms with the adopted agenda of this organization New Nigeria Movement, the restructuring modality is our focus.

    Essentially the summation of the above epistle is that the inevitable solution to the multifarious problems of Nigeria is the restructuring of Nigeria via reversion to the old regional system whereby each people will be able to determine its destiny without being hampered by any clogging factor in the world.

    The race to this destination is what New Nigeria Movement has set itself to pursue to a logical conclusion with all the vigour it can muster.

    14. *Restructuring: the Yoruba perspective*
    Lest I veer off the course of my expectation, let me prod you all to memory that the topic allotted to me is; *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and the future, the Yoruba perspective*

    Every people have their different inclinations and aspirations. Some have for agriculture, some for craft, some for education, some for religion, some for commerce, some for wood planting, some for tourism, some for sharia, some for culture et cetera, et cetera. So, in a restructured Nigeria nobody should be bamboozled into any unwilling adoption. Rather, let the room be given to each people whatever their natural aspiration is. Thus as for me and my Yoruba people, our non-negotiable inclination and aspiration are to join the club of the first-world and super-power countries with grim determination to trail and march up with the current world champion in magical technological spin namely, China within a space of unimaginable time. This aspiration is what will remain a dream in sleep till eternity should we remain in this present composition of Nigeria where all the states must go bowls in hand to take allocation from the centre. So, this aspiration can be met in a regional arrangement where we can go at our own pace. So, if the Igbo nation or Kanuri nation wants to share our aspiration, let the race for competition be set. It is only through this system that Nigeria can grow. Outside this, let us all begin to sing the threnody of Nigeria.

    15.  *The imperative for mutual understanding between the Yoruba and Igbo*
    I need to quickly make this following statement in a manner of proactiveness and prognosis or prognostication. And that statement is that, if the restructuring agenda must succeed, there are two of the zones or nationalities among the rest that must play a pivotal role. These are the Yoruba people and Igbo people. Ask me, why?

    Without being invidious in the slightest manner, among the six geo-political zones in the system of the New Nigeria Movement, South-West (Yoruba) and South-East (Igbo) are the ones operating at the same wavelength of advancement in the consummation of all arrangements while the rest are even yet to find their feet. Thus if we must anchor the other zones to a desirable length, then the cooperation between the Yoruba and Igbo is inevitably imperative.

    And come think of something, it is very unfortunate that when you watch and read the various social media communications that have saturated the entire hemisphere, you will see our Yoruba and Igbo zealots throwing venomous tantrums against one another portaying themselves as perpetual and irredeemable enemies. I call it ignorance on the parts of both sides. If only the Yorubas are conscious of the fact that they are going nowhere without carrying the Igbos along, they would have seen no sense in fighting the Igbos. If only the Igbos know they are achieving nothing without synergizing with the Yorubas in the context of Nigeria, they would  have thought twice before quarreling with the Yorubas. This is where I found it quite unstrategic in exhibition when our brother Nnamdi Kanu made Yorubas his objects of superlative hatred and unleashment of acidic invectives. Hmmm. Ignorance.

    Essentially, given the above analysis, if the Yorubas and Igbos don't relate like brothers and sisters, we shall both remain in perpetual enslavement and eternal stagnancy forever. And the rest of Nigeria will never know peace and progress.

    It is, therefore, not only imperative but inevitable that we bury our pride and ego, let us forget our differences, let us put aside our past misdemeanors,  misconceptions, misinterpretations and misunderstandings whatever they are and let us embrace one another for the good of our collective tomorrow.

    Here I anchor.   

    *08126923916*
        
    Please share widely.                              
    *BEING THE PRESENTATION OF DR. VICTOR TAIWO, SECRETARY-GENERAL 'COUNCIL OF YORUBA ELDERS' AND NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, 'NEW NIGERIA MOVEMENT' AT THE OCCASION OF THE OFFICIAL INAUGURATION OF 'OGBAKO NDIGBO NILE' (COALITION OF NDIGBO PEOPLE'S UNION WORLDWIDE) HOLDING TODAY SATURDAY 29TH JUNE, 2024 AT THE NUJ PRESS CENTRE OWERRI, IMO STATE NIGERIA*   Topic: *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and the future, the Yoruba perspective*   1.  *Greetings* My first courtesy goes to the great leaders of  the hosting organization *Coalition of Igbo People’s Union* newly christened *Ogbako Ndigbo Nile* in the person of His Excellency Ambassador Akpelu Azunna E. Ph.D who has always maintained the status of a decent Igbo leader and Nigerian patriot. I also pay a very huge homage to that erudite scholar of high repute Prof. Obasi Igwe who we have given the cognomen of *Divine Gift* in the circle of the New Nigeria Movement in his special recognition as a repository of knowledge. I, as well, greet all the executive and members of Ogbako Ndigbo Nile worldwide and the delegates of the New Nigeria Movement from the other zones of the country. 2. *Felicitation* Away from the above courtesy, I need to congratulate all the leaders and members of this organization on the auspicious event of today whose purpose and impact will soon reflect as the foundation of a new development in the history of Igboland on one hand and Nigeria on the other hand. 3.   *Our mission here today* What has brought us here right from our Yoruba region is to pay our solidarity with you people on the ephocal event of the inauguration of the Ogbako Ndigbo Nile which I can see is manifesting as the emerging central and global voice for the Igbo people worldwide. I, therefore, felicitate you all. 4. *My humble capacity* You might want to ask, in what capacity am I speaking here? I am speaking in the capacity of the humble Secretary- General and Leader of the *Council of Yoruba Elders (CYE)* the most veritable voice for the Yoruba people across the world now. Also, I am speaking in the capacity of the Convener & National Chairman of the *New Nigeria Movement*, a national body created to launder a new Nigeria away from the presently bastardized one we are all witnessing and suffering from today. It is designed to bring together all ethnic organizations and well-meaning personalities from all the zones of Nigeria with the aim of restructuring the country into a sane system which will work for everybody and meet our individual ethnic aspirations. This is where and why the (a) Council of Yoruba Elders for the South-West and (b) Ogbako Ndigbo Nile for the South-East got involved among other groups from the six zones of the country. The identities of the other groups that form the New Nigeria Movement are as follows: (c) South-South People’s Nigeria Movement for the South-South, (d) North-East People's Assembly for the North-East (e) Union of the Natives of the North-West Nigeria for the North-West and (f) Middle-Belt People’s Forum for the North-Central. It is, therefore, on the basis of the solidarity with you great people of Igbo nation that I have been requested to present a paper entitled, *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and future, the Yoruba perspective* 5. *My presentation* Without unnecessarily re- inventing the wheel, I will have to do some cullings from a couple of papers I have delivered at one event or the other, engage thorough modifications and string them into a cohesive, meaning whole as to meet the expectation of today. I am earnestly saying this so I don't portray monotony to those who have been reading me before now. I am only doing this to exert the emphasis of my drive. 6. *The thrust of New Nigeria Movement* The thrust of this body is to champion the enhancement and/or facilitate the collective agreement of all Nigerians to sit together at a round table to work out the final solution to the multifarious problems of this country through the inevitable restructuring agenda via *Independent National Conference*. Without any gainsaying, there are serious problems in this country such that has driven the vehicle of the country to a cul-de-sac with all the structures of the country run to a halt. Do we need to start listing the multiple items of the crises rocking our boat into drowning? I think it is literally needless as we all know where the shoes pinch. 7. *Diagnosis* Now, what I have always believed makes sense to all that have the faculties in their heads running is that whenever there is an ailment, thorough diagnostic examinations are required rather than mere fire-brigade approach. And so with the level of war of national and individual survival that we are fighting in the country presently, it is absolutely perforce we go to the laboratory for proper diagnostic examinations and adopt the proper medications for our respective continued happy life rather than merely deliberately treating leprosy with the drug meant for eczema. This I regard as self-deception and sheer foolishness. 8. *Looking back into history* Looking back into history, we must have realized our continued co-existence in Nigeria is going to be a very difficult thing unless we the pioneer leaders of this Movement and all well-meaning, patriotic Nigerians are sincere and determined to make things work against all odds. If not, we have come to the end of the country called Nigeria whether we like it or not. Going back memory lane, history will always be there to remind us of the incidences that have culminated in the national tragedies we are contending with in Nigeria today such that all the forces in the world cannot cover the tracks of history and succeed. Kindly allow me to quickly run the following short tale which may look like unworthy self-adulating digression, but you will always get the point in it at the end of the day. In 1994 I wrote one of my numerous books entitled *NIGERIA ON GUNPOWDER* which, with all modesty, I boast of today as being the best compendium of Nigeria’s political history ever written by any author yet in the world. Some five years later I gave the manuscript to the Hon. Justice Adewale Thompson, one of the best judges ever produced by Nigeria, to write the foreword to it. When I got to him on the appointed day to pick the manuscript and the foreword, he looked straight in my eyes with utmost dismay and expressed his absolute admiration for me at the contents of the book. And he asked me of my age when I wrote the book. I told him I was just above 30 years. Then he said how come I was able to know the wonderful facts and figures contained in the book to which he was a witness when most of the events took place and when I was not born? All I said was, 'You gave us education sir and one of the aspects of the education is to learn about our past existence which is History.' The point I am establishing here is that the children yet unborn will read history and understand perfectly their past however much our government may strive to cover the tracks of history by removing History from our educational curriculum. Thus our past in Nigeria is shrouded in confusion as masterminded by the colonialists and aggravated by the incompatibility of the different strange bedfellows with different traits that constitute Nigeria. Should we deceive ourselves that Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Fulani, Hausa, Kanuri, Tiv, Nembe, Ibibio and the rest of the various nationalities in the country are related by consanguinity in the slightest way? Capital NO. Now can we say that the spirit the colonialists deployed to amalgamate us into one was a genuine and altruistic one that could make us sweep our differences under the carpet? No. Were our pioneer political leaders so much loving, tolerant and cooperative among themselves enough as to sacrifice their chauvinism for unity of purpose enough to thin away our background forces? No. Let us examine the submissions of the following masters of the birth and the evolution of Nigeria so we can use them to run through the past, examine our present and project into the future: a. 'The British expected Nigeria to break up' - Harold Smith, a former colonial officer in Nigeria. b. 'It is never an easy task to govern a country like Nigeria. It is somewhat artificial creation' - Margaret Thatcher , a former British Prime Minister. c. 'No European power was in Africa for purely altruistic motives, and one side of the dual mandate which Britain and the other colonial powers had undertaken in Africa was apt to succeed at the expense of the other. The Europeans’ desire to exploit African trade and resources was apt to be a stronger force than the feeling of obligation to help the African people to advance' - Lord Frederick Lugard, former Governor-General of Nigeria. d. 'Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no Nigerians in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘French ’. The word Nigeria is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not' – Obafemi Awolowo. e. 'It is better for us and many admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning then I will nurture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of Congo will be a child’s play if ever it comes to our turn to play such a tragic role' – Nnamdi Azikiwe in 1964. f. 'The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Uthman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the North as willing tools and the South as a conquered territory and never allow them to have control over their future' – Sir Ahmadu Bello. g. 'Since 1914 the British government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs, and customs and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite. Nigeria’s unity is only a British invention' – Abubakar Tafawa Balewa in 1948. h. 'The only way left for rapid progress of both countries i.e. Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria is to return to the good old days when the North and South were separate' – Shehu Shagari, a former president of Nigeria. i. 'North can survive if Nigeria divides' – Arewa elders. j. 'Our great country has by that amalgamation gone into hibernation. I don’t know how long it would be in that libenatory state. But as long as the Yoruba country is connected with the sea, we shall not fail, and one day we shall come out of that hibernation to be a free country again' - Alexander Sapara Williams, the first Nigerian practicing lawyer. k. 'The basis for Nigeria’s unity is not there' – Yakubu Gowon. Let us stop the above renditions of discordant lyrics and examine if there has ever been any streak of national unity of purpose in this country until we are now all grounded to the point of no advancement. 9. *The way out* From all the above revelations, it is clear that Nigeria is not a nation of one people but different nations of different peoples of the traits or incompatibility. The question we shall, therefore, ask ourselves are these; a. Why have we gone together for this long in spite of our incompatibilities? b. Do we believe we can reverse the trend and bear the country anew for collective good purpose? c. Do we need to deceive ourselves that all is well with us? d. Do we need to coerce ourselves into the spluttering and burning cocoon in the name of unity by force? e. If some of us truly believe in the geo-political entity called Nigeria, can we ever evade sitting down at a round-table to discuss and agree on the terms of our working relationship? Thus what I consider as being the best question to answer is the last item - item e. We need to sit down with all sincerity to address the issue of our further co-existence. And I see this opportunity, talking prophetically, as the last opportunity we have at hand to do so. But here is my fear deriving from the submission of that great mind of yore viz. Samuel Akinola the erstwhile Secretary-General of Anglican Church in Nigeria: ‘A nation that is afraid of forming a forum where grievances can be amicably resolved and fundamental problem tackled is not ready for an enduring democracy, and any structure created on such a foundation ladened with suspicions and grudges will be short-lived’. Now with all the discrepancies among Nigerians, why has it been possible that we are still together till today albeit a union of discomfort? The reason is simple. The oil factor. 10. *The oil factor* Prior to the era of unitary system brought by the military in 1966, the regional arrangement was fostering and giving the best result in the experiment of true federalism whereby each of the regions was sprinting to the best of its ability. Imagine the West making the best of agriculture with cocoa, imagine the North making the best of agriculture with groundnut and imagine the East making the best of agriculture with palm oil. But at the emergence of the unitary government and the discovery of oil in the country in commercial quantity, the rat race for the exploitation of the free money began. Nigeria was so rich from the oil that Yakubu Gowon said money was not the problem of Nigeria but how to spend it. Thus since then up to now, the issue has been oil, and oil and oil alone. Every other direction has no thoroughfare. So, the battle over oil is the battle of Armageddon. The oil comes from the Niger-Delta otherwise known as the South-South geo-political zone. The North will never compromise the oil so much that Muhammadu Gambo a former Inspector General of Police swore that the North would spill blood if anybody tried to take away the oil from them. Should I believe that the South-East is also afraid of cutting away from the Niger-Delta because they believe they can’t survive without their oil? You will have to speak out on this. This is a challenge I am throwing today. So, the oil matter is the cause for the forced cohesion of Nigerians. But here is the tragedy. The oil will either run dry one day or it will lose its value at a point. And come to think of another disaster, the oil has even been mortgaged by the previous government of Muhammadu Buhari that for a long time to come the oil being explored from Nigeria may not belong to us. These aside, even with the oil, where are we today with our economy where we are living on perpetual loans which we may not be able to pay back in the next 40 years? Can the oil sustain us any further and for how long are we going to remain chasing a mirage or, put the other way round, deceiving ourselves? I for one, as a veritable leader from the Yoruba Region, I am never interested in the oil from the South-South. After all, several great countries of the world do not have oil under their soil or water and yet most of them can buy up Nigeria in a twinkle of an eye. How much oil or quantity of oil do Germany, France, Britain, Israel, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Ukraine, Singapore, India, Portugal, Netherlands, Ireland, Panama, Cyprus, Lebanon, Barbados, Austria, South Korea, Mauritius, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Saint Lucia, Maldives, Mongolia, Australia, Sri Lanca, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Bosnia, Jordan, etc. have? Do they not survive? It is only vacuous-headed set of people who will swear that they cannot survive without the oil from another part of the world. This is simply the bane of Nigeria. So, if the intellectuals from all the zones even including the Niger-Delta cannot sit down and fashion out how it can survive without oil, I am afraid the backlash will be worse by the time the realisation of the reality splashes us in the face. Essentially, if each of the zones can begin to think outside the box of the free oil money from somewhere, then this restructuring project would be the easiest for us. But if our concentration is still on the Niger-Delta’s oil, I am afraid we might soon sink under the water. 11. *Assessment of the Nigeria's situation* Now, coming to assess the current government, it is certain that, looking into the horizon with all intellectual apparatuses and doubling the vision with the employment of the crystal ball, sans all self-deception and sentiment, all the global economic indices for radical turn-around of a drowning country as ours are absolutely non-existent on the ground. This is a matter of absolute conviction. And so, the current menace of hunger, inflation and the general collapse of the socio-economic structures may not have an end looming. Therefore, if our case would not be Lilliputian to that of the Ireland's Great Hunger of 1845 where one million people lost their lives out of a population of eight million people, a very urgent and lasting solution must be incubated. No other solution than the quick restructuring of the country so every people can design their collective life according to their aspiration. 12. *What modality of restructuring* Yes, the emphasis is that the solution to the problem on ground is the restructuring of the country. However, the question now is, what form of restructuring are we talking about? It is the restructuring back to regionalism or true federalism. But here is a snag. Are we saying we should revert to the old three or four regions? No. But there is always a way to it. Here is the clue: For God’s sake how do people equate Western Region or South-West zone to Yorubaland? South-West is not Yorubaland and Yorubaland is not South-West. The old Western Region extended from today's Lagos to Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Edo and Delta States. The point is, if Yorubaland extends to Edo and some part of Delta States namely, the Itsekiriland, how related are we to Asaba an Igbo enclave? Then how insanely could it be to regard Kwara State and the Okunland of Kogi State as part of Northern Region? Crazy, is it not? Thus the first and foremost exercise of the restructuring agenda is to do the proper re-delineation of the geography of Yorubaland which will emerge as the regional entity of Yorubaland namely, Yoruba Region or Re-defined Western Region with a new map projection. Ditto the sheer absurdity in the composition of the Eastern Region. The largest ethnic nationality in the old Eastern Region is Igbo. Today the enclave of Igbo people are by the current Nigerian arrangement restricted to five states namely, Anambra, Enugu, Abia, Imo and Ebonyi. But in real, practical terms, Igboland extends to 13 states of Nigeria namely, Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Ebonyi, Abia, Rivers, Cross-River, Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, Kogi and Benue. Let us leave the analysis to these two of the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. Thus the restructuring has to begin with the identification of the ethic groups and their geographical spread for consummation from the disparate units into a cohesive whole thus moulding their watchword into ‘One people, one destiny’.   13. *The modus operandi* Now, what is the modality employable? Either of two things - let the country be peacefully dissolved like in the experience of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, or we restructure the country without further procrastination. But coming to terms with the adopted agenda of this organization New Nigeria Movement, the restructuring modality is our focus. Essentially the summation of the above epistle is that the inevitable solution to the multifarious problems of Nigeria is the restructuring of Nigeria via reversion to the old regional system whereby each people will be able to determine its destiny without being hampered by any clogging factor in the world. The race to this destination is what New Nigeria Movement has set itself to pursue to a logical conclusion with all the vigour it can muster. 14. *Restructuring: the Yoruba perspective* Lest I veer off the course of my expectation, let me prod you all to memory that the topic allotted to me is; *The need for a new Nigeria: An exposition of Nigeria of yesterday, today and the future, the Yoruba perspective* Every people have their different inclinations and aspirations. Some have for agriculture, some for craft, some for education, some for religion, some for commerce, some for wood planting, some for tourism, some for sharia, some for culture et cetera, et cetera. So, in a restructured Nigeria nobody should be bamboozled into any unwilling adoption. Rather, let the room be given to each people whatever their natural aspiration is. Thus as for me and my Yoruba people, our non-negotiable inclination and aspiration are to join the club of the first-world and super-power countries with grim determination to trail and march up with the current world champion in magical technological spin namely, China within a space of unimaginable time. This aspiration is what will remain a dream in sleep till eternity should we remain in this present composition of Nigeria where all the states must go bowls in hand to take allocation from the centre. So, this aspiration can be met in a regional arrangement where we can go at our own pace. So, if the Igbo nation or Kanuri nation wants to share our aspiration, let the race for competition be set. It is only through this system that Nigeria can grow. Outside this, let us all begin to sing the threnody of Nigeria. 15.  *The imperative for mutual understanding between the Yoruba and Igbo* I need to quickly make this following statement in a manner of proactiveness and prognosis or prognostication. And that statement is that, if the restructuring agenda must succeed, there are two of the zones or nationalities among the rest that must play a pivotal role. These are the Yoruba people and Igbo people. Ask me, why? Without being invidious in the slightest manner, among the six geo-political zones in the system of the New Nigeria Movement, South-West (Yoruba) and South-East (Igbo) are the ones operating at the same wavelength of advancement in the consummation of all arrangements while the rest are even yet to find their feet. Thus if we must anchor the other zones to a desirable length, then the cooperation between the Yoruba and Igbo is inevitably imperative. And come think of something, it is very unfortunate that when you watch and read the various social media communications that have saturated the entire hemisphere, you will see our Yoruba and Igbo zealots throwing venomous tantrums against one another portaying themselves as perpetual and irredeemable enemies. I call it ignorance on the parts of both sides. If only the Yorubas are conscious of the fact that they are going nowhere without carrying the Igbos along, they would have seen no sense in fighting the Igbos. If only the Igbos know they are achieving nothing without synergizing with the Yorubas in the context of Nigeria, they would  have thought twice before quarreling with the Yorubas. This is where I found it quite unstrategic in exhibition when our brother Nnamdi Kanu made Yorubas his objects of superlative hatred and unleashment of acidic invectives. Hmmm. Ignorance. Essentially, given the above analysis, if the Yorubas and Igbos don't relate like brothers and sisters, we shall both remain in perpetual enslavement and eternal stagnancy forever. And the rest of Nigeria will never know peace and progress. It is, therefore, not only imperative but inevitable that we bury our pride and ego, let us forget our differences, let us put aside our past misdemeanors,  misconceptions, misinterpretations and misunderstandings whatever they are and let us embrace one another for the good of our collective tomorrow. Here I anchor.    *08126923916*      Please share widely.                              
    0 Comments 0 Shares 670 Views
  • How to build a political party in Nigeria
    Building a political party in Nigeria requires careful planning, organization, and a dedicated team. Here are some general steps to consider:

    1. Mission and Vision: Define the core values, mission, and vision of your party. What are the key principles and goals that your party stands for? How will your party contribute to the betterment of Nigeria?

    2. Legal Requirements: Familiarize yourself with the legal and regulatory requirements for forming a political party in Nigeria. This may involve meeting certain registration and documentation requirements with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    3. Organize a Team: Assemble a dedicated team of individuals who share your vision and are committed to building and growing the party. Consider the expertise you'll need, such as legal, financial, and organizational skills.

    4. Membership Drive: Develop a strategy to attract and engage members. This could involve organizing events, reaching out to communities, and using social media and other communication channels to communicate your party's message and attract supporters.

    5. Party Structure: Establish a clear organizational structure for your party, including leadership roles, decision-making processes, and mechanisms for internal communication and coordination.

    6. Policy Development: Create a platform of policies and positions on key issues that reflect the values and goals of the party. It's important to involve members in this process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives are considered.

    7. Fundraising: Develop a fundraising strategy to support the activities and growth of the party. This might involve organizing events, reaching out to potential donors, and exploring other sources of funding.

    8. Community Engagement: Build relationships with communities and stakeholders by actively participating in local events, forums, and discussions. Engage with the concerns and aspirations of the people you aim to represent.

    9. Communication Strategy: Develop a comprehensive communication strategy to effectively convey your party's message to the public. This may include traditional media, social media, and other communication channels.

    10. Electoral Strategy: Develop a clear plan for participating in electoral processes, including identifying potential candidates, organizing campaigns, and mobilizing supporters.

    It's essential to navigate the political landscape in Nigeria with sensitivity and respect for the diverse perspectives and needs of the country's population. Building a political party requires patience, perseverance, and a genuine commitment to addressing the challenges facing Nigeria.
    How to build a political party in Nigeria Building a political party in Nigeria requires careful planning, organization, and a dedicated team. Here are some general steps to consider: 1. Mission and Vision: Define the core values, mission, and vision of your party. What are the key principles and goals that your party stands for? How will your party contribute to the betterment of Nigeria? 2. Legal Requirements: Familiarize yourself with the legal and regulatory requirements for forming a political party in Nigeria. This may involve meeting certain registration and documentation requirements with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). 3. Organize a Team: Assemble a dedicated team of individuals who share your vision and are committed to building and growing the party. Consider the expertise you'll need, such as legal, financial, and organizational skills. 4. Membership Drive: Develop a strategy to attract and engage members. This could involve organizing events, reaching out to communities, and using social media and other communication channels to communicate your party's message and attract supporters. 5. Party Structure: Establish a clear organizational structure for your party, including leadership roles, decision-making processes, and mechanisms for internal communication and coordination. 6. Policy Development: Create a platform of policies and positions on key issues that reflect the values and goals of the party. It's important to involve members in this process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives are considered. 7. Fundraising: Develop a fundraising strategy to support the activities and growth of the party. This might involve organizing events, reaching out to potential donors, and exploring other sources of funding. 8. Community Engagement: Build relationships with communities and stakeholders by actively participating in local events, forums, and discussions. Engage with the concerns and aspirations of the people you aim to represent. 9. Communication Strategy: Develop a comprehensive communication strategy to effectively convey your party's message to the public. This may include traditional media, social media, and other communication channels. 10. Electoral Strategy: Develop a clear plan for participating in electoral processes, including identifying potential candidates, organizing campaigns, and mobilizing supporters. It's essential to navigate the political landscape in Nigeria with sensitivity and respect for the diverse perspectives and needs of the country's population. Building a political party requires patience, perseverance, and a genuine commitment to addressing the challenges facing Nigeria.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 748 Views
  • When a Governor, Honourable Minister and Former President of Nigeria are attending an event, what’s the the order of protocol or recognition?

    First of all, all the 3 people should be accorded a lot of respect because of their offices and roles. However, when it comes to observing protocol at public functions, here’s the order of recognition in this context:

    1. First, you recognise the Former President.
    2. ⁠Secondly, you recognize the Governor.
    3. ⁠Thirdly, you recognize the Honourable Minister.

    Wondering why the Former President takes precedence in this context?

    Former Presidents are accorded a lot of respect because of their previous position. Even after they leave office, they retain the title of the highest honour In Nigeria i.e "GCFR" which stands for "Grand Commander of the Federal Republic."

    They also retain their official titles, such as "His Excellency” or “Her Excellency” and are entitled to certain privileges.

    Offices that takes precedence in recognition before a Former President, nationally are those of the top five leaders of the Country, namely:
    a. President,
    b. Vice President
    c. Senate President
    d. Speaker of the House of Representatives
    e. Chief Justice of Nigeria.

    While this order of protocol seems to be customary in national events, I found a Bill online called National Order of Precedence of Public Officers and other Persons Bill 2000 which provides a written guide for protocol in public functions. Unfortunately, I was unable to confirm whether the Bill was signed into an Act. It doesn’t seem to be in the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN). If you have any useful information on this Bill or any related Law, please feel free to share in the comment box.

    Did you learn something new? Share this with professional Masters of Ceremonies, Speakers, Event Organisers and people in your network.

    Save for later too.

    My name is Temi Badru and I’m a professional Master of Ceremonies/Conference Moderator for public-sector, private-sector and international events.
    When a Governor, Honourable Minister and Former President of Nigeria are attending an event, what’s the the order of protocol or recognition? First of all, all the 3 people should be accorded a lot of respect because of their offices and roles. However, when it comes to observing protocol at public functions, here’s the order of recognition in this context: 1. First, you recognise the Former President. 2. ⁠Secondly, you recognize the Governor. 3. ⁠Thirdly, you recognize the Honourable Minister. Wondering why the Former President takes precedence in this context? Former Presidents are accorded a lot of respect because of their previous position. Even after they leave office, they retain the title of the highest honour In Nigeria i.e "GCFR" which stands for "Grand Commander of the Federal Republic." They also retain their official titles, such as "His Excellency” or “Her Excellency” and are entitled to certain privileges. Offices that takes precedence in recognition before a Former President, nationally are those of the top five leaders of the Country, namely: a. President, b. Vice President c. Senate President d. Speaker of the House of Representatives e. Chief Justice of Nigeria. While this order of protocol seems to be customary in national events, I found a Bill online called National Order of Precedence of Public Officers and other Persons Bill 2000 which provides a written guide for protocol in public functions. Unfortunately, I was unable to confirm whether the Bill was signed into an Act. It doesn’t seem to be in the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN). If you have any useful information on this Bill or any related Law, please feel free to share in the comment box. Did you learn something new? Share this with professional Masters of Ceremonies, Speakers, Event Organisers and people in your network. Save for later too. My name is Temi Badru and I’m a professional Master of Ceremonies/Conference Moderator for public-sector, private-sector and international events.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 733 Views
  • The science of government: setting out the seven elements of statecraft

    By Colin Talbot on 09/01/2023 | Updated on 09/01/2023
    Illustration of US State department press conference

    Much analysis of how government operates fails to bring together all the elements and dimensions of what government does and how the state works. Professor Colin Talbot has created a new initiative to bring together the full range of perspectives on his STATECRAFT forum. In this post, he sets out the key elements of statecraft and invites Global Government Forum readers to join the conversation

    Statecraft, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, is about managing relations between states to the advantage of one’s own country. This is exemplified in Margaret Thatcher’s 2002 book Statecraft – a reflection on her time in power that focuses on “the state’s role in the maintenance of international security”. And this is probably the most common current usage. But there are several others.

    A much older tradition stems from Machiavelli and focuses more on how ‘the prince’ is to remain in power and defend his/her state against enemies internally and externally. Machiavelli famously and controversially defended the right of ‘princes’ to use whatever means were necessary for ‘reasons of state’. Much of Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince, however, is focused more on the internal maintenance of power.

    Charles Anderson, in his 1977 book ‘Statecraft’, points out that in fact statecraft is an old north European word for ‘the science of government’ in the broadest sense. This is very similar to the approach adopted by Alasdair Roberts in his recent (2019) book Strategies for Governing, which also encompasses all aspects of the creation, maintenance, and adaptation of the state and political order – internal and external – at a macro level.

    Studies of, and theories about, the state have become extremely fragmented in recent decades. Numerous disciplines, schools of thought, and communities of interest focus on many different aspects of states and governments.

    In the early 20th century such studies were dominated by ‘public administration’, and although this still persists there are many parallel approaches: public policy; public management; state and nation building; development administration; etc.

    Some political economists and political scientists even began, mainly in the 1990s, to doubt the viability of the state as an important institution. Discussions of ‘government’ were displaced by talk about ‘governance’ – the idea that the state was but one amongst many domestic and international actors and increasingly powerless. Books with titles like The End of the Nation State (1993), The Retreat of the State (1996) and The Hollow Crown (1997) appeared – but turned out to be somewhat premature.

    The global financial crisis of 2007/8 and the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 showed just how powerful states can still be. Also, the collapse of several ‘failed states’ has shown what can happen without strong states.

    The term ‘statecraft’ can therefore be used as an all-embracing one for the study of states and governments and how to successfully build, run and adapt them, internally and externally.

    It has the advantage of being both old and novel (in this proposed use) at the same time. It does not try to revive older approaches and make them dominant, for example ‘public administration’. And the ‘craft’ part of the term emphasises that statecraft is a work of science and art.

    Statecraft in seven dimensions

    What follows is a first attempt to develop a framework for the study of statecraft that is itself a strategic, or macro-level, approach but which can also integrate micro levels of analysis (Roberts, 2019, discusses these different levels).

    This ‘7S’ model suggests that all seven of these elements of statecraft can be shaped by, and in turn shape, the way that government exercises its power.

    Strategy is the overall purpose, direction and intent of the government and leaders of a state. The strategy may entail changes in any of the other six elements of statecraft. But it may also be shaped by them and the constraints they impose on what is possible. And strategy can be the subject of unforeseen events, of opposition and of changes of purpose by the government itself. It can be ‘deliberate’ or ‘emergent’ or a mixture of both.

    Structure is about the overall shape of the state and its governing elements. Is it a representative democracy, or something else? Is there a separation of powers? Is it unified or federated? Is it (or some parts of it) resilient or fragile? How many layers of government are there? How are government and public services and agencies organised?

    Scope is about the range of areas of society the state seeks to influence and to what degree and using what instruments? States in the 21st century generally seek to influence far larger areas of social activity than they did a century or so earlier. In particular regulatory scope now affects far broader areas of society. The recent pandemic broadened scope still further in most states, especially in all four ‘tools’ areas (see below). Many states have been criticised for trying to do too much, or sometimes too little.

    Size has been a long debated issue for the past century, and especially in the past half-century. The 1970s and 80s saw the emergence of governments in many advanced countries who wanted to shrink their states – the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan, for example. And global institutions like the IMF sought to impose “structural adjustment” (state shrinkage) on many developing countries. One critical issue is how to measure the size of the state. One approach is to use four ‘tools of government’ – finance; authority; organisation; and informational.

    Size can be measured using ‘tools of government’ and it is crucial to understand that scope and size are not the same things – e.g. ‘small’ governments can try to do many things.


    Staff and skills are the critical resource for any state to function. Without sufficient and competent people working on its behalf the state itself is powerless. So how the state – government and public services and agencies – is staffed and skilled are a crucial set of issues. Across OECD countries around one in five employees work for the state. Every aspect of how these people are recruited, paid, disciplined and motivated is crucial to achieving government strategies.

    Style is about how the government – political and ‘permanent’ – public leaders conduct themselves and seek to guide the government and its organisations, as well as society itself. At the extremes their style can be authoritarian and dictatorial, or democratic and representative. Even in representative democracies, styles can vary between majoritarian (winner takes all) and more consensus building approaches. Even within the same party of government, leaders can have very different style and cultures. As an example, in the UK, the styles of the last three Conservative prime ministers and some of their ministers seem to have marked a major departure from ministerial standards that have operated in British government for a long time and have been codified for about three decades, including under previous Conservative administrations.

    Shared values are the core of a functioning state and governmental system. Without some shared values that bind a state and its society together, the fragility of the state increases. In democracies, for example, ‘losers consent’ is one important value – which we see being undermined in the US following the 2020 presidential election. What these shared values can be are many and various but without their being accepted by a high majority, states can fail. And do.
    The science of government: setting out the seven elements of statecraft By Colin Talbot on 09/01/2023 | Updated on 09/01/2023 Illustration of US State department press conference Much analysis of how government operates fails to bring together all the elements and dimensions of what government does and how the state works. Professor Colin Talbot has created a new initiative to bring together the full range of perspectives on his STATECRAFT forum. In this post, he sets out the key elements of statecraft and invites Global Government Forum readers to join the conversation Statecraft, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, is about managing relations between states to the advantage of one’s own country. This is exemplified in Margaret Thatcher’s 2002 book Statecraft – a reflection on her time in power that focuses on “the state’s role in the maintenance of international security”. And this is probably the most common current usage. But there are several others. A much older tradition stems from Machiavelli and focuses more on how ‘the prince’ is to remain in power and defend his/her state against enemies internally and externally. Machiavelli famously and controversially defended the right of ‘princes’ to use whatever means were necessary for ‘reasons of state’. Much of Machiavelli’s seminal work, The Prince, however, is focused more on the internal maintenance of power. Charles Anderson, in his 1977 book ‘Statecraft’, points out that in fact statecraft is an old north European word for ‘the science of government’ in the broadest sense. This is very similar to the approach adopted by Alasdair Roberts in his recent (2019) book Strategies for Governing, which also encompasses all aspects of the creation, maintenance, and adaptation of the state and political order – internal and external – at a macro level. Studies of, and theories about, the state have become extremely fragmented in recent decades. Numerous disciplines, schools of thought, and communities of interest focus on many different aspects of states and governments. In the early 20th century such studies were dominated by ‘public administration’, and although this still persists there are many parallel approaches: public policy; public management; state and nation building; development administration; etc. Some political economists and political scientists even began, mainly in the 1990s, to doubt the viability of the state as an important institution. Discussions of ‘government’ were displaced by talk about ‘governance’ – the idea that the state was but one amongst many domestic and international actors and increasingly powerless. Books with titles like The End of the Nation State (1993), The Retreat of the State (1996) and The Hollow Crown (1997) appeared – but turned out to be somewhat premature. The global financial crisis of 2007/8 and the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 showed just how powerful states can still be. Also, the collapse of several ‘failed states’ has shown what can happen without strong states. The term ‘statecraft’ can therefore be used as an all-embracing one for the study of states and governments and how to successfully build, run and adapt them, internally and externally. It has the advantage of being both old and novel (in this proposed use) at the same time. It does not try to revive older approaches and make them dominant, for example ‘public administration’. And the ‘craft’ part of the term emphasises that statecraft is a work of science and art. Statecraft in seven dimensions What follows is a first attempt to develop a framework for the study of statecraft that is itself a strategic, or macro-level, approach but which can also integrate micro levels of analysis (Roberts, 2019, discusses these different levels). This ‘7S’ model suggests that all seven of these elements of statecraft can be shaped by, and in turn shape, the way that government exercises its power. Strategy is the overall purpose, direction and intent of the government and leaders of a state. The strategy may entail changes in any of the other six elements of statecraft. But it may also be shaped by them and the constraints they impose on what is possible. And strategy can be the subject of unforeseen events, of opposition and of changes of purpose by the government itself. It can be ‘deliberate’ or ‘emergent’ or a mixture of both. Structure is about the overall shape of the state and its governing elements. Is it a representative democracy, or something else? Is there a separation of powers? Is it unified or federated? Is it (or some parts of it) resilient or fragile? How many layers of government are there? How are government and public services and agencies organised? Scope is about the range of areas of society the state seeks to influence and to what degree and using what instruments? States in the 21st century generally seek to influence far larger areas of social activity than they did a century or so earlier. In particular regulatory scope now affects far broader areas of society. The recent pandemic broadened scope still further in most states, especially in all four ‘tools’ areas (see below). Many states have been criticised for trying to do too much, or sometimes too little. Size has been a long debated issue for the past century, and especially in the past half-century. The 1970s and 80s saw the emergence of governments in many advanced countries who wanted to shrink their states – the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan, for example. And global institutions like the IMF sought to impose “structural adjustment” (state shrinkage) on many developing countries. One critical issue is how to measure the size of the state. One approach is to use four ‘tools of government’ – finance; authority; organisation; and informational. Size can be measured using ‘tools of government’ and it is crucial to understand that scope and size are not the same things – e.g. ‘small’ governments can try to do many things. Staff and skills are the critical resource for any state to function. Without sufficient and competent people working on its behalf the state itself is powerless. So how the state – government and public services and agencies – is staffed and skilled are a crucial set of issues. Across OECD countries around one in five employees work for the state. Every aspect of how these people are recruited, paid, disciplined and motivated is crucial to achieving government strategies. Style is about how the government – political and ‘permanent’ – public leaders conduct themselves and seek to guide the government and its organisations, as well as society itself. At the extremes their style can be authoritarian and dictatorial, or democratic and representative. Even in representative democracies, styles can vary between majoritarian (winner takes all) and more consensus building approaches. Even within the same party of government, leaders can have very different style and cultures. As an example, in the UK, the styles of the last three Conservative prime ministers and some of their ministers seem to have marked a major departure from ministerial standards that have operated in British government for a long time and have been codified for about three decades, including under previous Conservative administrations. Shared values are the core of a functioning state and governmental system. Without some shared values that bind a state and its society together, the fragility of the state increases. In democracies, for example, ‘losers consent’ is one important value – which we see being undermined in the US following the 2020 presidential election. What these shared values can be are many and various but without their being accepted by a high majority, states can fail. And do.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 746 Views
  • The Old Testament Template Book: Chapter 6
    Government

    “And the government will be on His shoulders.”
    Isaiah 9:6
    “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
    Romans 13:6
    For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs. I have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred.
    When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote.
    All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena.2 Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice.
    The King Of Kings
    When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets.
    In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation. In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account:
    Deuteronomy 1:9-18
    9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?
    13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    15 So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials.
    16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do.

    For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation.
    The Purpose Of Government
    Deuteronomy 1:9-12
    9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?

    As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former
    tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people!
    One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place.

    The Authority Of Government
    1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs.
    Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it?
    “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose.
    What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders.
    We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them.
    This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation.3 Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want.
    Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them.4 But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.”5 After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority.
    This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder.6 He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King.7
    David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people.
    We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study.

    Character Does Matter
    1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men….
    God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices.
    Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government.
    Representative
    1:13 …from each of your tribes…
    From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented.
    The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether.
    Consensus
    1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way.
    Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9
    This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland.
    When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus.
    The Judicial Branch

    Deuteronomy 1:16-18
    16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do.
    Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally.
    In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation.
    Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses.
    Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice.
    Summary
    We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy.
    Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation.
    Government gets its authority from the people.
    The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices.
    Government is to be representative of all people.
    One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people.
    The primary purpose of this introductory volume is not to teach a complete biblical approach to government or any other domain. Our purpose is to reveal how our split Christian thinking has alienated us from God’s great wisdom and teaching in each domain and to demonstrate how God’s Word teaches us principles for all of life, as we have seen in these verses on government. In order to get the mind of Christ on government, we are going to have to study the subject from Genesis to Revelation and get the whole counsel of God on the subject. This will take time and patience. It took Moses forty years to lay down God’s teaching in the wilderness. We need a generation of faithful Bible students to help us re-inherit the truth. Are you one of them? Start now!
    One great reformer said that peace is not just the absence of conflict: it is the presence of justice. When we pray for peace, let us remember God requires that we be involved in working for justice.
    STUDY HELP:
    Themes to look for in studying and coloring government in the scriptures are: law; government; the military; legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; national and local authority; and community development from the legislative or executive perspective.
    The domain of government reveals: The King of Kings
    The primary attribute of God revealed in government: Justice
    God governs this domain through: Delegation of authority to the people
    The color I used: Purple

    WORKING VOCATIONAL MISSION STATEMENT:
    To provide and ensure justice and equity for all citizens including executive, judicial, military, law enforcement and central community services. Great issues include: justice for the weak and voiceless in society including children, women, and immigrants.

    NOTE TO ALL BELIEVERS:
    God is calling you to be a good citizen as part of the witness of your faith. Political action and interest are not “secular” in the sense that they are not important for the believer. God instituted government, and He gave you and me responsibility for it. God is just and wants all His people to work for justice. First of all, it is our responsibility under God to be informed and to be involved. Do you vote? If you live in a country where participation is allowed, it is your moral obligation as a Christian to be involved. If you live in a country where you are denied that right, you must pray and work to see your nation’s legal system changed. As believers we should be volunteering at the polls, helping people get registered, and making it possible to have a place to vote. We should explain to our children that God gave us this great right and responsibility to be involved in our political life, and we must cherish and safeguard this right. As believers we are to believe that our involvement makes a difference because it makes a difference to God. We are to teach our children that serving in government is a high calling, and if God has gifted our children in this area then He may call them and favor them as He did David, Daniel, Joseph, Nehemiah, and others. If this is the case, they will have a much higher purpose in their occupations than “just making money.” They must know that they serve God and must have the mind of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and strategic prayer support if their work is to accomplish something of lasting value for the Kingdom.
    You are God’s strategy for discipling your community and nation. Will you respond to the call?
    A NOTE TO THE GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONAL:
    If you are a lawyer, judge, police officer, civil servant, soldier, elected official, social worker, or serve your nation’s government in any capacity, you have a high calling from God. The pillars of God’s kingdom are justice and righteousness, and your calling is to support the pillar of justice. You are challenged by scripture to be God’s extension of His justice to the people whom you serve. It does not matter if you work in a system that is fair as Solomon did, or in one that is somewhat or thoroughly unjust as Joseph and Daniel did; you have a calling from God to give and work for the highest level of justice possible in the system. First, you must be just in your own dealings with people; then you must work to make the institutions, systems, and laws just. What would your nation look like if every Christian professional made this their passion and pursued it with a sense of call? God will start with one. Are you that one? Will you study to take on the mind of Christ in the political arena and apply what you are learning first to your own life and work, and then, where possible, to the institutions themselves? You are God’s strategy for discipling your nation.
    The Old Testament Template Book: Chapter 6 Government “And the government will be on His shoulders.” Isaiah 9:6 “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” Romans 13:6 For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs. I have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred. When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote. All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena.2 Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice. The King Of Kings When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets. In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation. In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account: Deuteronomy 1:9-18 9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? 13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” 14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” 15 So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. 16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do. For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation. The Purpose Of Government Deuteronomy 1:9-12 9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people! One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place. The Authority Of Government 1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs. Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it? “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose. What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders. We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them. This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation.3 Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want. Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them.4 But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.”5 After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority. This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder.6 He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King.7 David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people. We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study. Character Does Matter 1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men…. God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices. Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government. Representative 1:13 …from each of your tribes… From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented. The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether. Consensus 1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way. Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9 This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland. When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus. The Judicial Branch Deuteronomy 1:16-18 16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do. Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally. In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation. Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses. Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice. Summary We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy. Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation. Government gets its authority from the people. The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices. Government is to be representative of all people. One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people. The primary purpose of this introductory volume is not to teach a complete biblical approach to government or any other domain. Our purpose is to reveal how our split Christian thinking has alienated us from God’s great wisdom and teaching in each domain and to demonstrate how God’s Word teaches us principles for all of life, as we have seen in these verses on government. In order to get the mind of Christ on government, we are going to have to study the subject from Genesis to Revelation and get the whole counsel of God on the subject. This will take time and patience. It took Moses forty years to lay down God’s teaching in the wilderness. We need a generation of faithful Bible students to help us re-inherit the truth. Are you one of them? Start now! One great reformer said that peace is not just the absence of conflict: it is the presence of justice. When we pray for peace, let us remember God requires that we be involved in working for justice. STUDY HELP: Themes to look for in studying and coloring government in the scriptures are: law; government; the military; legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; national and local authority; and community development from the legislative or executive perspective. The domain of government reveals: The King of Kings The primary attribute of God revealed in government: Justice God governs this domain through: Delegation of authority to the people The color I used: Purple WORKING VOCATIONAL MISSION STATEMENT: To provide and ensure justice and equity for all citizens including executive, judicial, military, law enforcement and central community services. Great issues include: justice for the weak and voiceless in society including children, women, and immigrants. NOTE TO ALL BELIEVERS: God is calling you to be a good citizen as part of the witness of your faith. Political action and interest are not “secular” in the sense that they are not important for the believer. God instituted government, and He gave you and me responsibility for it. God is just and wants all His people to work for justice. First of all, it is our responsibility under God to be informed and to be involved. Do you vote? If you live in a country where participation is allowed, it is your moral obligation as a Christian to be involved. If you live in a country where you are denied that right, you must pray and work to see your nation’s legal system changed. As believers we should be volunteering at the polls, helping people get registered, and making it possible to have a place to vote. We should explain to our children that God gave us this great right and responsibility to be involved in our political life, and we must cherish and safeguard this right. As believers we are to believe that our involvement makes a difference because it makes a difference to God. We are to teach our children that serving in government is a high calling, and if God has gifted our children in this area then He may call them and favor them as He did David, Daniel, Joseph, Nehemiah, and others. If this is the case, they will have a much higher purpose in their occupations than “just making money.” They must know that they serve God and must have the mind of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and strategic prayer support if their work is to accomplish something of lasting value for the Kingdom. You are God’s strategy for discipling your community and nation. Will you respond to the call? A NOTE TO THE GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONAL: If you are a lawyer, judge, police officer, civil servant, soldier, elected official, social worker, or serve your nation’s government in any capacity, you have a high calling from God. The pillars of God’s kingdom are justice and righteousness, and your calling is to support the pillar of justice. You are challenged by scripture to be God’s extension of His justice to the people whom you serve. It does not matter if you work in a system that is fair as Solomon did, or in one that is somewhat or thoroughly unjust as Joseph and Daniel did; you have a calling from God to give and work for the highest level of justice possible in the system. First, you must be just in your own dealings with people; then you must work to make the institutions, systems, and laws just. What would your nation look like if every Christian professional made this their passion and pursued it with a sense of call? God will start with one. Are you that one? Will you study to take on the mind of Christ in the political arena and apply what you are learning first to your own life and work, and then, where possible, to the institutions themselves? You are God’s strategy for discipling your nation.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1564 Views
  • Government

    “And the government will be on His shoulders.”
    Isaiah 9:6
    “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
    Romans 13:6
    For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs.

    (I.) have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred.
    When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote.
    All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena.

    (2.) Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice.

    The King Of Kings(Isaiah 33:22)
    When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets.

    In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation.

    In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account:
    Deuteronomy 1:9-18
    9. At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10. The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11. May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12. But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?
    13. Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    14. You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    15. So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials.
    16. And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18. And at that time I told you everything you were to do.

    For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation.

    The Purpose Of Government
    Deuteronomy 1:9-12
    9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?

    As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people!
    One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place.

    The Authority Of Government
    1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs.
    Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it?
    “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose.
    What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders.
    We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them.
    This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation.

    (3.) Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want.
    Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them.
    (4.) But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.”
    (5.) After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority.
    This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder.
    (6.) He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King.
    (7.) David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people.
    We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study.

    Character Does Matter
    1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men….
    God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices.
    Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government.

    Representative
    1:13 …from each of your tribes…
    From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented.
    The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether.
    Consensus
    1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way.
    Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9
    This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland.
    When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus.
    The Judicial Branch

    Deuteronomy 1:16-18
    16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do.
    Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally.
    In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation.
    Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses.
    Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice.

    Summary Government

    “And the government will be on His shoulders.”
    Isaiah 9:6
    “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
    Romans 13:6
    For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs. I have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred.
    When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote.
    All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena.2 Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice.
    The King Of Kings
    When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets.
    In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation. In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account:
    Deuteronomy 1:9-18
    9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?
    13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    15 So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials.
    16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do.

    For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation.
    The Purpose Of Government
    Deuteronomy 1:9-12
    9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.
    10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky.
    11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!
    12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?

    As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former
    tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people!
    One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place.

    The Authority Of Government
    1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.”
    From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs.
    Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it?
    “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose.
    What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders.
    We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them.
    This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation.3 Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want.
    Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them.4 But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.”5 After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority.
    This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder.6 He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King.7
    David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people.
    We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study.

    Character Does Matter
    1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men….
    God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices.
    Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government.
    Representative
    1:13 …from each of your tribes…
    From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented.
    The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether.
    Consensus
    1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.”
    The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way.
    Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9
    This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland.
    When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus.
    The Judicial Branch

    Deuteronomy 1:16-18
    16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
    17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.
    18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do.
    Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally.
    In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation.
    Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses.
    Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice.
    Summary
    We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy.
    Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation.
    Government gets its authority from the people.
    The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices.
    Government is to be representative of all people.
    One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people.

    Summary
    We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy.
    1. Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation.
    2. Government gets its authority from the people.
    3. The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices.
    4. Government is to be representative of all people.
    5. One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people.
    Government “And the government will be on His shoulders.” Isaiah 9:6 “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” Romans 13:6 For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs. (I.) have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred. When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote. All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena. (2.) Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice. The King Of Kings(Isaiah 33:22) When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets. In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation. In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account: Deuteronomy 1:9-18 9. At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10. The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11. May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12. But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? 13. Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” 14. You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” 15. So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. 16. And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18. And at that time I told you everything you were to do. For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation. The Purpose Of Government Deuteronomy 1:9-12 9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people! One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place. The Authority Of Government 1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs. Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it? “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose. What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders. We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them. This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation. (3.) Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want. Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them. (4.) But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.” (5.) After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority. This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder. (6.) He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King. (7.) David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people. We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study. Character Does Matter 1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men…. God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices. Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government. Representative 1:13 …from each of your tribes… From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented. The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether. Consensus 1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way. Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9 This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland. When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus. The Judicial Branch Deuteronomy 1:16-18 16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do. Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally. In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation. Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses. Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice. Summary Government “And the government will be on His shoulders.” Isaiah 9:6 “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” Romans 13:6 For more than a generation many, if not most, Christians have thought of the domain of government as the bastion of cigar-smoking egomaniacs. I have heard prominent men of God say that they see no way a Christian could be involved in politics without compromising their faith in Christ. This thinking is so extreme in parts of the body of Christ that some churches teach their members not to vote because it is a “secular” activity. This is a profound example of the split thinking of secular vs. sacred. When the blacks in Namibia were first given the vote they elected a communist government, a heavy blow in a country where more than eighty-five percent of the population are professing Christians.1 But there was a ray of hope when the newly seated government sent word to church leaders in the nation that they wished representatives of the church to come and teach them the biblical basis of government. What a privilege! However, no one responded! In South Africa the ruling party today (with sixty-five percent of the vote, reported to be around seventy percent Christian) struggles to stay in power, in part, they say, because the theology of some churches has produced a non-participatory culture among Christians when it comes to social, political and economic issues. I am told by American government officials that far less than fifty percent of American citizens vote. But more shocking, they say that less than twenty-five percent of American Christians vote. All of this is a far cry from the respect Paul accorded those who sought to serve in the government arena.2 Jesus understood that government had a role in His Father’s Kingdom. He was discipled by the Old Testament, and He discipled with the Old Testament. Jesus understood that He was the King of Kings and that His message was a message of salvation and a message of political justice. The King Of Kings When we study the domain of government in the Bible, we are looking at areas like the legislative, executive, judicial, and military functions of government. We are looking at law, national and local authority, relationships between nations, rules of war, and areas of community development related to government. We are looking at the roles and actions of judges and kings and those who worked for them in official capacities. Books like Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles unfold events happening in and to Israel in the political arena. They document what the political leaders of Israel were doing, how they affected Israel, and what God thought about these events. Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel tell us the stories of people who sought to serve God faithfully in the political arena. Interestingly, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel each served pagan and idolatrous nations and kingdoms. Today, some Christians believe we can serve only the righteous in government. But scripture does not bear this out. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were written primarily, and possibly in their entirety, by two kings, David and Solomon. Each of these books teaches us much besides the principles of government, but the position from which they were written was the realm of government, unlike Isaiah, or Jeremiah, and other books written from the perspective of prophets. In my study of Deuteronomy, about twenty-five percent of the book is given to instructions and episodes revolving around government issues. The passage we will use for our sample study of the domain of government is Deuteronomy 1:9-18. Moses had been attempting to sit as judge by himself over the disputes of the entire Israelite population. His father-in-law had suggested to him that this was not going to work and that he needed to initiate the levels of government to carry the load of arbitrating the judicial needs of the nation. In Deuteronomy, Moses forms Israel’ first system of government. Here is the account: Deuteronomy 1:9-18 9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? 13 Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” 14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” 15 So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, appointed them to have authority over you – as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials. 16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do. For our purpose here of learning to read and study the Bible in order to see God’s principles in each domain, we will take only the highlights of the passage. Remember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form. We study the history and context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us. The principles, however, are God’s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation. Let’s work with this passage as an example of extracting principles from the historical situation. The Purpose Of Government Deuteronomy 1:9-12 9 At that time I said to you, “You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. 10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. 11 May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised! 12 But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself? As Moses prepared to form Israel’s first formal government, he explained to the people the purpose of government and why Israel needed to move away from him as their sole leader. Moses had been carrying the load by himself until now. But this system no longer fulfilled the objective of government. What was that objective? Moses saw it as his responsibility to hear the burdens and disputes of the people in order to provide just resolution. Moses did not argue that the disputes were not important or that they ought not to be disputing in the first place. He did not see disputes as insignificant matters or a waste of his time. He established that they must be heard and dealt with, but Israel had grown so large in Egypt that the former tribal system of governing themselves no longer worked. They needed a more effective system. Why? To meet the judicial needs of the people! One of the foundational principles in this passage is that the primary purpose of government is to serve the population of a nation by providing an objective, trustworthy source of arbitration and justice. The system of government was organized in such a way that it could serve the needs of people both “small and great” alike . (vs.17 ) God looked at the judicial needs of the people and the fact that the current system was not meeting those needs. He inspired Moses in his role of creating a structure of government that would respond to the judicial needs of the nation at large and set out to put it in place. The Authority Of Government 1:13 “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.” From the perspective of government in the Bible, I think this is one of the most thrilling verses. Think about it. This nation of people had lived in exile for 430 years. For 400 of those years they had been slaves under the total authority of the Egyptian government. Their experience of leadership prior to their years in Egypt was more that of a large family, some seventy people, rather than that of ruling a nation. We can assume that many of the Jews, if not most, were uneducated people. They had lived in poverty and there was certainly no reason for the Egyptians to expend their national budget for educating their slaves. At this time they were still in the wilderness, exiles in a “no man’s land,” with no tangible assets except what they carried on their backs. Moses was God’s man, a man who spoke with God face to face. God had been giving Moses detailed instructions for leading Israel to freedom. He had given Moses incredible authority by bringing to pass everything Moses had said would happen. If anyone ever had a direct line to God, it was Moses. When he formed government in Israel, how did God tell him to do it? “Choose some wise, understanding and respected men…” Who chose the leadership? Moses? Aaron and Miriam? No, the people of Israel! The very first thing that God did through Moses when establishing government was to give the people the right and authority to choose. What an amazing God! In all of His infinite knowledge and wisdom God did not impose His will. He could have said to Moses, “You choose some wise and understanding men and put them over Israel.” That would have been more like the model they had seen in Egypt. That would have been more like what was being modeled by the tribal nations surrounding them. But God did something so radical, so dangerous, so not of this world, that we are still trying to grapple with the principle in our modern age. He gave the people of Israel the right to choose their political leaders. We could say, then, that a second principle of government is that God gives the authority of governance to the people. God delegated by law and decree to the people the right and responsibility of choosing who would rule over them. He made it a bottom up authority as opposed to the top down authority of the Egyptian pharaohs. He gave the people power. Many people today, in and out of Christian circles, believe the important thing is to tell the public what to do. We often assume that people do not have the experience, the education, the grasp of issues to make proper choices. Surely it would be better to start them off gradually and nurture them into the process of responsibility. But God began the process of discipling Israel in their new freedom by giving them the responsibility to choose who would lead them. This principle is profoundly supported throughout the biblical history of Israel, a nation ruled by judges for some 470 years. The people observed and interacted with the nations surrounding them, and saw that these nations had kings. Israel liked this idea! Israel had some good judges, but they had some real losers topped off by the notorious Samson. They decided they needed a king, and told Samuel, the prophet to the nation.3 Samuel sought God and God responded very clearly. He did not want them to have a king, and He gave them a very sizable list of reasons why. But the people persisted. They wanted a king! God relented and told Samuel they could choose what they wanted. Think about this! God gave them the king that He did not want because that is what they chose. A king was not the best choice, but this is what they, as a nation, chose. God had given the people the authority to choose their political leaders, and, having made His preference known, He stuck to that principle. Israel decided to have a king, and God sought to help them choose a king. God went beyond sticking to His principles, He sought to bless the kings that Israel chose. Saul, David, and Solomon were all mightily used by God, but they were still the system of governance He did not want. Perhaps you are thinking, “But didn’t the prophets actually choose the kings?” This is fascinating to track in scripture. God did use the prophets to point to the leader He thought would serve their best interests. At God’s direction they anointed these leaders with oil, prayed and prophesied over them.4 But we do not see a king in Israel actually crowned king until we hear words something like, “All Israel gathered and took so and so as their king.”5 After the people made their choice, the king realized his authority. This principle of the authority of the people to choose their political leaders is tested in the life of David. When Saul died, the Kingdom of Israel was divided over who would lead them. The House of Judah had chosen Saul’s rival, David, who had already been anointed to be king over Israel by Samuel. But Saul had a son, Ish-Bosheth, and Israel chose him to be their king. Two leaders of Ish-Bosheth’s raiding bands decided David should be King of Israel as well as Judah. They murdered Ish-Bosheth and took his head to David. Rather than accept their offer to be king, David executed them for the murder.6 He remained in Hebron until all the tribes of Israel came to David and asked him to be King.7 David understood, having studied the books of Moses, that God had given the authority of choosing political leaders to the people. We have to wonder why God would design government to have its authority in the people. Wouldn’t it be better for people to be told by a loving, benevolent God what is best for them? Evidently not. This subject is too broad to cover in this introductory volume. But it appears that the discipleship of a nation, as well as individuals, is tied to the cause-and-effect learning process of experiencing the blessing or cursing that comes automatically from making choices. In other words, it was more important for Israel to make their choice, even if it was not a perfect choice, and to learn from the consequences. Weighty implications, but they will have to wait for future study. Character Does Matter 1:13 Choose some wise, understanding, and respected men…. God did not leave Israel floundering in a vacuum with their choices of political leaders. He gave them guidelines. Some of those guidelines focused on character, knowledge, and the leader’s reputation. A Nigerian friend once said to me that one of the big differences between a Westerner and an African is the standard we use to judge the importance of an individual. A Westerner, he felt, was more prone to assess a person by what he owned, what he did, or his position. An African, on the other hand, drew his assessment of an individual from what other people thought about that person. In other words, you had status in the tribe if the community gave you status, not because of some external, such as possessions or your work. The African approach is more relational and is tied to the character and observable actions of the individual within a community setting. When it comes to political leaders, God, it would appear, leans toward the African perspective. The people were made responsible to assess the character of the leaders they would grant political power over them, and then live with the consequences of their choices. Moses gave Israel three things to look for in their leaders – wisdom, understanding, and respectability. Money and power, though not disquali- fied, are not mentioned as criteria. In order for these character attributes to be evaluated, the leaders had to be known by the people and the people had to determine what wise and understanding meant. What made an individual respectable? How was wisdom demonstrated? What did it mean to have understanding? As a community they not only had to search for an individual who embodied these qualities, they had to search for understanding about the nature of those qualities. They would enter a national debate on character, if you will. God was developing them as citizens, not just giving them government. Representative 1:13 …from each of your tribes… From the time Israel left Egypt, God began to emphasize the importance of inclusion in the political and legal process. He reminded Israel that they must remember what it was like to be slaves who had no rights. He reminded them repeatedly that they were not to have one standard of justice for the Israelite and another for the alien. They were not to leave any tribe without representation in their new land and government. Political representation is a biblical principle. If the purpose of government is to truly represent the people by arbitrating their disputes and issues of justice, if the authority of government truly comes from the people, then the people have to be truly represented. The great error of the South African government of the 20th Century was that one white tribe declared the right to rule over all other tribes. The right to vote was extended only to the white tribes. The black tribes were left without representation. If we understand these scriptures and that God could not bless a system that left a people disenfranchised from the powers that ruled over them, then it would come as no surprise that the South African government of this era could achieve no lasting stability. In principle it was doomed to fail. But understanding here will also lead to great admiration for the leadership of Nelson Mandela and his commitment not to form a government unless every black tribe and every white tribe was represented. The upholding of this principle safeguarded the nation and held civil war at bay. When we think of the Aboriginal in Australia, the Laplander in Finland, and the Native American Indian, we are seeing situations fraught with potential conflict because the principle of representation has been diluted or ignored altogether. Consensus 1:14 You answered me, “What you propose to do is good.” The authority of the people is reinforced again. In this very short sentence Moses established that his plan had the backing of the nation. Israel agreed to be governed in this way. Israel had not always agreed with Moses. In his first attempt to take them into the promised land, they said, in fear and unbelief, that they would not go. They staged what we would call today a military coup, and the men of fighting age refused to take on the challenge of the promised land in spite of Moses’, Joshua’s, and Caleb’s exhortations.8 God was ready for them to move into the promised land. Moses was ready for them to move. The people were not in agreement. The government lacked consensus and could not move ahead. Israel suffered the consequences of their choices by spending forty years in the wilderness. In the account of David’s appointment as king over Israel, the house of Judah and the house of Saul did not have consensus; David waited rather than contest the will of the people.9 This principle of consensus is so important that Jesus refers to it as a principle of God’s kingdom in the New Testament. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined…”10 The principle is this: a nation with consensus has a more stable government. A nation without consensus is a weakened nation. Therefore a government that tries to impose its will on the people will be less stable in the long term than a government that rules with consensus. Certainly the specific issues are also important, but that is not our subject here. However, consensus itself is clearly an important principle of government in scripture and is one of the foundations of strong government. This gives us understanding when we look at nations in crisis or certain national issues. Ireland and South Africa have been on the front pages of world news for a very long time, with both nations being in great turmoil. In How The Irish Saved Civilization, Thomas Cahill reveals that the Irish have never been able to agree on who governed them. For the 8,000 plus years of Irish history, their kings and tribes have been at war. Failure of a few attempts to rule themselves with an Irish king led them to seek French, Scottish, and, finally, English monarchs to rule over them. The failure to find any semblance of consensus has led to millennia of Irish turmoil. Conversely, it makes the importance of the Irish accord signed in the 1990’s even more resounding. For perhaps the first time in their very long history, the Irish are beginning to see that agreement and consensus are essential if a nation is to rule itself. God is discipling Ireland. When we look at situations today such as East Timor, former Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union we are seeing, in part, the fruit of rule forced on a people with little or no involvement, let alone any level of consensus. The Judicial Branch Deuteronomy 1:16-18 16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. 17 Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. 18 And at that time I told you everything you were to do. Now Moses turned his attention to the judicial purpose of government and began to give instructions to those who would hear the disputes of the people. These verses lay down such powerful principles of justice that every just court in the world uses them, and every court on earth today would be more just if the principles were thoroughly implemented. First, verse 16 exhorts Israel’s judges to judge fairly. Moses goes on to define fairly very specifically. Fairly means extending the same quality of justice to every individual whether they were Israelite or alien, national or foreigner. This is a major theme in God’s discipleship of Israel. Over and over again in their biblical history God reminds them of what it was like to be slaves under the authority of Egypt, what it was like to be a foreigner and unjustly treated, and what it was like to be disenfranchised from the justice system of the nation they were in. He used this tragic part of their history to call them to a higher level of justice in their own nation. Justice in Israel was to be blind to nationality, color, gender, creed, or politics. Justice was to have a level playing field and to treat all people equally. In verse 17, Israel’s judicial system was exhorted to judge without partiality and a second class distinction is given: their court system was not to draw a distinction between “small and great.” Justice in Israel was not to be tilted toward the powerful and influential or the rich. All people were to be heard. The slave in Egypt had no voice and God told Israel that they were to demonstrate a higher level of justice in their nation. Moses reminded them that justice belongs to God. As judges, they were not to be afraid of other people, powers, or influences. They were to remember that, as governmental agents of justice, they stood first and foremost before God. God understood that the human race was fallen and prone to sin and that the Jews, being human, would be just as prone to corruption as any other group of people or any nation. He was challenging them to rise above this in their system of government. Moses laid down the last principle of the judicial system in this passage.There is to be a process of appeal. For cases too hard for a finding, or when findings and evidence were inconclusive, the system allowed another hearing – this time before Moses. Some years ago I was privileged to speak at a conference where a head of state sat directly before me in the front row. This man was a Christian political leader in a pagan nation. His desire was to use his office to influence his nation for righteousness. When I inquired about the judicial system in his country, I found that the president hires and fires at will all judges in this nation. It is good that the president is concerned for the souls of his people, and I mean that with all sincerity. But the president could move his nation toward God by changing the justice system as well. In this country, a judge faced with a less than obvious finding, knowing he could lose his livelihood, might favor the preference of the president who holds his job in his hand. This is human nature. And God never forgets that man is fallen. He lays down every principle and system with our fallen state in mind. One judge can be corrupted some of the time, but it is harder to corrupt two judges in an appeal, and so forth. God understands that without checks and balances in the system, fallen people will abuse power and corrupt justice. Summary We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy. Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation. Government gets its authority from the people. The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices. Government is to be representative of all people. One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people. Summary We looked at five basic principles of government from nine verses in Deuteronomy. 1. Government is ordained by God and essential to the life of a nation. 2. Government gets its authority from the people. 3. The character of a political leader is important and to be weighed by the people in their choices. 4. Government is to be representative of all people. 5. One of government’s primary purposes is to provide a source of just resolution to disputes and conflicts of the people.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1742 Views
  • Good morning Kingdom builders, and complement of the season to you all
    This article was written as a warning to the present political players not to repeat what happened in 1962 that led to the civil war of 1967.
    Rivers State Crisis: Lesson from History

    20 May 1962
    Sixty-eight members of the Western Regional Assembly signed a No Confidence resolution on Chief SL Akintola as the Premier of the Western Region. They forwarded the resolution to the Governor of Western Region, Sir Adesoji Aderemi.

    21 May 1962
    The Governor, Sir Aderemi, the Ooni of Ife, wrote to Chief SL Akintola and informed him of his removal from office as Premier of the Western Region. Chief Akintola called a press conference and announced his rejection of the removal. He also filed an action in court for injunction against his removal.

    The Action Group, in the exercise of their right as the majority party, elected Alhaji DS Adegbenro as the new Premier of the Western Region. He was sworn in and duly recognised by the Governor.

    23 May 1962
    Chief SL Akintola broke into the Premier's office, which was locked, and insisted he was still the Premier.
    The High Court at Ibadan heard Chief Akintola's case and adjourned to 5 June 1962. The injunction was not granted.

    24 May 1962
    In a rare act of interference and for different reasons, the Premiers of the Eastern and Northern Regions took public sides against Alhaji Adegbenro, thereby supporting Chief Akintola.

    25 May 1962
    The Western Regional House convened for a confidence motion on Alhaji Adegbenro. A member of the Parliament stood up shouting there "is fire on the mountain" while another member took the mace and broke it. Pandemonium ensued.

    The House reconvened later in the day, and for some inexplicable reason, police fired teargas into the room and caused commotion. Prime Minister made a broadcast and announced a meeting of the Federal House on 29 May 1962.

    29 May 1962
    The Federal House met, and the Prime Minister moved a motion to declare a State of Emergency in the Western Region, citing the absence of a duly constituted government as the reason. The Minister of Finance seconded. Chief Awolowo sought an amendment to the motion opposing the state of emergency. He was defeated.

    The Prime Minister's motion passed with 209 in support and 36 against. The federal government declared a State of Emergency in the Western Region. Dr MA Majekodunmi was appointed Administrator of the region.

    The 29 May 1962 incident indeed marked the beginning of the end of the First Republic. Due to a lack of attention and record keeping, we made 29 May Democracy Day without considering that day's event in 1962. That event gathered speed that led to the coup of January 1966, the counter-coup of July 1966, and the civil war.

    The Federal interference in the Western Regional House of Assembly crisis was needless, politically motivated, and unnecessary. Subsequent court judgment by the Privy Council in Adengbero and Akintola found that the Governor of Western Region's removal of Chief Akintola was constitutional.

    Some patience and regard for due process would have allowed the issue to be resolved legally. That would have deepened our democracy and avoided the ugly consequences that followed.

    Federal interference in the Rivers state "crisis," in my opinion, is needless, unnecessary, and can cause grave harm to constitutional government. There is a need for all to act with restraint and follow the due process of the law. Abridging the law is a recipe for more crisis.

    History is available to help us avert needless crises.

    Osita Chidoka
    20 December 2023

    The sequence of events account was drawn from two opposing sources, one by Chief Awolowo in his book The Travails of Democracy and the other from Ayo Rosiji Man with Vision by Nina Mba.
    Good morning Kingdom builders, and complement of the season to you all 🙏 This article was written as a warning to the present political players not to repeat what happened in 1962 that led to the civil war of 1967. Rivers State Crisis: Lesson from History 20 May 1962 Sixty-eight members of the Western Regional Assembly signed a No Confidence resolution on Chief SL Akintola as the Premier of the Western Region. They forwarded the resolution to the Governor of Western Region, Sir Adesoji Aderemi. 21 May 1962 The Governor, Sir Aderemi, the Ooni of Ife, wrote to Chief SL Akintola and informed him of his removal from office as Premier of the Western Region. Chief Akintola called a press conference and announced his rejection of the removal. He also filed an action in court for injunction against his removal. The Action Group, in the exercise of their right as the majority party, elected Alhaji DS Adegbenro as the new Premier of the Western Region. He was sworn in and duly recognised by the Governor. 23 May 1962 Chief SL Akintola broke into the Premier's office, which was locked, and insisted he was still the Premier. The High Court at Ibadan heard Chief Akintola's case and adjourned to 5 June 1962. The injunction was not granted. 24 May 1962 In a rare act of interference and for different reasons, the Premiers of the Eastern and Northern Regions took public sides against Alhaji Adegbenro, thereby supporting Chief Akintola. 25 May 1962 The Western Regional House convened for a confidence motion on Alhaji Adegbenro. A member of the Parliament stood up shouting there "is fire on the mountain" while another member took the mace and broke it. Pandemonium ensued. The House reconvened later in the day, and for some inexplicable reason, police fired teargas into the room and caused commotion. Prime Minister made a broadcast and announced a meeting of the Federal House on 29 May 1962. 29 May 1962 The Federal House met, and the Prime Minister moved a motion to declare a State of Emergency in the Western Region, citing the absence of a duly constituted government as the reason. The Minister of Finance seconded. Chief Awolowo sought an amendment to the motion opposing the state of emergency. He was defeated. The Prime Minister's motion passed with 209 in support and 36 against. The federal government declared a State of Emergency in the Western Region. Dr MA Majekodunmi was appointed Administrator of the region. The 29 May 1962 incident indeed marked the beginning of the end of the First Republic. Due to a lack of attention and record keeping, we made 29 May Democracy Day without considering that day's event in 1962. That event gathered speed that led to the coup of January 1966, the counter-coup of July 1966, and the civil war. The Federal interference in the Western Regional House of Assembly crisis was needless, politically motivated, and unnecessary. Subsequent court judgment by the Privy Council in Adengbero and Akintola found that the Governor of Western Region's removal of Chief Akintola was constitutional. Some patience and regard for due process would have allowed the issue to be resolved legally. That would have deepened our democracy and avoided the ugly consequences that followed. Federal interference in the Rivers state "crisis," in my opinion, is needless, unnecessary, and can cause grave harm to constitutional government. There is a need for all to act with restraint and follow the due process of the law. Abridging the law is a recipe for more crisis. History is available to help us avert needless crises. Osita Chidoka 20 December 2023 The sequence of events account was drawn from two opposing sources, one by Chief Awolowo in his book The Travails of Democracy and the other from Ayo Rosiji Man with Vision by Nina Mba.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1158 Views
  • Read Reverend Kukah's analysis of the problems and the solution to Nigeria's multifaceted economic, religious, ethnic and regional issues here.

    Yearning for One Nation Bound in Freedom, Peace and Unity
    Backpage | 5 days ago

    GUEST COLUMNIST BY Matthew Hassan Kukah

    Today, most Nigerians have become cynical about conferences, seminars, committees, commissions and so on, because it is generally perceived that these initiatives are largely a distraction from the main problems of our dear country. There are two classes of respondents to these events. The first are those who believe that governments do not have the political will to follow through with recommendations no matter how laudable they are because often, they present inconvenient truths that are not politically rewarding at the time. Then there are those who believe that these initiatives are empty of content and government often simply wants to be seen doing something or that they want to score political points.


    I can speak rather authoritatively on this because I have served in about five Presidential initiatives and one initiative undertaken by the Northern governors nearly 10 years ago since our return to Democracy. In 2015 or 16, the Northern governors then created the impression that they wanted to deal with the problems of Boko Haram. In each of these cases, members of the committee work, hand in a report which is received in Government Houses amidst a rainbow of klieg lights and media bash. They shake hands, thank and smile with the members and everyone goes home to await the fire next time. We can say the same thing about our endless national and international conferences, conversations, seminars about dialogue and peace. The rituals continue and there is a sense in which we can say Nigeria is a country governed by conferences and seminars.


    Despite my seeming cynicism, I remain optimistic that these diagnostic initiatives are very important. For example, a good number of the issues being discussed in INEC today were debated and discussed at the Political Reform Conference in which I had the honour of being the Secretary and the Justice Uwais Committee on Electoral Reforms set up by the late President Yar’adua who had the sense of decency and honesty to admit that the elections that he won were flawed and he decided to do something about them by setting up the Committee.


    It was significant that your son, Professor Attahiru Jega was a member of that committee and he turned up as the Chairman of INEC. He laid a good foundation which our brother Professor Mahmud is working on today. So, we should not give up. At some point, serious minded people can and will dig up these reports and make use of them. For now, my hope is that even within the shortest time available to us that His Excellency can do something no matter how small so that others can build on it for the future.



    You have chosen the theme of Diversity, a theme that I am very interested in because without it, we have no future as a country. Our inability to manage our diversity has accounted for the tragedy that we find ourselves in today as a country. Rather than facing some terrible choices that the political class has made in managing our differences, we have ended up with the wrong diagnosis. These wrong diagnoses have led us to the popularization of ill-conceived ideas to which we now ascribe our differences and problems. For example, it is common to hear Nigerians say that Religion has become a problem for our country. We follow through with this falsehood by suggesting that the problems of Nigeria centre around an inherent conflict between Christians and Muslims.


    At the elite levels, we also say that there are problems between northerners and southerners. At another level, we hear that there are problems between minorities and majorities. At another level, we say that ethnicity is what is killing our nation and so on. In my view, these ideas may be popular but they are more a symptom than a disease as I will illustrate. You are welcome to disagree with me and that is fine because it will expand my own knowledge. Indeed, it is the lack of debate around these issues that has compounded our problems as I will show.


    First, if we say that there are problems between Christians and Muslim, what exactly are the problems and how are we going to resolve them? Will these problems be resolved by Christians converting to Islam or vice versa? I once received a gift of a rather provocative book from a friend of mine titled, A World Without Islam. I recall my friend calling me on the phone with a lot of excitement and saying, I have just read a book which I know you will like and so I bought a copy for you. I was quite intrigued about the contents of the book and wondered who could be crazy to write a book like this.


    However, the book, based on good scholarship simply concluded that if Islam or Muslims vanished from the world, there will still be no peace because communities or nations will simply go back to the wars they were fighting before Islam emerged. We can come to the same conclusion with a book titled, A World Without Christianity! And by the way, my friend who gave me this book is a northern Muslim!

    I am arguing that we must find other reasons to explain the deep hatred in our society today and I want to argue that it is tied to other sources not what has become popular today. The Kano civil war of 1984 was fought because the Caliph of Sokoto, not the Pope installed a new Emir. When Ife fought Modakeke over the years, how many Fulanis or Ijaws fought with either side? When the people of Umuleri and Aguleri in Anambra fought and killed themselves, how many Hausas or Kanuris were there?


    The people of Somalia have only one single ethnic group and they speak one language, but who wants to go and live in Somali today? We must therefore find other reasons for conflict in our society. We must look elsewhere if we are really and truly looking for how to build a good society and how to live in peace with one another. So, our hatred and violence against one another does not have much to do with Religion, Ethnicity or even region. It has to do with how politicians handle identities, how they manage the concepts of fairness and justice.


    So, you might ask, what is the source of our conflicts in Nigeria? I do not have the answers but I wish to refer to a theory in the Sociology of violence advanced by an American scholar called, the theory of relative deprivation by a man called, Ted Gurr. In his view, first of all, deprivation is relative, that is, our perception of what we do not have is often relative to our situation or conditions. Some communities might be feeling deprived because they do not have roads, others because they have no water, no jobs, or they have no schools or that they have no representation at the highest levels of government.


    Where there is a threshold of deprivation, people might react violently if they feel that the reason why they do not have is because others have. Thus, Christians have been upset by the Buhari administration because of the skewed nature of his appointments and how these appointments are perceived to have favoured Northern Muslims. The President and his team say, but other Christian leaders have done the same. You may not agree, but that is not the issue. The issue is what the aggrieved persons feel at a critical point. The point is that when people feel that others are better than them, they get jealous and may resort to violence to resolve their discontentment.


    The challenge therefore is not that people are angry or are tempted to violence, but the reasons are, who left the door of justice open for injustice to enter? Why, when and how did injustice creep in? Today, northern Nigerians romanticize the past by evoking the spirit of the Sardauna of Sokoto and we all create the impression that we all was well. Mention is made of how people like Audu Buba, Sunday Awoniyi, Jolly Tanko Yusuf and others were incorporated into power. The past was not perfect but at that time, people felt a sense of belonging. Today, with the creation of states which balkanized the north, how do people feel? We cannot answer these questions if we do not create the space to answer one another.


    I grew up watching how our grandmother dealt with us. If a child stumbled and fell on the ground and started crying, our grandmother will ask what happened. May be the child fell down through his or her carelessness. She will clean your tears while asking, what happened? If the child cannot speak, he or she could point to the ground suggesting that it is the ground that made him or her fall. The child will do this by pointing at the ground. Grandmother will use her hand to hit the ground saying Shege, why did you make my Hassan fall? The victim will feel relieved and we will all return to the field of play.


    Your Excellency, I want to thank you for giving me a platform to raise some issues today, those issues that as a Christian and a northerner, I feel have made me fall to the ground. I will like you not to judge or dismiss what I am saying. I am not a young man and I am also a Christian leader and an elder statesman. I believe that there is an urgent need for us to talk, and talk in a way that gets us results in the short, medium and long terms for a prosperous Nigeria. You may not resolve the issues now, but at least as a prominent politician, I will want you to accept that without talking and listening to one another, things will get progressively worse for our region and country. Here, I will list only five Questions and hope that through them we can begin to plan for a more harmonious future in our country and get beyond the politics of religion, region, social class and ethnicity. If we can address these issues, I can assure you, Nigeria will be on its way to achieving national cohesion. We can add to the list from both sides so that over time, generations will do their bit and pass on to the other generation.


    The first point I want us to look at is our common citizenship. Today, Nigerians speak of themselves as Muslims and Christians, Northerners and Southerners not as citizens. This is very unfortunate because it only feeds into and creates deeper fault lines that separate us. A study undertaken by a good friend of mine, the late Professor Rauf Al-Mustapha who taught here in Bayero University observed clear perceived grievances and feeling of being outsiders in Kano by certain groups based on ethnicity or denomination despite being Muslim. Such groups include women, youth, southerners and groups like Shiites and sub groups that are treated as outsiders within Islam. How do we close the gap and focus not on our religious faithfulness to God and our common citizenship? We are living in one country, held together by a Constitution which most people are not happy with but it is what we have. Despite its imperfections, our Constitution has enough provisions to ensure national cohesion.


    Second, Christians in Northern Nigeria are under severe stress and this has been so from the beginning. It is often not easy for those who are in power and have privileges to understand how the perceived victims feel. Christians do not feel a sense of belonging despite their enormous contribution in the areas of Business, Education and so on. Whether this is true or false is not the issue, it is that this is how they feel. Beyond Kano, Christians feel merely tolerated and their freedoms compromised. Perhaps you can say this language is strong or, as my critics sometimes say, Bishop Kukah you are being divisive.


    My job is to say how I feel not how you think I should feel. Often, those in the minorities in given situations of injustice, whether they are Women or Youth, Christians or Muslims outside their comfort zones are often accused of being ungrateful and that they do not appreciate the generosity of their hosts. But, we are in one country, given out to us by Lord Lugard and today, no one should be treated as a stranger anywhere nor should anyone claim to be host to anyone. It is the duty of government to make the laws that guarantee that we all obey such laws.


    For example, how do we explain the fact that Churches are seen but not accepted as part of our heritage in our cities? Why is burning of Churches tolerated? Why and how can a citizen taken the life of another on the grounds of religion and nothing happens? How is it that across the northern states, you can find land to build a Restaurant, a Hotel, a Cinema House and so on with no problem, but there is no land to build a Church? Governments in the North for example, often say that Christians should seek written permission from those around where they want to build a Church.


    How and what is it about Christianity that makes so many ordinary Muslims in northern Nigeria uncomfortable? What makes some Christians uncomfortable about Islam? We all claim to be descendants of Abraham which mean we have a common parentage. So why are we being denied our legitimate inheritance? Muslims make the same claims but the solution is not an exchange of excuses, but a determination to build harmony. The answer is to create an opportunity to hear out one another in forums such as these. The rights to practice our faiths should be adequately protected. Christians feel quite insulted when, as we have here in Kano, Land allocation forms that say that the land cannot be used for a Church or a brothel! This is not only an insult, but humiliating to Christians. We should openly show these wounds so they can be washed and treated.


    I hear Muslims say that in his days, the Prophet allowed Christians to pray in his mosque or that Muslims found refuge with a kind king in Abyssinia. I also hear quotations from the Koran to the effect that there is no compulsion in religion or that if God had wanted us to worship him in one way only, he would have made us one. So, who are those standing in the way of God today by denying other people their rights on the basis of religions? We are not asking you to give us your mosques, but by God, give us land to build our Churches, rebuild them when they are burnt and do not merely say that the criminals are merely miscreants.


    These miscreants are not spirits, they have parents and they have addresses even if they are on the streets. Our Governors should lead by example and do the right thing. When you stand with the victim, you point at a higher ideal about the future and you shame the extremist. Wherever a place of worship is desecrated, anywhere and any religion, we human beings are diminished and God is not pleased by this no matter where and when it happens.

    Third, Governors should take some courageous steps towards integration. When President Bush appointed Colin Powell as Chief of Defense Staff in a racially charged environment like America, he sent out a signal. When his son followed the same line and appointed Codoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, he was making a point. White racists were unhappy, but these prepared for the coming of President Barrack Obama as the first black President. Today, Joe Biden has appointed many Nigerians who were born or grew up in America to key positions and no one has raised a voice against the decision though many racists are not happy, but the President has demonstrated courage and vision of what kind of society he wants to build.


    Today, the UK has a Prime Minister that is the son of immigrants and there are Africans and Nigerians now in Parliament and holding key positions in the UK. We must aspire to these ideals if we are to compete in a global world. Governors should make certain appointments and create opportunities that point in the direction of genuine integration. At a time when Christians were denied access to the media here in Kano, things changed when General Abacha appointed a Catholic as Governor. So, my appeal goes beyond Kano to all the Governors. Do radical things that comfort the afflicted even if they afflict the comfortable! There will be discomfort but the future will be better.


    Fourth, Secularism, that very serious threat to Religion is rearing its head rather aggressively. We will not solve the problems by putting people in prison. On the contrary, imprisonment merely toughens people and serves as a rallying point for others with grievances. We Christians and Muslims must therefore step forward not to merely erect walls of protection for our individual faiths, but by dialogue, find ways of working together for the common good of all. What we see as the rejection of religion is not the rejection of faith.


    It is rather a lifting of the veil imposed by dogma at a time when citizens want freedom to think, to dream and to be what they want to be. The duty of the state is to ensure that space is created and that our views and actions do not hurt other people in the course of our freedom. Jails are not the solution unless due process is followed. I therefore appeal to the Governor to see all citizens of the state as his wards to be helped and guided by moral suasion, nurture and love.


    The people of Kano stand alone as the only state that did not take over schools after the civil war and I commend your predecessors. Without St. Louis and St. Thomas today, the story of the Male and Female elites of Kano would be different. Therefore, I speak as a Priest when I say, please stand with the Church and let us see how we can give our children a future in Education. I call for the creation of Chaplaincies for Christian and Muslim children in all our Educational institutions depending on the circumstances. In most of the Universities in the northern States, Vice Chancellors have not allowed the construction of Churches despite the provisions for these by the competent authorities at the highest level of government.


    We need the moral voices of Chaplains in our Universities so as to reverse the ugly trend of youth involvement with drugs, cultism and other forms of fanaticism which pose a serious threat to the moral fibre of our society. Imagine if we had Chaplains in our Universities, Christians and Muslims as we see in the Military working with Brigadier General Buba Marwa in his challenging assignment in the National Drug and Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA.

    Finally, Your Excellency, I appeal to you and your colleagues to help our nation embrace and deepen Democracy. Freedom is one of the key ingredients of Democracy and it is more valuable to citizens than what we call dividends of Democracy. Overhead bridges are good, roads, electricity and so on are good, but we did not need Democracy to build them. Indeed, history tells us that these infrastructures were better developed under tyranny and dictatorships whether in Malaysia, Singagore, South Africa or Germany. So, I appeal to you to please help appreciate freedom because it is fundamental to justice. Freedom is not synonymous with irresponsibility, disobedience to law.


    Freedom comes with responsibility. In a Democracy, literally everything is the result of negotiation, consensus, persuasion, debate, argument and so on. Bans do not develop a society as many parts of the world have realized. When you ban drugs, alcohol, films, speech, you drive people underground because the human spirit will always find other ways. The demand for these things will go underground and you would have handed a new economy to the underground mafia.

    So, let us debate the issues, let us debate our future, let us debate how we can build a great nation together. It is better to educate people about the harm of alcohol, drugs and other social ills than outright bans. Parents, Teachers, Religious Leaders we should all join hands in raising a society that knows honour and duty. I call on our politicians to develop the required skills for managing diversity because its mismanagement is killing our country. We will never be good Muslims or Christians if we do not embrace, respect and honour one another and our faiths. I call on our politicians to make politics more honourable by treating us all as free citizens in a free country under God.


    The frustrations and anger over a Muslim-Muslim ticket is based on the insecurity and fear that our people feel. Muslims would feel the same if it were a Christian-Christian ticket. Our women have a right to quarrel with a Male-Male ticket. In all, only a justice system, visible to all can save our country. Justice is like rain, even if you are blind, you can feel it. Similarly, we do not need to be Christians or Muslims to feel justice. We want to feel it because we are in our dear country given to us by God.


    This paper was presented by Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah at the conference on Harnessing Nigeria’s Religious Diversity for Sustainable Peace and National Development, held in Kano on December 1, 2022.




    10 Comments

    Next articles
    Read Reverend Kukah's analysis of the problems and the solution to Nigeria's multifaceted economic, religious, ethnic and regional issues here. Yearning for One Nation Bound in Freedom, Peace and Unity Backpage | 5 days ago GUEST COLUMNIST BY Matthew Hassan Kukah Today, most Nigerians have become cynical about conferences, seminars, committees, commissions and so on, because it is generally perceived that these initiatives are largely a distraction from the main problems of our dear country. There are two classes of respondents to these events. The first are those who believe that governments do not have the political will to follow through with recommendations no matter how laudable they are because often, they present inconvenient truths that are not politically rewarding at the time. Then there are those who believe that these initiatives are empty of content and government often simply wants to be seen doing something or that they want to score political points. I can speak rather authoritatively on this because I have served in about five Presidential initiatives and one initiative undertaken by the Northern governors nearly 10 years ago since our return to Democracy. In 2015 or 16, the Northern governors then created the impression that they wanted to deal with the problems of Boko Haram. In each of these cases, members of the committee work, hand in a report which is received in Government Houses amidst a rainbow of klieg lights and media bash. They shake hands, thank and smile with the members and everyone goes home to await the fire next time. We can say the same thing about our endless national and international conferences, conversations, seminars about dialogue and peace. The rituals continue and there is a sense in which we can say Nigeria is a country governed by conferences and seminars. Despite my seeming cynicism, I remain optimistic that these diagnostic initiatives are very important. For example, a good number of the issues being discussed in INEC today were debated and discussed at the Political Reform Conference in which I had the honour of being the Secretary and the Justice Uwais Committee on Electoral Reforms set up by the late President Yar’adua who had the sense of decency and honesty to admit that the elections that he won were flawed and he decided to do something about them by setting up the Committee. It was significant that your son, Professor Attahiru Jega was a member of that committee and he turned up as the Chairman of INEC. He laid a good foundation which our brother Professor Mahmud is working on today. So, we should not give up. At some point, serious minded people can and will dig up these reports and make use of them. For now, my hope is that even within the shortest time available to us that His Excellency can do something no matter how small so that others can build on it for the future. You have chosen the theme of Diversity, a theme that I am very interested in because without it, we have no future as a country. Our inability to manage our diversity has accounted for the tragedy that we find ourselves in today as a country. Rather than facing some terrible choices that the political class has made in managing our differences, we have ended up with the wrong diagnosis. These wrong diagnoses have led us to the popularization of ill-conceived ideas to which we now ascribe our differences and problems. For example, it is common to hear Nigerians say that Religion has become a problem for our country. We follow through with this falsehood by suggesting that the problems of Nigeria centre around an inherent conflict between Christians and Muslims. At the elite levels, we also say that there are problems between northerners and southerners. At another level, we hear that there are problems between minorities and majorities. At another level, we say that ethnicity is what is killing our nation and so on. In my view, these ideas may be popular but they are more a symptom than a disease as I will illustrate. You are welcome to disagree with me and that is fine because it will expand my own knowledge. Indeed, it is the lack of debate around these issues that has compounded our problems as I will show. First, if we say that there are problems between Christians and Muslim, what exactly are the problems and how are we going to resolve them? Will these problems be resolved by Christians converting to Islam or vice versa? I once received a gift of a rather provocative book from a friend of mine titled, A World Without Islam. I recall my friend calling me on the phone with a lot of excitement and saying, I have just read a book which I know you will like and so I bought a copy for you. I was quite intrigued about the contents of the book and wondered who could be crazy to write a book like this. However, the book, based on good scholarship simply concluded that if Islam or Muslims vanished from the world, there will still be no peace because communities or nations will simply go back to the wars they were fighting before Islam emerged. We can come to the same conclusion with a book titled, A World Without Christianity! And by the way, my friend who gave me this book is a northern Muslim! I am arguing that we must find other reasons to explain the deep hatred in our society today and I want to argue that it is tied to other sources not what has become popular today. The Kano civil war of 1984 was fought because the Caliph of Sokoto, not the Pope installed a new Emir. When Ife fought Modakeke over the years, how many Fulanis or Ijaws fought with either side? When the people of Umuleri and Aguleri in Anambra fought and killed themselves, how many Hausas or Kanuris were there? The people of Somalia have only one single ethnic group and they speak one language, but who wants to go and live in Somali today? We must therefore find other reasons for conflict in our society. We must look elsewhere if we are really and truly looking for how to build a good society and how to live in peace with one another. So, our hatred and violence against one another does not have much to do with Religion, Ethnicity or even region. It has to do with how politicians handle identities, how they manage the concepts of fairness and justice. So, you might ask, what is the source of our conflicts in Nigeria? I do not have the answers but I wish to refer to a theory in the Sociology of violence advanced by an American scholar called, the theory of relative deprivation by a man called, Ted Gurr. In his view, first of all, deprivation is relative, that is, our perception of what we do not have is often relative to our situation or conditions. Some communities might be feeling deprived because they do not have roads, others because they have no water, no jobs, or they have no schools or that they have no representation at the highest levels of government. Where there is a threshold of deprivation, people might react violently if they feel that the reason why they do not have is because others have. Thus, Christians have been upset by the Buhari administration because of the skewed nature of his appointments and how these appointments are perceived to have favoured Northern Muslims. The President and his team say, but other Christian leaders have done the same. You may not agree, but that is not the issue. The issue is what the aggrieved persons feel at a critical point. The point is that when people feel that others are better than them, they get jealous and may resort to violence to resolve their discontentment. The challenge therefore is not that people are angry or are tempted to violence, but the reasons are, who left the door of justice open for injustice to enter? Why, when and how did injustice creep in? Today, northern Nigerians romanticize the past by evoking the spirit of the Sardauna of Sokoto and we all create the impression that we all was well. Mention is made of how people like Audu Buba, Sunday Awoniyi, Jolly Tanko Yusuf and others were incorporated into power. The past was not perfect but at that time, people felt a sense of belonging. Today, with the creation of states which balkanized the north, how do people feel? We cannot answer these questions if we do not create the space to answer one another. I grew up watching how our grandmother dealt with us. If a child stumbled and fell on the ground and started crying, our grandmother will ask what happened. May be the child fell down through his or her carelessness. She will clean your tears while asking, what happened? If the child cannot speak, he or she could point to the ground suggesting that it is the ground that made him or her fall. The child will do this by pointing at the ground. Grandmother will use her hand to hit the ground saying Shege, why did you make my Hassan fall? The victim will feel relieved and we will all return to the field of play. Your Excellency, I want to thank you for giving me a platform to raise some issues today, those issues that as a Christian and a northerner, I feel have made me fall to the ground. I will like you not to judge or dismiss what I am saying. I am not a young man and I am also a Christian leader and an elder statesman. I believe that there is an urgent need for us to talk, and talk in a way that gets us results in the short, medium and long terms for a prosperous Nigeria. You may not resolve the issues now, but at least as a prominent politician, I will want you to accept that without talking and listening to one another, things will get progressively worse for our region and country. Here, I will list only five Questions and hope that through them we can begin to plan for a more harmonious future in our country and get beyond the politics of religion, region, social class and ethnicity. If we can address these issues, I can assure you, Nigeria will be on its way to achieving national cohesion. We can add to the list from both sides so that over time, generations will do their bit and pass on to the other generation. The first point I want us to look at is our common citizenship. Today, Nigerians speak of themselves as Muslims and Christians, Northerners and Southerners not as citizens. This is very unfortunate because it only feeds into and creates deeper fault lines that separate us. A study undertaken by a good friend of mine, the late Professor Rauf Al-Mustapha who taught here in Bayero University observed clear perceived grievances and feeling of being outsiders in Kano by certain groups based on ethnicity or denomination despite being Muslim. Such groups include women, youth, southerners and groups like Shiites and sub groups that are treated as outsiders within Islam. How do we close the gap and focus not on our religious faithfulness to God and our common citizenship? We are living in one country, held together by a Constitution which most people are not happy with but it is what we have. Despite its imperfections, our Constitution has enough provisions to ensure national cohesion. Second, Christians in Northern Nigeria are under severe stress and this has been so from the beginning. It is often not easy for those who are in power and have privileges to understand how the perceived victims feel. Christians do not feel a sense of belonging despite their enormous contribution in the areas of Business, Education and so on. Whether this is true or false is not the issue, it is that this is how they feel. Beyond Kano, Christians feel merely tolerated and their freedoms compromised. Perhaps you can say this language is strong or, as my critics sometimes say, Bishop Kukah you are being divisive. My job is to say how I feel not how you think I should feel. Often, those in the minorities in given situations of injustice, whether they are Women or Youth, Christians or Muslims outside their comfort zones are often accused of being ungrateful and that they do not appreciate the generosity of their hosts. But, we are in one country, given out to us by Lord Lugard and today, no one should be treated as a stranger anywhere nor should anyone claim to be host to anyone. It is the duty of government to make the laws that guarantee that we all obey such laws. For example, how do we explain the fact that Churches are seen but not accepted as part of our heritage in our cities? Why is burning of Churches tolerated? Why and how can a citizen taken the life of another on the grounds of religion and nothing happens? How is it that across the northern states, you can find land to build a Restaurant, a Hotel, a Cinema House and so on with no problem, but there is no land to build a Church? Governments in the North for example, often say that Christians should seek written permission from those around where they want to build a Church. How and what is it about Christianity that makes so many ordinary Muslims in northern Nigeria uncomfortable? What makes some Christians uncomfortable about Islam? We all claim to be descendants of Abraham which mean we have a common parentage. So why are we being denied our legitimate inheritance? Muslims make the same claims but the solution is not an exchange of excuses, but a determination to build harmony. The answer is to create an opportunity to hear out one another in forums such as these. The rights to practice our faiths should be adequately protected. Christians feel quite insulted when, as we have here in Kano, Land allocation forms that say that the land cannot be used for a Church or a brothel! This is not only an insult, but humiliating to Christians. We should openly show these wounds so they can be washed and treated. I hear Muslims say that in his days, the Prophet allowed Christians to pray in his mosque or that Muslims found refuge with a kind king in Abyssinia. I also hear quotations from the Koran to the effect that there is no compulsion in religion or that if God had wanted us to worship him in one way only, he would have made us one. So, who are those standing in the way of God today by denying other people their rights on the basis of religions? We are not asking you to give us your mosques, but by God, give us land to build our Churches, rebuild them when they are burnt and do not merely say that the criminals are merely miscreants. These miscreants are not spirits, they have parents and they have addresses even if they are on the streets. Our Governors should lead by example and do the right thing. When you stand with the victim, you point at a higher ideal about the future and you shame the extremist. Wherever a place of worship is desecrated, anywhere and any religion, we human beings are diminished and God is not pleased by this no matter where and when it happens. Third, Governors should take some courageous steps towards integration. When President Bush appointed Colin Powell as Chief of Defense Staff in a racially charged environment like America, he sent out a signal. When his son followed the same line and appointed Codoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, he was making a point. White racists were unhappy, but these prepared for the coming of President Barrack Obama as the first black President. Today, Joe Biden has appointed many Nigerians who were born or grew up in America to key positions and no one has raised a voice against the decision though many racists are not happy, but the President has demonstrated courage and vision of what kind of society he wants to build. Today, the UK has a Prime Minister that is the son of immigrants and there are Africans and Nigerians now in Parliament and holding key positions in the UK. We must aspire to these ideals if we are to compete in a global world. Governors should make certain appointments and create opportunities that point in the direction of genuine integration. At a time when Christians were denied access to the media here in Kano, things changed when General Abacha appointed a Catholic as Governor. So, my appeal goes beyond Kano to all the Governors. Do radical things that comfort the afflicted even if they afflict the comfortable! There will be discomfort but the future will be better. Fourth, Secularism, that very serious threat to Religion is rearing its head rather aggressively. We will not solve the problems by putting people in prison. On the contrary, imprisonment merely toughens people and serves as a rallying point for others with grievances. We Christians and Muslims must therefore step forward not to merely erect walls of protection for our individual faiths, but by dialogue, find ways of working together for the common good of all. What we see as the rejection of religion is not the rejection of faith. It is rather a lifting of the veil imposed by dogma at a time when citizens want freedom to think, to dream and to be what they want to be. The duty of the state is to ensure that space is created and that our views and actions do not hurt other people in the course of our freedom. Jails are not the solution unless due process is followed. I therefore appeal to the Governor to see all citizens of the state as his wards to be helped and guided by moral suasion, nurture and love. The people of Kano stand alone as the only state that did not take over schools after the civil war and I commend your predecessors. Without St. Louis and St. Thomas today, the story of the Male and Female elites of Kano would be different. Therefore, I speak as a Priest when I say, please stand with the Church and let us see how we can give our children a future in Education. I call for the creation of Chaplaincies for Christian and Muslim children in all our Educational institutions depending on the circumstances. In most of the Universities in the northern States, Vice Chancellors have not allowed the construction of Churches despite the provisions for these by the competent authorities at the highest level of government. We need the moral voices of Chaplains in our Universities so as to reverse the ugly trend of youth involvement with drugs, cultism and other forms of fanaticism which pose a serious threat to the moral fibre of our society. Imagine if we had Chaplains in our Universities, Christians and Muslims as we see in the Military working with Brigadier General Buba Marwa in his challenging assignment in the National Drug and Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA. Finally, Your Excellency, I appeal to you and your colleagues to help our nation embrace and deepen Democracy. Freedom is one of the key ingredients of Democracy and it is more valuable to citizens than what we call dividends of Democracy. Overhead bridges are good, roads, electricity and so on are good, but we did not need Democracy to build them. Indeed, history tells us that these infrastructures were better developed under tyranny and dictatorships whether in Malaysia, Singagore, South Africa or Germany. So, I appeal to you to please help appreciate freedom because it is fundamental to justice. Freedom is not synonymous with irresponsibility, disobedience to law. Freedom comes with responsibility. In a Democracy, literally everything is the result of negotiation, consensus, persuasion, debate, argument and so on. Bans do not develop a society as many parts of the world have realized. When you ban drugs, alcohol, films, speech, you drive people underground because the human spirit will always find other ways. The demand for these things will go underground and you would have handed a new economy to the underground mafia. So, let us debate the issues, let us debate our future, let us debate how we can build a great nation together. It is better to educate people about the harm of alcohol, drugs and other social ills than outright bans. Parents, Teachers, Religious Leaders we should all join hands in raising a society that knows honour and duty. I call on our politicians to develop the required skills for managing diversity because its mismanagement is killing our country. We will never be good Muslims or Christians if we do not embrace, respect and honour one another and our faiths. I call on our politicians to make politics more honourable by treating us all as free citizens in a free country under God. The frustrations and anger over a Muslim-Muslim ticket is based on the insecurity and fear that our people feel. Muslims would feel the same if it were a Christian-Christian ticket. Our women have a right to quarrel with a Male-Male ticket. In all, only a justice system, visible to all can save our country. Justice is like rain, even if you are blind, you can feel it. Similarly, we do not need to be Christians or Muslims to feel justice. We want to feel it because we are in our dear country given to us by God. This paper was presented by Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah at the conference on Harnessing Nigeria’s Religious Diversity for Sustainable Peace and National Development, held in Kano on December 1, 2022. 10 Comments Next articles
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3557 Views