The Unholy Trinity – National Interest Vs. Regime Interest By Anthony Chuka Konwea, P.E.

Regimes come, regimes go,
but nations mostly, and
political parties remain. Now
there may be several
contending regime
tendencies within the same
political party. It is
interesting to note that the
interests of regimes (or
administrations) are not
necessarily synonymous or
coterminous with the
interests of their own
political parties or other
intra-party regime
tendencies not to talk of
their nations. That is the
nature of politics.
The first order interest of a
regime regardless of its
pretensions to the contrary
is oftentimes regime stability
or in other words regime
preservation. This is
legitimate. There is nothing
criminal in attempting to
ensure maximum regime
longevity within the
circumscribing ambits of the
prevailing national
constitution and the
governing laws of the land.
Yet the surest, moral and
ethical way of achieving
regime longevity is via good
governance. Other ways,
much less ethical but
nonetheless legal include
propaganda, fear mongering,
opponent deprecation
(without defamation) and
amplification of opponent
weaknesses.
Another legitimate regime
interest is the injection of
regime philosophy,
technocratic know-how and
administrative capability into
the national governing
sphere ostensibly for the
betterment of society.
Assuredly concrete
achievements may earn the
leading lights of a regime
considerable yet unsolicited
influence well beyond their
regime lifespan and in direct
proportion to the degree of
successful performance of
their regime or their own
persons. And so the
personal influence of
President George W. Bush
cannot in any way be
compared to that of his
immediate predecessor
President Bill Clinton in
contemporary America for
instance.
However not all regime
interests are legitimate. The
illegitimate interest of
regimes encompasses many
sub-headings too numerous
to mention here. The
principal illegal regime
interest is primitive wealth
accumulation, to put it more
bluntly raw stealing, via the
selfish cornering of the
resources, of a captive
nation under their care,
supposedly held in trust for
the nation. These hostage
resources are then
distributed among regime
members, acolytes or
associates often in direct
proportion to their personal
ranking in the regime’s de-
facto power structure.
Another illegitimate interest
of regimes is securing the
loyalty of people to the
regime itself rather than to
the nation or even to God.
Regime loyalty is
disproportionately rewarded
with the resources of the
nation. National loyalty on
the other hand is severely
punished. And so the regime
gradually transforms into a
cult with several concentric
rings of fanatical cadres
fanning outwards from the
core and shielding the core
from critical censure and
public scrutiny.
Still another all too common
yet illegitimate regime
interest is regime stretch or
regime creep beyond the
regime-expiry date as
prescribed by the national
constitution. This is achieved
by employing various
subterfuges such as election
rigging, intimidation of the
opposition, unwarranted
constitutional amendments
which are fraudulently
obtained, instigated
declaration of states of
emergency, acts of internal
and external terrorism,
unprovoked declaration of
war with other nations etc.
Yet another illegitimate
regime interest is the
calculated and self-serving
entrenchment of regime
influence well beyond the
legally allotted regime
lifespan. Regimes that
harbor such illegitimate
interests are rogue regimes.
Note that these illegitimate
interests particularly
primitive wealth
accumulation are often
sanctimoniously denied by
rogue regime elements,
even to the point of death.
For our purposes, let us call
regimes which were ever
once in power, substantive
regimes. By the same token
let us call regimes currently
in power, subsisting
regimes. Finally we choose
to call aspiring regimes,
which are yet to attain
political power, embryonic
regimes. Thus while a
subsisting regime is equally
a substantive regime, a
substantive regime might not
be a subsisting regime
depending upon whether it
is currently in power or not.
For counter posing
embryonic regimes,
especially those sponsored
by opposition political
parties, their first order
interest is basically regime
change. They want to acquire
political power as quickly
and presumably as legally as
possible. Their chief selling
point is the potential of
injecting fresh regime
philosophies and supposedly
superior administrative
know-how into the national
governing firmament.
While substantive or
subsisting regimes have
already been birthed,
embryonic regimes certainly
do not have a 100% chance
of ever seeing daylight.
For instance the late Chief
Obafemi Awolowo, the
leading light of several
embryonic regimes that
were aborted supposedly via
election rigging, was
described at death as the
‘best President Nigeria never
had’ by the late Chief
Odumegwu Ojukwu, the
erstwhile Biafran rebel
leader.
Many other embryonic
regimes that did not see the
light of day abound including
that of Chief M.K.O. Abiola,
aborted by the military, and
those of Vice Presidents Dr.
Alex Ekwueme and Alhaji
Atiku Abubakar both aborted
by intra-party primaries
defeats, etc. Many
substantive regimes were
actually substantive rogue
regimes. Equally many
embryonic regimes were
actually embryonic rogue
regimes.
Embryonic rogue regimes
share the same mostly
unstated illegitimate
interests as substantive
rogue regimes. Indeed all
rogue regimes, embryonic or
substantive have three
defining illegal regime
interests.
This trinity of unholy
interests encompasses:
firstly, primitive wealth
accumulation at the expense
of the nation, secondly,
regime stretch beyond the
original legal time frame and
thirdly, entrenchment of
rogue regime influence. It is
almost impossible to have
one aspect of this unholy
trinity in a particular regime
without the others lurking
around.
The father figure in this
unholy trinity is primitive
wealth accumulation at the
expense of the nation. This
is the root and creator of all
regime evils. Proceeding
from this as naturally as
conception proceeds from
mating is regime stretch.
Rogue regimes that have
accumulated illegal wealth
will never extinguish
themselves voluntarily since
they cannot have too much
of a ‘good thing’. They would
inevitably seek all means
high and low to self-
perpetuate unless and until
they are forced to exit by
circumstances beyond their
direct control.
Once this is the case they
then attempt to transmute
their “substantive nature”
into “spiritual existence”
within successor regimes. In
other words they attempt to
project their influence
beyond their existence. They
must do this to avoid future
prosecution for the
misdeeds and crimes
committed while in office
and in order to protect their
accumulated loot.
Look back. Look around.
Look ahead.
Any substantive regime that
you identify that has shown
or shows any aspect of the
‘unholy trinity’ was or is a
rogue regime. We are not
talking here of military
regimes because these were
already rogue regimes right
from conception.
Equally, any embryonic
regime constituted
principally by or built around
elements that have shown
any of the aspects of the
unholy trinity in past
administrations at local,
state or national levels is an
embryonic rogue regime.
In all these however, what is
and where lies the national
interest?
The national interest
revolves around sustained
economic progress,
provision of reasonable to
excellent physical and social
infrastructure, maintenance
of good health and social
well-being of the citizenry,
maintenance of law and
order, the security of lives
and property, employment
for those willing and able to
work, internal harmony,
equality before the law,
enthronement of
meritocracy, protection of
the weak from the strong,
protection of the corporate
integrity of the nation,
projection of national image
and influence beyond
national boundaries,
provision of ample
opportunities for self-
actualization and self-
advancement by citizens
willing to develop
themselves to the fullest
possible potential depending
on individual ability and self-
application etc.
As you can see, by
definition, the national
interest differs significantly
from regime interest.
The crucial question then is
this. Does the national
interest ever coincide with
regime interests? Where and
to what extent do the
national interest and any
subsisting regime interests
overlap? Where and to what
extent do the national
interest and various
embryonic regimes’ interests
merge?
Upon serious introspection,
the answer can only be that
the national interest
coincides with any subsisting
regime’s legal interest
insofar as that regime
actively and competently
(not via lip service) promotes
the well being of the people
and the integrity of the
nation as enumerated above.
The national interest further
coincides with the legitimate
aspiration for longevity of
such a caring regime to the
extent that such aspiration
for longevity lies within the
ambits of the national
constitution as met by the
regime at its emergence and
is subject to the unaltered
governing laws of the land.
The same applies to those
embryonic regimes whose
regime ideology is geared
towards the well being of
the people and who’s past
records show adequate
capability to achieve those
goals. The national interest
coincides with the legitimate
aspirations for regime
change by such caring
embryonic regimes within
the ambits of the
constitution and the
governing laws of the land in
so far as the subsisting
regime to be replaced is not
acting in the higher national
interest as outlined above.
The unholy trinity of quasi-
irredeemable features, which
defines rogue regimes, is
incompatible with the
progress of a nation and the
well being of its peoples.
Any regime, past or present,
substantive or embryonic
which manifests or has
manifested any aspect of the
unholy trinity, be it primitive
wealth accumulation, be it
regime stretch, or be it self-
serving propagation of
regime influence beyond
regime existence, did not
act, is not acting and will
most likely never act in the
national interest.
It was or is a rogue regime
and if subsisting, it should
be voted out at the earliest
possible constitutional
opportunity. If embryonic it
should never be voted into
power by patriotic citizens.
It is my considered opinion
that arising from the
foregoing, all the substantive
regimes till date in Nigeria’s
checkered history are rogue
regimes. It is a small wonder
that Nigeria is still grappling
with under development, 52
years after independence.

May God bless Nigeria.
Engr. A. C. Konwea, P.E.

#CONSENSUS 2015