THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE QUESTION

In an address to a group of Nazi leaders and Wehrmacht Generals in 1939, the German Führer, Adolf Hitler was reported to have said:

“Who, after all, speaks today about the annihilation of the Armenians.......?”

The Armenian question was one of the infamous civilian butcher hallmarks of the First World War. Ever since that inglorious incident, an adequate description begs the question for that incident, as the Turkish government insists it was never genocide; whilst the Armenian government thinks otherwise. In any case, grammatical historical credence might be lent to the Turkish government claims, as the word ‘genocide’ never existed in grammatical parlance during the First World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ was coined by Raphael Lemkin (a Polish-Jew criminal and international law specialist), in 1944.  He being a survivor of the Nazi instigated Jewish Holocaust, Lemkin coined the word to describe the Nazi policy of systematic murder and targeted annihilation committed by the German government during the Second World War.

The word ‘Genocide’ is a conglomeration of the Greek word ‘geno,’ meaning race or tribe and the Latin word ‘cide,’ meaning killing.

On December 9, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, thus defining Genocide as an international crime. Signatory states were obliged to prevent and punish the perpetrators 

According to the Convention, genocide is can be insinuated when

• There are mass murders of a target group(s) of people
• There is serious bodily or mental harm to the members of a group
• There is deliberate creation of such living conditions for a group that brings about its complete or partial physical extermination
• There are implementation of measures aimed at preventing birth rates within the group
• There are forcible transfers of children from one group to another 

Though long subjugated under Ottoman rule since the Middle Ages, Armenians made up the chunk of the Christian population of Ottoman administered Anatolia and the Caucasus alongside the Greeks. Ever since the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia from the Byzantines and consequent fall of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) to the Ottomans in 1453, the Ottomans who then assumed the torch bearers of the Islamic Caliphate or Sultanate sought a mutual cohesive governance of its subjugated populations who where majorly distinctively Christian and Muslim by religion. This nevertheless came with some restrictions to the once dominant Christian population as some Churches (e.g Hagia Sophia) were converted to Mosques and the dhimmi contract (taxable restrictive protection) was imposed on non-Muslim subjects (Jews and Christians) living within the Ottoman domain.

Following the Crimean war (1853-1856) in which Western European powers (Great Britain and France) sought to contain Russian expansionist aims in the Danube, Caucasus and around the Black Sea, the European powers advocated for the abolition of the dhimmi contract on Christians and called for equality of all religious groups in the Ottoman empire in return for their support for the Ottomans against the Russians. The Russian war effort in itself had a religious clout under the auspices of its expansionist aims. Seen as the protector and custodian of the Christian Orthodox religion (a successor and relic of the Byzantine Empire), the Russians had intent to liberate Christian minorities (most of whom were of the Orthodox faith) from Ottoman rule. This intent seen as fiat compli by the Ottomans and Russians fuelled mutual mistrust and ultimately war between both sides during the Russo-Turkish war (1877-1878) and World War One (1914-1918). Following initial gains by the Russians against the Ottomans in the Caucasus from Russo-Turkish War and Ottoman loss of territory in the Balkans which forced series of population exchanges of Muslims and Greeks (most of the Muslim population Thrace and the Balkans were forced to migrate into Anatolia whilst Greeks and other Christian minorities in Anatolia moved in the opposite direction); there was a growing simmering mistrust of the Christian population of Anatolia (who at this time were majorly Armenians). It was alluded by the Ottomans that though the Armenians (who lacked a homeland) but granted equality status (though being Christians) under the ‘Tanzimat’ programme will still be sympathetic to the cause of the Russian enemy who where their religious brethren.

The Armenian question within the Ottoman empire was first lime lighted in a speech by Ottoman Sultan, Abul Hamid II in 1890 where he was referred to have talked about resolving the ‘Armenian question’ once and for all:

 “I will soon settle those Armenians.....”

“I will give them a box on the ear which will make them…relinquish their revolutionary ambitions.”

Upon the freedom of the Slavs and Greeks from Ottoman rule in the late 19th century, the Armenians agitated for greater freedom (or possible independence) from Ottoman rule. This resulted in killings targeting the Armenians within the Ottoman Empire during that period. Following the start of the First World War, the Ottomans who allied with the Central powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) sought to reclaim lost territory especially in the Caucasus from the Russians who were fighting on the side of the Allies (Great Britain, France and later the United States). Clicking on the hint of the failure of the 1915 Gallipoli campaign of the allies and heavy Russian loses and subsequent capitulation in the hand of the Germans, the Ottomans moved in a sweep to settle old scores with the Russians and other dissident groups within their already crumbling empire in a bid to bring about a volte face to the dwindling fortunes of the waning empire.

On April 24, 1915 several hundred Armenian intellectuals and representatives of national elite (mainly in the capital of the Ottoman Empire, Constantinople) were arrested and later killed. As such, Armenians regard this act as the beginning of the ‘Armenian Genocide’; hereinafter, Armenians worldwide commemorate the ‘Armenian Genocide’ on April 24 of every year. In a military onslaught against Russian territory in Caucasus (which also is the Armenian homeland), hundreds of thousands of Armenians and other non-Turkish minorities in East Anatolia (the Caucasus) where deported to ‘safe zones’ in the Syrian desert and Mesopotamia in series of forced marches. As a result of this several deaths occurred in wilful murders by the Ottoman army, heat stroke, disease and other resultant deaths. It is estimated that about 1.5million people were deported in this exercise; a chunk of them being Armenian. 

Deportation routes by the Ottoman army
Source: en.wikipedia.org

As such, this form the basis of the ‘Armenian Genocide’ question claims by both parties alongside tagetted killings of Armenian Soldiers serving with the Ottoman army at that period (60000 were reported killed). The Turkish government (successor of the Ottoman Empire) claim that not only Armenians were deported in this military exercise though it took place in the Armenian heartland which substantiates the Armenian claims of genocide.

Armenian forced deportation marches by the Ottoman Army
Source: www.thinglink.com

After the First World War in 1918, new national borders were drawn by the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire (which was now powered by a group of army officers by the mantra of the ‘Young Turks’) scavenged for territory to salvage the glories of the Ottoman Empire. Midwifed by Ataturk Kemal, a new nation known as Turkey was born in 1922 from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. With borders redrawn, Anatolia (modern day Turkey) was emptied of its Christian population (Greeks had already moved out in population exchanges in the late 19th century and now Armenians most of whom were deported to their deaths had its survival residue racing across the borders to Russia and other Countries). Not until 1991 after the collapse of the USSR did Armenia attain sovereignty once again after millennia of subjugation.

A hundred years on from that incident we can still ask:

was the Ottoman-Armenian question genocide?

Every man with knowledge can be a judge in this matter.

Resolving Al-Shabaab's Menace in Kenya

"Our territorial integrity is threatened with serious security threats of terrorism. We cannot allow this to happen at all............ It means we are now going to pursue the enemy, who are the al-Shabaab, to wherever they will be, even in their country," Kenya's Internal Security Minister George Saitoti (2011)

The shooting spree that left about 147 people dead at Kenya’s Garissa University imbued the trade mark of an Al-Shabaab terrorist attack. Being the latest, Kenya has experienced several notable, including the Nairobi Westgate Shopping Mall attack of September 2013.

Bodies of slain students strewn at a Hostel in Kenya's Garissa University
Source:buzzkenya.com/kenyan-university-attack-victims-bodies-still-on-school-ground-face-down-and-shot-in-back-of-head/

Bordered by a politically unstable neighbour which is referred to in some quarters as the ‘World’s eternal headache’, Somalia is home to the notorious Al-Shabaab movement, which thrives there no thanks to the lack of an effective central government authority since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in 1991.

A divided Somalia with different spheres of control
Source:http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.com/2012/10/northern-mali-and-gates-of-hell-flemish.html

Ever since the bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi in 1998, Kenya has become a high-risk target for terrorist attacks, and it has since then experienced several.

The Al-Shabaab (Arabic word for ‘the youth’) movement grew from the ashes of what was left of the ICU (Islamic Courts Union) that sought to establish central authority in Somalia in 2005. Fearing radical Islamic expansionism owing to the declaration of Sharia law and a defacto Islamic Caliphate by the ICU, their reign was cut short by an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006 with the motive of curtailing a renewed secessionist agitation of Ethiopian Somalis in Ethiopia’s Ogaden province and buoyed by US fears of an Al Queda haven in Somalia.

Upon the dismantlement of the ICU, it was hoped that the internationally backed TFG (Transitional Federal Government) formed to centrally administer Somalia in 2004 but based in Kenya (due to security issues) would assume and begin to assert governmental authority in Somalia. Not even the transfer of the seat of the TFG from Kenya to Mogadishu could win the hearts of the dismantled ICU. Though some warlords and ICU members joined the TFG, greater members of the youth wing of the ICU transmuted to form the Al-Shabaab movement, whose mission was to neutralize and abolish the authority of the TFG and drive out foreign forces backing the TFG from Somali soil.

Meleed in the ensuing conflict orchestrated by Al-Shabaab, refugees poured into Kenyan soil and were sheltered at Dadaab. Following the commitment of the Burundian and Ugandan governments to send troops to Somalia to back the TFG in the fight for territorial control against Al-Shabaab, the movement launched its first attack outside Somali soil in the bombing of a football viewing centre in Kampala (Uganda’s capital) during the 2010 world cup final match.

The renewed outpour of Somali refugees into Kenya was also accompanied by diffused incursions of Al-Shabaab into Kenyan territory, a result of which saw an increase in the occurrence of kidnappings of foreigners in North Eastern Kenya.

Tourism is a key industry in Kenya, and Nairobi is a host to a significant UN presence, including many international and local NGOs involved in humanitarian relief and other activities; there were increased concerns about the Kidnapping trend, especially when several Europeans were seized in the Lamu area in September and October 2011, a resultant which hit the tourism industry hard. The last straw was when two Spanish aid workers with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) were kidnapped in the Dadaab refugee camp near the Kenya-Somalia border on 13th October 2011. After this incident, the Kenyan government ordered a full-scale invasion of Somalia with the aim of neutralizing Al-Shabaab and creating a buffer zone by establishing an autonomous Somali government in the Juba/Shebelle region to act as a defensive bulwark against cross-border incursions by Al-Shabaab in Northern Kenya. For this Kenyan initiative, the country became a target for Al-Shabaab attacks ever since, and the Garissa mass killing is one of several such.

The proposed Kenyan buffer sphere of influence in Somalia
Source: blog.crisisgroup.org/africa/2013/05/21/jubaland-in-jeopardy-the-uneasy-path-to-state-building-in-somalia/

Neutralizing guerrilla insurgency has been a hard task to accomplish by the best of the world’s armies; as such, the Kenyan Al-Shabaab experience is not a new phenomenon.

Neutralizing the Al-Shabaab menace will essentially entail proffering a permanent solution to the Somali problem. The age-long regional mistrust that bore the Kenya-Ethiopia defence pact of 1964  intrinsically targetting Somalia must be brought to bear to include Somalia in the fray. Regional powers of East Africa should respect Somalia’s distinctive ethno-religious identity, which places Islam at the centre of Somali culture. Thus, any Somali government must include all factions with minimal influence from regional powers. Only then will Somalia’s Al-Shabaab stop being a regional menace.

Regional Developments In The Battle For Syria

In an unfolding tragic tale of twists and turns, the Syrian conflict has transmuted from that of a solidarity show of support for the Arab Spring in 2011 to that of a continuous conflagrative self destruction perpetrated by a cesspool of several armed opposition factions majorly under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), several Jihadi groups notable among which are the Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State (IS); all of which though disunited on the battle front, are fighting a common cause of overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad.

Since 2011, when the conflict started, it was insinuated that the Syrian regime will fall, like that of Tunisia and Egypt within a couple of months. As protests against the government simmered, it was met with brute response from the security forces and that gave birth to the armed opposition mostly made up disaffected government soldiers under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). With a resolute government not ready to stand down, the scenario turned from that of protest scenes to a full scale conflict.

As world powers (US, UK, France, China and Russia) bickered on resolutions and counter resolutions to resolve the ensuing conflict, their actions and inaction buoyed by an unstable neighbouring Iraq facing a Jihadi insurgency turned the tide of the conflict to that of an unfolding grotesque. Jihadi fighters under the platform of the Islamic State or ISIS and the Al-Nusra front with a vision of creating an Islamic Caliphate in the entire Middle East launched cross border incursions into Syria. For the Jihadists they had two enemies; the Syrian government and the armed opposition forces. On the long run, the Islamic State (IS) gained much ground and declared a caliphate on conquered territories covering Iraq and Syria.

Haunted by the ripples of past military campaigns in the Middle East notably Iraq, the US and the Western powers though yearning for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad dithered in active military support for the Syrian Opposition and with the Syrian regime finding active support from Russia, there was no blithe to the aggression of the opposition. As such, the Syrian conflict was left to run its brutal self destructive cause with the hope that the struggle would be resolved on the battle field.

The rise of the Islamic State kitted with sophisticated weaponry captured from the US kitted Iraqi army has changed the face of the conflict. With the capture of large swathes of territory across Iraq and Syria by this group, they seem poised to give a knockout blow to what is left of the regimes in Iraq and Syria and then expanding their conquest beyond. Faced with this threat and brutal executions of hostages by the Islamic state, the US together with a coalition of Western and Arab Countries have begun to take military action, launching airstrikes against IS targets. However, airstrikes alone will not wipe of the capabilities of the Islamic State and whilst the US do have a working relationship with the Iraqi government, the same cannot be said with the Syrian government.

Mapping the Syrian conflict
Source: bbcnews.com

Peace moves has seemed elusive and those arranged in Geneva (Geneva 1 and Geneva 2) between the Syrian opposition and the government ended inconclusively, voiding the wisdom of top diplomats in Koffi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi.

Lessons learnt from the intrigues of the Arab Spring especially in Libya and the Iraqi story after the US invasion of 2003 has proved that overthrowing strong regimes to the mercies of an uncoordinated opposition doesn’t favour the stability of the State either on the short or long run; therefore, it might be tragic to note that at this stage of the conflict, the US is still trying to identify ‘the moderate armed opposition’ to kit with arms in the fight against the Islamic State.

The Syrian conflict at this stage will be best resolved by the use of force against the Islamic State and other extremist groups and political negotiation between the opposition and government. Seeing that the Syrian Opposition does not have control over the activities of the armed opposition (Free Syrian army) and that the armed Opposition in itself do have a concrete command structure, the sustenance of the regime of Bashar al-Assad becomes expedient for the survival and continuity of the Syrian state.

The Syrian people have suffered untold casualties destruction of their homeland and this has had a spiral effect on neighbouring countries. As such, the conflict should be resolved by pragmatic means at this stage forgiving past misdeeds.

THE WIDER INTERNATIONAL FIGHT AGAINST BOKO HARAM

“The murderous campaign waged by Boko Haram demands stronger and more coordinated action from us all. Regional and international efforts must focus on protecting communities in northern Nigeria and across borders. More than a million internally displaced people and refugees must be able to return home,”  Ban Ki-moon

The last Africa Union Summit at Addis Ababa produced amongst several resolutions a concerted multinational action force against the Boko Haram movement in Nigeria; for the first time in 6yrs since the start of Boko Haram’s murderous insurrection, a tangible offensive was being executed against the rampaging terrorists who have seized swaths of territory in North Eastern Nigeria and declaring an Islamic caliphate.

Mapping the Boko Haram Conflict in North Eastern Nigeria
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boko_Haram_in_Lake_Chad_Region.png

Not limiting their invasive menace to Nigerian territory, Boko Haram has launched cross-border attacks at Northern Cameroun, burning settlements and kidnapping people. Of the several marauding and menacing activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, the one that first grabbed international attention was the kidnap of over 270 school girls at a secondary school in Chibok on the 14th of April 2014. For the first time, a protest was launched by Nigerians online and on the streets, challenging the Nigerian government to #BringBackOurGirls. Originating from the streets of Abuja, it gained international acclaim with solidarity protests in major cities worldwide. Even young Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai had to visit the Nigerian president to express international concern for the cause.

Obiageli Ezekwensili leading the initiation of the Bring Back Our Girls Campaign at Abuja
Source: http://sunnewsonline.com/new/?p=83030

After several embarrassing defeats suffered by the Nigerian Army in the fight against the terrorists, which emboldened cross-border attacks against Cameroun by Boko Haram, there was international concern that Boko Haram was toeing the path of the Islamic State (IS) in inflicting a regional terrorist menace thus threatening the stability of Nigeria, Cameroun, Niger, Chad and the wider West and Central Africa Sub-region. With a resurging activity of Alshabab in East Africa and Libya being made ungovernable by several Islamist Militant groups, Africa could not afford another new militant front in West Africa.

Nigeria, being Africa’s most populous Nation and wielding socio-economic powers within West Africa and Africa, could not be allowed to crumble under the binge of Extremist Islamist Militancy.  Aside from the fear of losing an economic powerhouse with its enormous human and natural resources to instability, Nigeria’s neighbours are heavily dependent on her for their socio-economic survival and will crumble under the sheer weight of the influx of refugees from an unstable Nigeria.

Though there have been attempts to the formation of a Multinational Joint Task Force to curb the cross-border menace of Boko Haram, contributing countries (Nigeria, Chad, Niger and Cameroun) initially had not been sincere in maintaining the creed, and that, in part, resulted in the capture of the Multi-National Joint Task Force Base at Baga in January 2015 by Boko Haram.

Armed with loots of weaponry from Baga and other captured Nigerian Army Bases, Boko Haram was poised to carry out their menacing threat to undermine the Nigerian government and, indeed, that of its neighbours. Faced with this threat and the associated problem of stifled economic activities cum refugee influx, Nigeria’s neighbours had no choice but to take the fight to Boko Haram in Nigeria instead of waiting at the borders to repel them.

Following the recommendations of the Africa Union Peace and Security Council, the Africa Union at the last Summit passed a resolution calling for the formation of a Multi-National Joint Taskforce to crush Boko Haram. A force of 7500 soldiers comprising 3,250 Nigerian soldiers, 3,000 Chadian Soldiers, 950 soldiers from Cameroon, 750 from Niger and the remaining 750 from Benin. These figures include not only infantry troops and artillery but also gendarmes and police squads, as well as engineering, logistical and civilian units.

“Nigeria must get involved and honour its promise of providing between 2,500 and 3,000 to the multinational force,” Colonel Didier Badjeck Cameroon’s defence spokesman. 

After several years of mistrust and territorial disputes between Nigeria and her neighbours, for the first time, the once dis-consonant neighbours have agreed to work together to quench a marauding threat to peace and economic development within their common borders, thus providing an African Solution to an African problem.

Though Chad has taken it upon itself to spearhead hostilities against Boko Haram across the borders and spearheading the international force action against Boko Haram within Nigerian territory, the onus and impetus in the counter-insurgency against Boko Haram still lies on Nigeria’s security forces, who themselves are doing their fighting bit to exterminate once and for all the budding threat of Islamic militancy within its borders. Ensuring the Boko Haram menace is nullified once and for all. Never again!

Is Nigeria Tearing Itself Apart?

After years of Military rule, Nigeria clawed back her path to democratic governance in 1999 and for the first time in her history, there have been three successive democratic transitions without Military intervention. Though marred by electoral irregularities, political assassination and post election violence, the Nigerian democratic model is seen as that which is growing from the nascent stage of teething pains to the part of maturity.

Political map of Nigeria

Source: http://newsrescue.com/100-years-100-interesting-facts-nigeria/#axzz3RZNTHPSy

Based on the American Presidential system of government, the Nigerian government is tailored to the Federal System of government with a two term limit of four years each for the executive arm, and an unlimited four year term for the legislative arm. With a skewed Federal system concentrating central power on the executive, the elections for executive posts (Presidential and gubernatorial) are seen as a ‘do or die’ affair. The matter is not helped with the juicy pecuniary emolument attached to political posts coupled with the power to issue contracts which is usually a drain pipe to loot public funds; politics is seen as a worthy full time career/business venture.

Another divisive factor used as a political tool is religion and ethnicity. To the North of the Niger/Benue Rivers, the population is predominantly Muslim and unified by the Hausa language; though still ethnically diverse, the influence of the defunct Sokoto Caliphate which ruled the area during pre-colonial times is still felt and that accounts for the unifying language and religion. Nevertheless, there are pockets of highland areas untouched by the Jihad thus having different ethno-religious mix up. Such areas like Jos, Southern Kaduna being religious/cultural islands (mostly Christianity) differing from their predominantly Muslim Hausa/Fulani neighbours.

South of the Niger-Benue trough to the West, the population is predominantly Yoruba and their religious leaning is a near equal balance of Christianity and Islam albeit mixed with a deep affinity for cultural and indigenous belief/bond. To the East of the Niger River, the population is predominantly of the Igbo ethnic stock and the Niger Delta is awash with an agglomeration of several ethnic leanings, though the Ijaw ethnic group is dominant. Christianity is the dominant religion in this part of the country.

Nigeria’s ethnic diversity

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31101351

Such is the diverse polarity of Nigeria’s ethno-religious mix, making the ethnic/religious leaning of any political aspirant a first point of question. As such, major political parties in Nigeria are cognizant of this so if for example a political aspirant is Christian, his/her running mate must be Muslim. If He/she is from the South, the running mate must be from the North. This principle is referred to as zoning and though it is the constitutional agreement of the ruling PDP (People’s Democratic Party), such norm is widely accepted in the national political consciousness as politically correct.

This has enhanced the deep mistrust along tribal and religious lines especially betwixt the North and South. The North is seen to be politically dominant having produced 8 of Nigeria’s 12 rulers since independence who have spent a combined 30yrs of 54yrs of independence in power.

Agglomerated by British colonial rule, the fault lines in Nigeria’s political make up was evident during the pogrom of the Igbo’s in the North after the first coup d’etat in 1966 which led to a 30month civil war. Ever since, there has been no stop to bloodletting in pockets of sporadic ethnoreligious violence in Northern cities of Kano, Kaduna, Bauchi etc each time targeting Christians and Southerners (either Christian or Muslim). It is however sad to note that after such riots, no master minder/perpetrator is brought to book. This has fuelled suspicion and mistrust conjuring insinuations that the government (at those times controlled by Northerners) where behind the violence.

With the advent of democracy in 1999, power shifted to the south as Ex-Military ruler, Gen. Obasanjo won the presidential elections. His advent to power was seen as power balance after 20 contiguous years of Military rule albeit by Northerners. He went on to rule for two terms and made attempts to push for a third term which was thwarted. The North/South ethno religious mistrust continued to fester during his rule as some governors of Northern states sued for sharia law in their domain. With the Presidency powerless to stop the trend, the entrenched mistrust cascaded into riots in Northern Christian enclaves of Jos and its environs.

Aside, ethno-religious violence, Nigeria’s peace has been taunted by the rise of militancy. This is a resultant of politicians arming thugs to intimidate their opponents and then abandoning or refusing to mop up arms given to these thugs after elections. These actions fuelled the ferocity and menace of the Niger Delta militants in the Niger Delta and Boko Haram in the North East.

The Niger Delta after a long agitation for resource control has produced the Country’s current president in Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and, this has helped to quell the activities of the Militants. However, with elections around the corner and the president intending to run for a second term, there have been associated excerbated fears in the National polity viz:

1.     A prominent Niger Delta militant leader, Asari Dokubo have issued a threat that the President either wins the election or not return home as the President must exhaust all available term limit.

2.     There are fears that elections may not hold in some parts of the North East where Boko Haram’s activities are ferocious thus granting illegitimacy to any planned elections.

3.     Security fears have made elections to be postponed from February 14th to March 28 with the intention that the army would have recaptured territories occupied by Boko Haram.

4.     There are innate fears that the elections might not even hold at all with the premise that: If the army could not contain Boko Haram in the last 6 years, how would they in 6 weeks? This might cause a constitutional crisis if the transition programme is thwarted.

5.     The outburst of Militants and opposition leaders threatening war or forming a parallel government casts a shadow of impending violence on the Nation.

Ultimately, the fear is this: If President Jonathan looses at the polls, the Niger Delta militants might begin violence which entails bursting oil pipelines, kidnapping of oil workers all of which will shut down oil production which is the main stay of the economy.

A win for President Jonathan might ignite post election violence in the North and with a delicate security balance unlike 2011;  the security forces might have their hands full in that regard.

Every Nigerian knows what the permutations are and in the end the resilient spirit will wear on, but some lives will be lost and life will go on till another political transition period when the same cycle will be repeated.