 Published
February 24th, 2011
Tunisia and Egypt have fallen in that order; Algeria, Yemen,
Bahrain and Libya are quaking with tremors; and Iran,
Jordan, UAR and Saudi Arabia are lying directly on its
perilous path. And so also are Qatar, Kuwait and many
others. The still
unfolding political events in North Africa and the Middle
East have rightly or wrongly been described as “revolutions”
in many quarters.
It’s not my desire to split hairs over the meaning of the
term, but let’s get our terminology aright so that we might
be and remain on the same page in this fascinating discourse
about what is really happening in those parts of the world
at the moment and perhaps continuing into the immediate
future as well, because there is no telling the end of it
from its beginnings. And there is no telling either how
farther afield it might spread beyond the Gulf States, or
for that matter, its wider implications on the still tepidly
recovering global economy. There are simply too many
imponderables at the moment.
For the most part, it is still work in progress and the
character of the finished product is yet unknown and perhaps
unknowable even with the declared goals until much later in
the day, for who would have known that Egypt would wind up
with military regime after the fall of President Hosni
Mubarak? As my people would put it graphically, the song
that you sing on the way to the river is not the same song
you sing on the way back. And so has it been for the
Egyptians during and after the fall of Mubarak. They have
been forced to sing a different song today on their way back
and, believe it or not, it’s not nearly as sonorous as the
one they sang yesterday on their way to the river of
revolution.
Revolution Defined
Revolution might mean different things to different people in
different places. And it could be applied strictly or
loosely to refer to just about any change under the sun. But
there is a huge difference between change of government and
revolution. In its political signification, however,
revolution refers to the complete overthrow of an entire or
at the very minimum major components of an existing social
order and its replacement with one of a totally different
kind usually but not necessarily of an opposite character or
genre.
It, therefore, goes way beyond mere change of government to
fundamental changes in social relations in the societies of
their occurrence. Revolutions touch at the very core of a
people’s way of life in all its ramifications; affecting
their economics, politics, religion, social, science and
technology, arts and culture and, yes, their relationships
with the outside world, personalities, attitudes, and much
more. Perhaps a good analogy would be the replacement of the
engine of a car with a totally different one to power it,
which could affect not only the mechanical power of the car
but its electrical, fuel, cooling, battery, and lubricating
systems in fundamental ways. The engine of a car is the
heart of the car, but the driver of a car is not the heart
of the car and not even part of the car itself to begin
with. The driver is like the government. Therefore, changing
the government is like changing the driver of a car.
The overthrow of one social order and its complete
replacement with another kind of social order is therefore
properly called a revolution, while a change of government
that does not result in the overthrow of an existing social
order and its replacement with another of a different kind
may, for want of better expression, be termed or described
as a game of musical chairs that merely reshuffles old and
tired faces in the palace or citadel of power.
What has happened so far in North Africa, though admittedly
earth-shattering in the nations affected due to the
particular leaderships involved, were not revolutions
properly so-called, but ordinary change of governmental
leaderships just like the sacking of a company’s board of
directors by its shareholders with the company’s product and
services, corporate environment, processes and culture
remaining basically untouched and intact.
I know this verdict will be hard for folks to swallow having
been bombarded with screaming headlines of revolutions in
Egypt and Tunisia, but that is obviously not the case. I
wish it was but it’s not and I’m not going to sit here and
dress up the overthrow of a dictator in Egypt or Tunisia as
revolution when everything else, including the political and
economic systems has remained intact.
Had the authoritarian Mubarak regime been overthrown and
replaced outright with a democratic government it would have
occasioned not just a change of government but the overthrow
the existing social order and therefore entitled to be
called a revolution. Regrettably, both in Tunisia and Egypt,
the existing social orders in those countries were not
overthrown and therefore the unjust social relations that
gave rise to the uprisings in the first place have been left
completely untouched with no indication whatsoever that they
would be addressed in future.
Perhaps the clearest indication that the more things seemed
to have changed the more they remain the same in Egypt comes
from the Egyptian military itself as reported by the New
York Times in its February 18th edition to the
effect that the military, which all along had had its own
closet economy and involved in the manufacturing of military
armored tanks and trucks, washing machines, and even the
running of day care centers amongst other commercial
interests and had been answerable to none, not even to
parliament, has quickly moved to shield those businesses
from the prying eyes of the public. It has refused to open
up its businesses to public scrutiny and has in fact moved
to purge the Egyptian parliament of elements advocating
openness in the running of the military’s commercial
interests.
Of course both reformers and revolutionaries are not happy
about this but that is what the so-called revolution has
brought to Egypt. What this revelation tells us is that the
Egyptian military which had been a government unto itself
under President Hosni Mubarak and has been further empowered
by the protesters by acquiring presidential powers in
addition to their commercial interests, which they have
swiftly moved to protect. Their generals must all be
stinking billionaires just like Mubarak himself. And who
says Mubarak does not have interests in those commercial
business operations with him being the Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces and being from the military himself in the
first place? The whole Egyptian economy is now fair game for
the military and you can be sure those commercial interests
will only multiply a thousand folds rather than diminish
under its total control of governmental powers. Mubarak
himself is being heavily guarded by the military at what
seems like his vacation resort after his retirement and
there is no indication that he will be brought to trial.
And what is more; the 30-year old state of emergency that
allowed the government to arrest and detain people
indefinitely has not been lifted even by the military. So,
theoretically at least, Egyptians can still be picked up and
detained indefinitely. Till date many of the protesters are
still missing and the cries and agonies of their parents
still rent the air even as others celebrate the fall of
Mubarak. One has got to ask, where is the change that people
fought for and died for in18 solid days at the Liberation
Square? Egyptians, including the protesters themselves are
asking this very question and getting no real answers from
any quarters whatsoever. Now, can anyone tell us why we
should have any confidence at all in a democratic transition
overseen by the Egyptian military given its past and present
pre-occupations?
It is clear, therefore, that the social order has not changed
in Egypt and, if it has, it probably has changed for the
worse not better. In this connection, social order refers to
the political and socio-economic relations as between the
state and the citizens on the one hand, and as amongst the
citizens of the state inter-se, encompassing property
relations and political rights. Agreed things cannot change
overnight but the essence of revolutions is dramatic and
abrupt overthrow of the existing social order not
incremental changes that are properly termed “reforms” not
revolutions. Though the change of governments in Egypt and
Tunisia was abrupt and dramatic, that alone without more,
does not quality them as revolutions. It is fair to
conclude, therefore, that unless and until real multi-party
democracies are emplaced in both Tunisia and Egypt, not
caricatures, the revolutions that purportedly took place in
both countries are decidedly inchoate or at best incomplete.
There is unfinished business in both countries that people
should come to terms with even as they celebrate the fall of
their dictators.
Let’s be clear about this to avoid any hint of
misunderstanding or confusion: There is every cause to
celebrate the momentous fall of Mubarak and his counterpart
in Tunisia, which is a poignant demonstration of the power
of the people and the chain of events it has unleashed in
other Arab nations and even beyond to Iran. However, great
as the uprisings were in terms of their historical
significance, the fact remains that inchoate and incomplete
revolutions are worse than no revolutions at all in that
they create false sense of hope and accomplishments in the
minds of the people whereas nothing fundamental has actually
changed on the ground. It’s like acquiring half education
due to lack of resources or will power to continue to
graduation, which we all would agree is dangerous and worse
than no education at all because it creates a false of
accomplishment or confusing impression of one being educated
without being educated.
The reported observation by an Egyptian pharmacist and
protester named Ghada Elmasalmy,
43, when he said that the
"The army is with us but it must realize our demands. Half
revolutions kill nations," as reported by Reuters,
goes straight to the heart of the matter. Elmasalmy was
right on the money to have characterized what happened in
Egypt and Tunisia as “half revolutions,” which I would,
however, prefer to describe as a game of musical chairs.
Pro-democracy movements in other Arab nations must,
therefore, not copy the Egyptian model hook, line and
sinker, but guard against the emergence of the military to
replace the monarchs in the event of their fall. In fact,
they should not do business with the military at all in
those countries as did the protesters in Egypt because the
military has a different agenda altogether.
No matter how long both Mubarak and
Zine El
Abidine Ben Ali had stayed in power their overthrow amounts to no more than
“regime change” and nothing even close to revolutions. We
knew what the American Revolution amounted to in the British
colonies in North America. It led to the Declaration of
Independence from Britain and the inauguration of the United
States of America as sovereign nation, and completely
uprooted the pre-existing social order of colonial rule. We
knew what the Bolshevik revolution brought about in the
Russia. It did not simply overthrow the Czar, but completely
uprooted the pre-existing social order of monarchical rule
and replaced it with communism and created a new nation
called the USSR. The same was true of the English, French
and Chinese revolutions and all the other revolutions in
history, including those in Cuba, Venezuela and Iran, just
to mention but a few that uprooted entire systems and
replaced them with totally different ones.
The single most important qualifying
characteristic of revolutions is the complete overthrow of
the system not mere overthrow of pre-existing governments.
This important qualifier has not been satisfied in the
Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings that led to the fall of
their dictatorships. Bluntly put, no revolutions have taken
place in those countries but changes in governments. This is
not to diminish the importance of those epochal events in
any way, but to get our perspectives right. It makes for
clarity of analysis as well as proper appreciation of what
has taken place so far, and what remains to be done to get
to the Promised Land of democracy.
What has been done only amounts to a down
payment and the balance must be paid in due course because
down payments cannot satisfy an entire indebtedness. That is
the next battle ahead in both Egypt and Tunisia and indeed
other parts of the Arab world. The incremental revolution
must not abate though because the first step is critical and
just as important as the last step. A transition to
multi-party democracy in Egypt under the present caretaker
military regime as promised in six months will hopefully
complete the Egyptian revolution. But until that happens,
the revolution has effectively been arrested, no thanks to
the inexperienced organizers who simply played into the
hands of the military.
No Diminution
BUT even so, there is no diminution of the
flames of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings that have
leapt across their borders to other lands in Arabia
thousands of miles away resulting in the alarmed authorities
calling in their fire fighters to either contain the spread
or put out the fires altogether even as their masses have
been excited at the arrival of the flames of democracy in
their lands.
There is
both exhilaration and palpable fear in the air in the North
African, Middle-Eastern and, you guessed right, in the
Arabian atmospherics. And it’s so thick one could literarily
cut through it with a butcher’s knife.
From Bahrain to Libya, Algeria
to Kuwait, the tree of freedom is being watered by the blood
of the brave men and woman who are laying down their lives
to liberate their fatherland from the scourge of tyranny.
These regions are having their dates with history—a history
that had long been denied them by their maximum rulers. Yes,
they are having the bitter/sweet taste of their peoples’
eruption of fury, which had been boiling barely below the
surface and has turned into a veritable political hurricane
that is leaving debris trail of fallen dictatorships strewn
across the Arab world.
But what
does this mean for the world? What does this mean for
Europe, Africa and North America? I don’t know about Europe
and North America but this is definitely good news for
Africa that is grappling with democratic transitions. It
means North Africa has finally come on board with Africa
south of the Sahara, and no more will the likes of Muammar
Qadaffi and Hosni Mubarak grace its continental AU meetings.
However, Europe has been uncharacteristically silent in the
face of these uprisings. The Gordon Browns and Sakorskys of
Europe that were beating hard on Iran during its own mass
uprisings last year have been missing in action this time
around, maintaining studied silence. And for the United
States, the word is deliberate ambivalence—that is
deliberately speaking from both sides of her mouth—appearing
to be neither for nor against the revolutions. It’s called
diplomatese—which practically means being neither here nor
there but straddling both worlds with legs spread out across
the great divide just in case one side wins at the end of
the day.
However,
this must be extremely troubling and unsettling for the
United States, which has reportedly dispatched an envoy to
the region to reassure and calm the frayed nerves of its
“allies” that no harm would come their way. It is not clear,
however, how much store those allies would reasonably and
prudently be expected to place on such panic driven
reassurances handed out by Washington with the flaming fury
in the Arabian streets and given her ambivalence in the
management of the crisis in Egypt and coupled with the fact
that the US itself was totally caught flat-footed by these
extremely contagious eruptions in the region.
Short of being judgmental and unduly sanctimonious in the circumstances,
one would have thought, and rightly so too, that given the
loudly professed interest of the United States in the
promotion of democracy all over the globe and not just in
unfriendly countries only, she would have regarded these
popular, spontaneous, revolutionary, democratic uprisings as
God-sent and ride the wave of public opinion to establish
herself firmly in the minds of the peoples of the region
rather than in the minds of their autocratic rulers, the
so-called “allies”. Oh, how awful that sounds!
Paradoxically the direct opposite seems to be the case and that is quite
a regrettable betrayal of the trust of the peoples of that
region who had all along been led to believe that the US
would always stand on their side unequivocally in their
legitimate democratic aspirations. I’m still unable to wrap
my hands around the rather puzzling attitude of ambivalence
that has thus far been exhibited by the United States with
respect to Egypt and now Bahrain which is home to US naval
fleet. I thought the term “ally” should apply to friendly
countries not necessarily or exclusively to particular
regimes or governments that ought to come and go, not
ossified in perpetuity.
It becomes even more troubling when its high ranking officials including
the VP, Joe Biden, publicly declared their preference for
Mubarak and denying that he was, in fact, a dictator. The
same thing is repeating itself with regard to the kingdom of
Bahrain yet another “ally” facing the people’s fury for
democracy. If Mubarak was not a dictator then nobody is or
was a dictator, seriously speaking. And the term “dictator”
does not exist in our lexicon anymore. Which makes one
wondering aloud: Is this the United States of America
founded on solid values of freedom and liberty we’re talking
about or some other country? And is this coming from
President Barack Obama’s administration that promised change
“we can believe in”? The word “incredible!” does not even
begin to describe it.
It would appear that for the United States the fear of Islamic
fundamentalists getting to power through the democratic
process is the beginning of wisdom. And for that reason
alone democracy could take the back seat in that neck of the
woods. But the people; from Tunisia to Egypt; Egypt to
Yemen; Yemen to Iran; Iran to Bahrain have taken their
destinies in their hands to sack the dictators and they
couldn’t be bothered about Uncle Sam. Sad to say, but the
United States has lost the Arabian streets to the
revolutionary forces that it should have been doing business
with in the first place.
With that said, however, one cannot but sympathize with the Obama
administration because it has inherited this cozy
relationships with dictators in the Middle East and it is
next to impossible to change a long ingrained policy that
seemed to protect US national vital interests in that region
even if it’s against US national values. What would you do
when a long standing ally is being hounded out of office by
a bunch of unemployed kids in the streets? Shout “Hurrah,
Hosanna in the Highest!”? That would appear to be betrayal
of the highest order and therefore immoral.
Perhaps the question should have been, why did the US have dictators as
“allies” in that region in the first place against her
national values and her professed drive for global
democracy? I’m not here to answer that question but it has
everything to do with Israel and the fear of the spread of
Islamic faith, the fastest growing religion in the world
especially of the radical brand that has been blamed for
global terrorism. And you can’t blame the west for that
either given what has been happening particularly since the
last decade. And the west has her oil interests to protect
as well which cannot be sacrificed on the altar of democracy
that will only benefit and empower Islamic Jihadists. That
is the dilemma the west has suddenly found itself. Besides
it has geo-political realities to contend with, with respect
to the imperial ambitions of Iran. The morale is, don’t push
too hard for what you cannot control for you just might get
it and wind up being the loser. Some hard lesson in
international relations! Old paradigms and allegiances are
crumbling fast like a house of cards before our very eyes.
Isn’t that interesting? The Arabian streets are literarily
remaking the world and when the dust settles the world will
never be the same again. Europe had its time. Asia had its
time. North America had its time. Africa had its time. And
the Middle East is having its time now, to plant the tree of
democracy.
While democracy doesn’t necessarily provide jobs or eradicate poverty it,
at least, allows people to vent their anger on their leaders
through the ballot boxes in the hope that the emergence of
new leaders would somehow bring some changes that could make
real differences in their lives. In other words, elections
bring hope and expectations, and that is what sustains life
in the long run. Never mind that such hopes and expectations
are more often than not met with disappointments rather than
appointments. But even disappointments bring further hopes
and expectation and that is what propels the cycle of
elections that keeps the engine of democracy humming ad
infinitum—hopes and expectations plumbed through the
electoral processes.
Democracy much like religion, is like opium or lullaby that lulls people
to sleep and into a false sense of complacency in the
maintenance of the present system of things, which never
changes except for its operators. And that is why
revolutions are not likely to occur in democratic nations
whether or not citizens in those countries are living from
hand to mouth. All that happens in democratic countries are
protests and demonstrations like the ones taking place at
this moment in Wisconsin, United States, which are geared
toward changing policies or government as the case may be,
but never to overthrow the existing social order. In other
words, people revolt with their votes in democratic
societies. And that is why history has yet to record a
change, so far as this writer knows, from democracy to an
authoritarian or any other system except of course, through
some illegal or unconstitutional means as, for instance, in
military coups.
Revolting with their votes ensures that the democratic system itself
remains untouched regardless, precisely because it affords
the people the chance to throw out their governments for
whatever reasons, no questions asked. Therefore, the ability
of the people to overthrow the government for the time being
in power through the ballot box is what brings stability to
democratic nations because it allows the people a great
avenue to exhaust out their frustrations thus cooling down
things albeit temporarily. For instance, all the
demonstrations and protests; all the hysterical shrieks and
even violent disposition of the Tea Party arm of the
Republican Party in the United States were channeled through
the democratic process which led to the sacking or, if you
like, the overthrow of the Democrats in the US Congress with
Republicans capturing the House of Representatives and
narrowly missing the Senate by just a few seats. Were the US
presidency in play in the mid-term elections, President
Barack Obama would have been history by now as he would have
been swept out of office by the Tea Party hurricane.
The point I’m laboring hard to make here is that all that political
energy that was channeled and exhausted out through the
democratic process has resulted in the cooling of the
political system. All those shrieks, demonstrations and
protests immediately ceased after the elections. The peoples
of the Africa and the Arab world do not have such luxuries
due to the absence of democracy and their nations are
therefore veritable candidates for revolutions.
But has the change of government made any difference in the economic
circumstances of poor Americans? Not at all! Has that
brought back the 8million jobs lost under both the GW Bush
and Obama administrations? Not at all! And, has that
improved on the 9% unemployment rate the nation has been
stuck in for more than a year now? Not at all! Or, for that
matter, has it improved the prospects of economic growth in
the US by even a notch? Not at all! In fact, the economic
growth rate has further shrunken to less than 3% after the
elections.
Driving out Democrats from power has not achieved anything except to
dissipate political energies in the polity by providing the
politically active segment of the masses an outlet to vent
their frustrations on whoever happens to be in government at
the time just as they did to the Republican Party barely two
years earlier under GW Bush. And that was absent in Egypt
and still absent Tunisia, Algeria and indeed the entire
Middle East and the Arab world, except Israel.
Poverty as Propellant
But let’s be absolutely clear about what this revolutionary fervor
boiling over is all about. It is as much about freedoms and
liberties as it is about the peoples’ economic conditions in
those nations.
Although these streets protests and demonstrations have naturally been
dressed up in the sexy garbs of democracy and civil rights
and presented to the world as such, their underlying cause
is decidedly economic rather than strictly political
grievances.
History has shown without a doubt that when people are hurting
economically, they tend to express their anger and
frustrations through the medium of politics and this is so
whether it is in representative or authoritarian regimes.
And this is so because man is naturally a political animal
and all his activities, including his economics, find
expressions through politics. Therefore, the denial of man
of this critical medium of expression of himself are the
results we have seen throughout history time and again in
the both bloody and bloodless revolutions that tore through
whole continents and abruptly changing the course of
history. That is what is happening at the moment in the Arab
and Middle Eastern worlds of monarchical dictatorships. It
is simply history repeating itself as it has always done
wherever such conditions of active denial of expression of
the political animal that is man, exist.
Thus every nation is duty bound to give to its citizens either
representative government or in the absence thereof economic
opportunities. This appears to be what the Chinese are doing
at the moment. The Chinese authorities, while in active
denial political rights to their citizens are rapidly
accelerating economic development that has kept its huge
population suppliant. The Saudis and the Kuwaitis are also
on board in this game. All three nations with dictatorial
regimes are extremely wealthy with thriving middle class.
For that reason, therefore, the wind of change blowing
across the Arab world might experience a detour of sorts
when it gets close to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In plain
language, the revolution may only achieve marginal impacts
in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait but not Iran, Libya and Jordan
with much larger poor populations.
Although Egypt had a growing economy with annual GDP growth rate of 6%
and had been hailed by Washington, IMF and the World Bank
for the success of its economic reform programs, not much of
that growth trickled down to the masses and therefore made
little or no difference to the economic conditions of the
people.
As one
Egyptian
Samer
Shehata,
assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown
University puts it rather graphically in an interview in
Democracy Now,
Repression and
Poverty
Underpin the Uprising in Egypt:
“But what all of that
masked, what all of that masked, was what was going on at
the level of real people and ordinary lives. Real incomes
were declining as a result of incredibly high inflation, not
as high as in Zimbabwe or Venezuela, but inflation rates of
25, 30 percent, eating away at people’s incomes. Basic
commodities, foodstuffs, prices were increasing
tremendously. In 2008, about 13 or 14 people, Egyptians,
died as a result of conflicts resulting from them waiting in
long bread queues, because there wasn’t enough bread, and
violence would erupt. People were waiting in line for hours
to obtain subsidized bread, which is also one of the bases
of this regime, you see.”
Egyptian economy was growing yet the people were not getting the
benefits. This is the all too common—jobless growth that
even the United States and many developed nations are
experiencing at the moment. And countries like Nigeria with
7% growth in GDP that the people are finding hard to believe
must draw appropriate lessons from the Egyptian experience.
Inspite of the impressive statistical numbers of economic growth, people
were dying while waiting in line to get government’s
subsidized bread. That sounds to me like Zimbabwe right
there! It sounds to me also like some pensioners dying in
Nigeria while waiting in line to collect their government
pensions.
And it gets even worse: Inflation rates in Egypt range from 25-30% on top
of food shortages and acute youth unemployment, and up to
40% of the people living below or only slightly above the
poverty line? And you then throw in on top of all that,
political repression and complete absence of democratic
representation? Frankly speaking, the people had no choice
at all because they had been driven to the wall with no-
where else to go. They either had to go through the wall or
turn back to face their tormentors and that meant facing
down and throwing out the government altogether.
The choice was clear. They courageously chose the latter, never mind that
it has brought back the military, just like the tormented
kid who summoned up enough courage to face down the bully in
school. For them anybody but Mubarak was good enough at
least for the time being including even the military.
Mubarak was lucky indeed to have escaped unhurt as his
Tunisian counterpart, largely due to his backing by the
military. And he was lucky because the protesters were not
interested in a bloody revolution to begin with but in
seeing him leave and leave them alone to live their lives in
freedom and liberty just like others elsewhere in the other
parts of the world.
It is clear, therefore, that poverty was at the roots of the uprisings in
those parts of the world including the one in Tunisia that
started it all considering that the man who lit the fire was
a street vendor whose sensibilities had been badly hurt by a
female Municipal staffer.
However, the reader might want to know whether revolutions must
necessarily occur in all poor nations? And the answer to
that would be, not necessarily, and it doesn’t have to. With
that said, however, any nation that is truly desirous of
enjoying political stability has one of two solutions to
pursue earnestly; economic emancipation of its people as
earlier indicated, which is a relatively long term
proposition, or the institution of representative
government, that is democracy, which is a relatively short
term proposition. Or, better still, having both for the
price of one, which though quite doable, is altogether an
extremely difficult proposition. Pursuing both economic
emancipation and democracy at the same time is an arduous
task not meant for one generation to attain. And for African
nations including Nigeria that is struggling to put her best
foot forward in the business of democracy, no efforts should
be spared in getting the democracy train on an even track
even while she struggles to win the war against poverty
because the war against poverty cannot even be waged let
alone won in an atmosphere of political stability.
Politics is everything precisely because man is a political animal. Give
any nation political stability and the rest, including
economic emancipation, will be added unto her in due course.
And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the case for democracy. And I have to
tell you this, it’s a pretty well made out case…because none
except dictators would have issues with political freedom
and liberties—not necessarily freedom and liberties to
perpetrate immorality in the name of democracy. It is
freedom and liberties to pursue all legitimate and lawful
undertakings in line with the cultural preferences of the
peoples because, contrary to what many might think of
democracy in third world nations, democracy is not about
lawlessness but about the rule of law. There is no greater
guarantor of rule of law than democracy, for dictatorship is
not the rule of law but the rule of man.
From the stable of –Cutting-Edge Analytics—More than a Blog, It’s a
Learning Experience!
Franklin Otorofani is an Attorney and Public Affairs Analyst.
Contacts:
mudiagaone@yahoo.com,
http://franklinotorofani.wordpress.com/
|
