Paper long abstract:

Author: Ahmed Aminu

The 1945 General Strike, the first of its kind in Nigeria, lasted for 44 days in the capital and 53 days in the regions. It was the first Pan – Nigerian anti-colonial struggle for national independence that was initiated, organised, and executed by workers, strongly supported by market women, widely publicised by the nationalist politicians, and internationalised by Africans in the Atlantics. It broadened the struggle for Nigeria’s independence from a mere Lagos (capital city) affair to a national affair, radicalised it from merely newspapers battle to workplace and street struggle, and transformed it from elitist business to a popular - ordinary peoples’ – business. The 1945 General Strike was indeed a “dramatic opening,” a “tremendous event,” a “watershed,” a “landmark” and an “outlet for the steam” of not only workers’ activism and militancy but also of the struggle for national independence. It was, indeed, the struggle that initiated the struggle for Nigeria by Nigerians. Yet, despite the historical significance of this strike, it has been totally ignored, if not erased, from the history of democratic struggles in Nigeria. The reason, partly, been in the fact that it has not received adequate scholarly attention. Even the studies that currently exist or touch on the strike focuses mainly on issues of personalities, participation, etc., at the expense of the historical context and social conditions that gave rise to, informed, and influenced the 1945 General Strike, the issues the workers and their unions raised, demands they put forward, the ideas they advanced, the sources of these ideas, the responses of the state and society to the workers’ struggles, and the significance of these struggles to the state, the economy and society. In this paper, intend to give a critically review existing literature on the 1945 General Strike, and, in so doing, re-examine the issues raised.

Paper long abstract:

This paper will examine the views and perspectives of those communities who have remained marginal economically, socially and politically from the process of development in Sierra Leone. Mineral production here has always been perceived as an avenue for economic development, not least amongst those communities who have remained marginal in discussions on development. Yet diamonds and other minerals have not led to the development that many had hoped for. Poor management, increasing economic dependency on the export of primary commodities like diamonds and a heavy reliance on foreign investment has had a detrimental effect on development. Not only has this stifled economic changes but it has additionally had a distorting effect on more general socio-economic and political developments. Little has been done to utilise Sierra Leone’s mineral wealth for the betterment of wider civil society. Instead, much of this wealth has been squandered and misused by governments to buy political patronage and to add to the accumulation of personal wealth. Multinational mining companies, motivated by the pursuit of profit have done little to develop the economy or civil society beyond mineral extraction. In discussions on development (undertaken by governments, international financial institutions and mineral companies), those communities that have been on the receiving end of diamond production (either through living in a diamond producing area, through working in the industry or in some other capacity), have been conspicuous by their absence or have been the least regarded. Moreover, the lives and livelihoods of such groups and the way diamond production impacts are rarely taken account of in negotiations between government and mineral companies (International Institute for Environment and Development 2002). In documenting some of these ‘unheard voices’ we are at once attaching significance to their perspectives, their ‘truth’ and are acknowledging what is important to them. The theoretical framework that informs the approach used here is far removed from positivistic notions of neutrality and objectivity. Instead it adopts an approach that sees human agency as an important factor in articulating a critical perspective of, and challenge to, wider socio-economic and political forces.