WHAT IT MEANS TO CALL FOR A PROTEST TO START A REVOLUTION

Yes, Nigerian government, this and the ones before it, but particularly this one, have failed Nigerians. The conditions of human life in Nigeria have never been as bad as they are right now. The country is on the verge of another civil war, that is if one fails to admit that war is already ongoing on many fronts. We admit that a radical solution is needed for Nigeria to move forward in any positive direction.

However, to believe that you can call for a protest "to start a revolution" is an exercise in naivete or a plain self-deception. Yes, the people have a right to protest and to express grievances against government. And indeed, such mass expressions of grievances may trigger or spin off into a revolution so to speak. But to declare ahead of time that your protest was for the purpose of initiating a revolution is highly unusual and effectively self-defeating.

Revolutions are hardly ever planned on any specific date, otherwise any such plan will be treasonable at the outset. Regardless of what normally happens when and if a revolution has succeeded, the focus now is on what happens to a revolution that has not succeeded or which is just at the stage of social media declaration. The regime it seeks to oust will crush it, or at least try to do so.

If we are to be realistic, to plan a revolution against the current regime is to do one of two things - to either invite the Executive and Legislative arms of Government to abdicate, i.e. to pack and go home and for at least a yet to be defined interim revolutionary administration to take over, or to invite the current Government to fight for self-preservation (law and order, as they call it). The Government will fight to crush such revolution. No government in human history has voluntarily succumbed to a threatened revolution.

Some naive minds have adverted with hubris to recent similar 'revolutions' in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela. But in truth, nobody in his right mind will want the fates of these countries for Nigeria. That will be worse than what we have at the moment.

Protests should be held for the purpose of pressuring the government to change its ways, but not for the purpose of a revolution which brings about a total collapse of government. It is foolish and unwise to live in such unsophisticated illusions and fantasies.

What do you really think will happen if after series of protests (like in Sudan, for instance) the Buhari Administration collapses? That will not install Atiku. That will not remove the Governors. On the contrary, that will result in massive anarchy and uncontrollable violence. In that state, the only organized group with the capacity to impose itself is Boko Haram and the Islamic State of West Africa. They will not disarm. The herdsmen will not disarm. Even if the Nigerian army disintegrates, they will not disarm. All those who have stockpiled weapons in anticipation of a situation like that will deploy their weapons. Then you will have uncontrollable violence on a scale never seen in history.

The fact that Sowore would leverage his social media assets to call for a protest for the purpose of a revolution is an indication that he lacks crucial knowledge of history, social sciences and human nature. Indeed, what is on display is just an unbridled play for attention and publicity.

Having said this much, should the DSS have arrested Sowore? No, they shouldn't. They should have known that was exactly what Sowore wanted to happen. Yes, a case of treason could be made out at least theoretically. But, sometimes, wisdom and power lies more in what you did not do rather than in what you did. Withholding action on Sowore would have been eminently wise. Arresting him for a fictional revolution is to make him popular. Just as the arrest and detention of Nnandi Kanu helped to transform IPOB into a cause celebre, arresting Sowore will create the false impression that there was a revolution that needed to be stopped, and that Sowore was the leader of such revolution. That is: the arrest turns Sowore into a revolutionary over night. The only cause such arrest will end up promoting is Sowore's cause which is an enhanced visibility and better outing for his party come 2023. The irony of it is that what Sowore wants is not the collapse which a revolution could bring about, but the sustaining of the status quo with assured better election outcome in 2023.

We conclude as we started. We want fundamental changes in the Nigerian polity, with emphasis on improving dramatically the quality of life, justice, equity and fairness for the average Nigerians. However, we doubt that the call for revolution in itself will meet our expectations of these ideals. On the contrary, we believe it will exacerbate tensions and chaos and precipitate wars on levels yet to be experienced in this country.

We therefore call for a critical analysis of the situation on ground.

CHELSEA BACK TO PRE-2003 STATUS?

The Abrahamovich revolution which took Chelsea Football Club from the doldrums, lifting it from an average club to an elite Europe super power status, with accompanying countless laurels gracing their gallery, appears to be on the bring of retarding. It may be too early to draw conclusions, but the signs are ominous.

Much of the successes could be adduced to the passion for Chelsea and football that is synonymous with the penultimate half-Jewish Russian owner. To Abrahamovich, Chelsea was not just an investment, it was a passion, and that passion kick-started Chelsea in 2003, after a 50-year quietude. Can we say so of the new owner?

Right or wrong, I see Bhoely as one of those "mere investors" in football. Premier league has a number of them. Those that lack the ambition to hit the top. They are content with merely being in the league (by avoiding relegation), only to be beneficiaries of the largese from FA and endorsement money. No passion for success ( which even brings the highest returns).

Chelsea's new owner has already displayed two conspicuous gaffes in his short reign ---- a lack of passion to equip the club in the various field positions it needs to strengthen, and the sacking of Tuchel. The first point, I have already touched upon. Hastily sacking Tuchel is, to me, not the ideal response to Chelsea's current form. TT is a rated coach. He has to his credit several domestic titles, he is about the only coach who has taken two different clubs to the Champions League final, back-to-back, and winning one of them. He gave Chelsea 2 very important continental trophies and a global trophy, all under 2 seasons. His tactics and philosophy to football are well respected by equally well respected coaches. Why the rush to sack him? What is even the point especially when you are considering the options of lesser coaches (no insult intended) to replace him?

Chelsea started a build up from Frank Lampard's era. It is within this same period that Tuchel marveled the world with that new team. The team is still building, and with the coming of new boys this season, time is needed to blend. How can you sack a coach as Tuchel before half season? For every sack under Abrahamovich, the reasons are very clear, and we see the results of his decisions.

Until Bhoely proofs otherwise with his next few steps, he will be seen as just one of those investors in the game of footbal. If that is so, then we may see Chelsea FC back to the pre-2003 status. An average team. Fans brace up.

Yemi Samuel is a sports enthusiast.