“Truth exists; only lies are invented”.
G. Braque, 1882 – 1963
Barely twenty four hours after the influential cleric Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi claimed that he has been mandated by the Federal Government to negotiate with the Jamaatu Ahlil Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad (JASLIWAJ) and that he was already on talking terms with the insurgency, the group released a statement repudiating his claim, and closing the door against any future negotiations with the government of Nigeria. The JASLIWAJ warned the cleric with quite possibly the largest following among muslim clerics in the north to stay clear of its conflict with the Nigerian State, and not to allow his revered name to be dragged in the mud. The statement confirmed what the Sheikh denied, which is that Dr Datti Ahmed did initiate some mediation which later collapsed.
The blaze of publicity which announced the entry of Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi into the tricky waters of relations between JASLIWAJ and the Nigerian government had raised hopes that the crippling confrontations between the insurgency and the government may abate soon. Perhaps the manner the Sheikh chose to announce his involvement, with a torrent of details and a tinge of doctrinal celebration should have alerted people knowledgeable in these matters that it was all too good to be true. Certainly, a letter from a state government official and a press conference in which the Sheikh bares all was highly unlikely to build confidence. In fact, the press conference itself was held amidst one of the longest and most bloody confrontations between the JASLIWAJ and security forces in Maiduguri which reportedly took lives on both sides. It was held one day before the assassination of a retired Deputy Inspector-General of Police in Kano took place, for which the group later claimed credit. For good measure, JASLIWAJ says it will continue to attack the “who is who” in the country.
Ordinarily, you would say we are back to the drawing board. But is there a drawing board, and if there is one, who is drawing what on it? The federal government has not confirmed that it mandated Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi to negotiate on its behalf; and it is most unlikely to, particularly since its security spokespersons and ministers keep telling the nation that the back of the JASLIWAJ has been essentially broken, which is why attacks and bombings are becoming less frequent. The statement which denied that the Sheikh has the ear of the JASLIWAJ was concluded in the usual combative language of the insurgency, with claims of unreported victories over security forces and threats to media organizations which show bias against the group.
Now we have two outstanding and respected Muslims who have got their fingers burnt. These are the ones we know. Our traditional rulers are engaged in unending meetings and contacts which they hope will limit the damage of the insurgency, but there are no results to show for these efforts. Only two weeks ago, a powerful northern group of elders demanded that President Jonathan reins in his rampaging security forces, and re-opens negotiations with JASLIWAJ. That visit was the clearest statement they could have made to the effect that northern elders have no solution for this crippling insurgency. Northern governors are limited to mouthing meaningless platitudes and throwing bits and pieces of relief at victims of the conflict because they are themselves prime targets of the insurgency. They spend huge amounts in support of security task forces, but have no influence over how they operate. Citizens do not look up to governors to protect them either against the insurgency or security forces. They bear the brunt of a conflict without recourse to relief or restitution.
What about the Muslim clergy, then? The fundamental basis of JASLIWAJ dispute with the Nigerian State is doctrinal. The insurgency is pre-eminently a repudiation of mainstream Muslim doctrines which essentially accept that it is possible to be both a good Muslim and live in a secular nation. Every once in a while, these tensions have resulted in uprisings and other forms of conflict. They have in fact, become a permanent feature in the history of Muslims in the north of Nigeria. These tensions are what produced the Maitatsine and similar uprisings, and they were remotely behind the attempts to expand the scope of Sharia in the north.
The deep-seated sectarian divide in the north as well as the weakness of the Muslim clergy in mainstream political activities have precluded a comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of these tensions, and how they should be approached. The JASLIWAJ is the worst case scenario for a weak Muslim leadership. Now you have a movement which has its roots in abuses by a secular state, and a historical tradition which periodically chart throws up group that a course for Nigerian Muslims. How should the leadership of Nigerian Muslims react to this insurgency, if it can react at all, that is? Does it have the capacity to take on the insurgency at the doctrinal level, and provide a lead in the manner Nigerian Muslims relate to it? Right now, a relatively-small group of young Muslim men and women has taken the center stage and are putting forward an agenda on behalf of Nigerian Muslims. Even if he can–and the records so far shows that he cannot–President Jonathan is not likely to be the best source of resolving this problem. The response of the Nigerian state will continue to be to meet force with force, and simple, God-fearing Muslims and Christians pay the price. How long will people in the north live like this?
The real tragedy in the JASLIWAJ – government confrontation is that virtually everyone who should raise his voice one way or the other is retreating. The arena has been abandoned to combatants of the insurgency and security forces. Hundreds of innocent Muslims and Christians die, or suffer constant and debilitating damage to their lives and livehood. Security forces behave as if all communities which habour insurgents are the enemy, perhaps encouraged by the assumption that at best they are guilty by association; and worst, are active collaborators in a war against the state. The only way this type of conflict can end is if one side achieves an outright victory, at an extremely high, but avoidable cost. There is an alternative. It involves the active and voluntary involvement of religious leaders who have respect and clout in the search for answers to questions which the JASLIWAJ is forcing on the Muslim Umma. The lesson to be drawn from the brief incursion of Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi into this conflict is that Nigerian Muslims must be more actively involved in engaging both the Nigerian state and the JASLIWAJ. This business of waiting to be assigned a mediatory role before you act is both dangerous and opportunistic. Muslim clergy should close ranks and find the courage to take up the basic doctrinal issues which appear to feed this insurgency. There is a drawing board, but no one is working on it.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
THE ANATOMY OF FAILURE
“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” Abba Eban
The crash of the Dana Aircraft last week in Lagos raises many issues regarding the manner our government relates to its citizens. It provides an opportunity to highlight basic flaws in the structure and operations of governance institutions in Nigeria, and identify critical areas where genuine improvements must be made. Tragically, those who have paid for decades of bad governance and corruption with their lives will join the statistics which increase by the day on our collective failure to run a nation which should fulfil its potentials to be great.
Our constitution assigns our government two basic functions. One is to protect lives and property of citizens. The other is to pursue our economic well-being. Government is the totality of elected leaders, a judiciary and a public service which is the primary instrument for the pursuit of the objectives of government. Elected leaders aggregate the needs of the citizenry; articulate them in terms of policies, programmes and decisions, and then seek to satisfy them through structures and institutions which have specific mandates and operational capacities. The three arms of government complement each other by exercising critical functions of their own, and through in-built mechanisms which limit potential excesses or conflicts. On the whole, our constitution envisages the existence of a political process built around the values of service and honest leadership; a genuinely-elected leadership transparently answerable to citizens and voters; and a public service which operates exclusively on the basis of loyalty to public interest and provision of services to the public. Citizens are supposed to be protected from an inept and corrupt government through the unhindered application of the rule of law and a democratic system which allows citizens to reject incompetent leaders through free and fair elections. Governance is run strictly on the assumption that every elected official or public servant is answerable for his actions. Failure or abuse will be punished by regulatory mechanisms which work, and diligence and outstanding commitment will be rewarded by a merit-based system which allows good leaders to stand out, and committed and outstanding public officers to rise to positions of leadership.
So why doesn’t our system work as envisaged by the constitution? You have to start from a political and democratic system which is grossly abused in the process of producing leaders. Corruption of all the basic processes, institutions and systems create massively-disputed elections, and leaders with questionable mandates emerge, who then devote all their energy and state resources to retaining power rather then serving the public. Leaders then plunder and mobilize state resources to retain control over sources and instruments of power. Basic rules on management of state institutions and assets are violated by people who should protect them, and political patronage becomes the hallmark of the management of the public service.
From there, the rest follow a logical pattern. State agencies are headed by political appointees whose qualifications are their potential to reinforce political control, not merit or competence. They in turn run state agencies principally by reference to political imperatives and the instinct for survival. Hallowed values of service and commitment to public interest are jettisoned for immediate political gratification and satisfaction of personal goals. Once the political leadership is unable to live by the rules, it loses its capacity to police political appointees and the public service. In the public service bureaucracy, resistance to corruption and subversion of rules is punished, and virtually everyone else quickly learns the utility of submitting to leaders who violate rules and standards. The public service joins the assault on public resources and subversion of basic rules meant to protect public interest and public resources from a rapacious and corrupt leadership.
Government agencies undertake the vast majority of all activities of government, while ministries deal essentially with policy. There are basically two types of agencies: those which provide and maintain standards and services which government provides to citizens, and those which regulate services provided for by the private sector to citizens. The latter are empowered by the laws which set them up to set and monitor compliance with standards and ensure that citizens get good value for money. They operate in areas such as telecommunications and aviation, where private operators have assets running in tens or hundreds of billions of Naira. In order to be effective, agencies which operate as regulators require a number of things. One is a political leadership that has a very strong commitment to public interest and the provision of quality service to citizens. Second, they need to operate in an environment where corruption is extremely limited, or non-existent. Then they need strong professional leadership which understands the environment in which it works. Finally, they need a vigilant and active consumer–citizenry which is capable of demanding for both accountability and quality service.
In Nigeria, where the leadership deploys a very weak political will behind the fight against corruption, we have all the elements which make for failure, the type we see in the crash of the DANA airline last week, and the failure to handle our telecommunication companies in a manner that will make them render services which justify their cost. Operators find it easy to by-pass vital regulations because of endemic corruption. Head of agencies are compromised by operators, and by a system which does not lend itself easily to the application of rules against operators. Heads of agencies are unsure of the nature of the relations between operators and Ministers. Ministers are unsure of the nature of relations between operators or chief executive officers of regulatory agencies (who are political appointees like them) which report to them, with the presidency. Elements in the presidency are unsure over who is “overseeing” a particular sector or operator. The legislature rants and raves, and recommends sanctions which are either ignored or are settled “out of court”.
Our system fails because persons and institutions which are meant to protect the citizenry have defected to the enemy. Weak political will and lack of administrative capacity create weak regulatory mechanisms. This is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and disaster. Failures breed more failures. This is why no one has been jailed or sanctioned for all the air crashes we have witnessed which took hundreds of lives since 1992. This is why government is unable to deal with the telecommunication companies which provides quite possibly the worst service in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. There are quite possibly hundreds of the equivalent of DANA crashes in many other sectors, but the biggest failure is that Nigerians are resigning themselves to living with them.
Nigerians must demand an answer to the inability of our governments to perform the basic functions for which they exist. The answers, however, cannot come until honest and committed leaders are voted into power. This in turn will not happen until the electoral process is made to reflect the popular will. This will not happen unless Nigerians rise now to demand that whatever needs to be done must be done to ensure that 2015 elections are free and fair. The vast majority of Nigerians just want good and committed leaders. They will not lose sleep over where they come from, so long as they stop this free fall of our nation.
The crash of the Dana Aircraft last week in Lagos raises many issues regarding the manner our government relates to its citizens. It provides an opportunity to highlight basic flaws in the structure and operations of governance institutions in Nigeria, and identify critical areas where genuine improvements must be made. Tragically, those who have paid for decades of bad governance and corruption with their lives will join the statistics which increase by the day on our collective failure to run a nation which should fulfil its potentials to be great.
Our constitution assigns our government two basic functions. One is to protect lives and property of citizens. The other is to pursue our economic well-being. Government is the totality of elected leaders, a judiciary and a public service which is the primary instrument for the pursuit of the objectives of government. Elected leaders aggregate the needs of the citizenry; articulate them in terms of policies, programmes and decisions, and then seek to satisfy them through structures and institutions which have specific mandates and operational capacities. The three arms of government complement each other by exercising critical functions of their own, and through in-built mechanisms which limit potential excesses or conflicts. On the whole, our constitution envisages the existence of a political process built around the values of service and honest leadership; a genuinely-elected leadership transparently answerable to citizens and voters; and a public service which operates exclusively on the basis of loyalty to public interest and provision of services to the public. Citizens are supposed to be protected from an inept and corrupt government through the unhindered application of the rule of law and a democratic system which allows citizens to reject incompetent leaders through free and fair elections. Governance is run strictly on the assumption that every elected official or public servant is answerable for his actions. Failure or abuse will be punished by regulatory mechanisms which work, and diligence and outstanding commitment will be rewarded by a merit-based system which allows good leaders to stand out, and committed and outstanding public officers to rise to positions of leadership.
So why doesn’t our system work as envisaged by the constitution? You have to start from a political and democratic system which is grossly abused in the process of producing leaders. Corruption of all the basic processes, institutions and systems create massively-disputed elections, and leaders with questionable mandates emerge, who then devote all their energy and state resources to retaining power rather then serving the public. Leaders then plunder and mobilize state resources to retain control over sources and instruments of power. Basic rules on management of state institutions and assets are violated by people who should protect them, and political patronage becomes the hallmark of the management of the public service.
From there, the rest follow a logical pattern. State agencies are headed by political appointees whose qualifications are their potential to reinforce political control, not merit or competence. They in turn run state agencies principally by reference to political imperatives and the instinct for survival. Hallowed values of service and commitment to public interest are jettisoned for immediate political gratification and satisfaction of personal goals. Once the political leadership is unable to live by the rules, it loses its capacity to police political appointees and the public service. In the public service bureaucracy, resistance to corruption and subversion of rules is punished, and virtually everyone else quickly learns the utility of submitting to leaders who violate rules and standards. The public service joins the assault on public resources and subversion of basic rules meant to protect public interest and public resources from a rapacious and corrupt leadership.
Government agencies undertake the vast majority of all activities of government, while ministries deal essentially with policy. There are basically two types of agencies: those which provide and maintain standards and services which government provides to citizens, and those which regulate services provided for by the private sector to citizens. The latter are empowered by the laws which set them up to set and monitor compliance with standards and ensure that citizens get good value for money. They operate in areas such as telecommunications and aviation, where private operators have assets running in tens or hundreds of billions of Naira. In order to be effective, agencies which operate as regulators require a number of things. One is a political leadership that has a very strong commitment to public interest and the provision of quality service to citizens. Second, they need to operate in an environment where corruption is extremely limited, or non-existent. Then they need strong professional leadership which understands the environment in which it works. Finally, they need a vigilant and active consumer–citizenry which is capable of demanding for both accountability and quality service.
In Nigeria, where the leadership deploys a very weak political will behind the fight against corruption, we have all the elements which make for failure, the type we see in the crash of the DANA airline last week, and the failure to handle our telecommunication companies in a manner that will make them render services which justify their cost. Operators find it easy to by-pass vital regulations because of endemic corruption. Head of agencies are compromised by operators, and by a system which does not lend itself easily to the application of rules against operators. Heads of agencies are unsure of the nature of the relations between operators and Ministers. Ministers are unsure of the nature of relations between operators or chief executive officers of regulatory agencies (who are political appointees like them) which report to them, with the presidency. Elements in the presidency are unsure over who is “overseeing” a particular sector or operator. The legislature rants and raves, and recommends sanctions which are either ignored or are settled “out of court”.
Our system fails because persons and institutions which are meant to protect the citizenry have defected to the enemy. Weak political will and lack of administrative capacity create weak regulatory mechanisms. This is the perfect breeding ground for corruption and disaster. Failures breed more failures. This is why no one has been jailed or sanctioned for all the air crashes we have witnessed which took hundreds of lives since 1992. This is why government is unable to deal with the telecommunication companies which provides quite possibly the worst service in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. There are quite possibly hundreds of the equivalent of DANA crashes in many other sectors, but the biggest failure is that Nigerians are resigning themselves to living with them.
Nigerians must demand an answer to the inability of our governments to perform the basic functions for which they exist. The answers, however, cannot come until honest and committed leaders are voted into power. This in turn will not happen until the electoral process is made to reflect the popular will. This will not happen unless Nigerians rise now to demand that whatever needs to be done must be done to ensure that 2015 elections are free and fair. The vast majority of Nigerians just want good and committed leaders. They will not lose sleep over where they come from, so long as they stop this free fall of our nation.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
SAVING PRESIDENT JONATHAN
“I think the voters misunderestimated me.”
George W. Bush
If you dropped into the country from outer space in the last one week; and read newspapers or listened to private radio and television or browsed the social media, you would wonder what can possibly be done to save President Goodluck Jonathan from the Nigerian people. If you are a stranger to Nigerian politics and history, you will be forgiven if your think Nigerians are the most uncharitable people, and their president is the most maligned leader on the face of the earth. How is it possible that an entire nation will find nothing positive about a leader who only last year promised radical transformation and abundant fresh air to build a new nation out of the restrictions and limitations of its past? Chances are, you will think there is no satisfying the Nigerian people; and you will shake your head in pity for anyone who even dreams of stepping into Presidents Jonathan’s shoes in future.
It appears just about everyone now joins in this lynching of President Jonathan, no matter what he does. Just think, what could be more unfair than the Speaker of the House of Representatives choosing a day when the nation celebrated its new democratic tradition, with a PDP President who had just reeled out his achievements, to castigate President Jonathan for being less than diligent in assenting to bills? Although the President replied with a few blows of his own, the damage which this public falling out over a very important matter had been done. It was made worse for the President when the Senate President, a man seen as one of his most reliable pillars and who is being rumoured to be the handpicked successor to Jonathan, also joins the fray on the side of the Speaker, and insisted that the President is frustrating the law-making functions of the national assembly, and denying Nigerians fuller benefits of the democracy they just celebrated.
This quarrel is going on against the backdrop of rampant complaints that the President is foot-dragging over the full implementation of the recommendations of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy. Imagine! Not a word over whether these recommendations have met the minimal legal threshold. And the fact that a responsible President must study the recommendations and get inputs from his Ministers of Justice, Finance and Petroleum, as well as the E.F.C.C and a whole battery of regulatory agencies. And why should he not consult these important people, just because civil society says they have no business holding on to their seats after all the revelations during the hearing? Is he to sack them without evidence and legal advise, the type which only the Minister of Justice who again is being mentioned in the $1.1b Malibu scandal can give? Some even go further than the last one week and remind the nation that the President is relying on faulty legal advise to refuse to re-instate Justice Ayo Salami, when in fact the legal opinion which says he should is very likely informed by partisan considerations.
But if you are looking for evidence that there is a national conspiracy not to see anything good in President Jonathan’s decisions, you will not find stronger one than the uproar which followed his re-naming of the University of Lagos after the late icon of Democracy, Chief M.K.O Abiola. A move which even his worst political enemies should applaud as a masterstroke to regain him some ground in the south west was spun around by parochial forces to portray the President as insensitive, isolated and untutored in Yoruba and Nigerian politics. And to think those who engineered the spontaneous rebellion against the decision thought it will stampede the President into re-visiting the re-naming. Of course they have been proved wrong. Even some members of the Abiola family have written a formal letter of appreciation. But knowing Nigerians, this is highly unlikely to be the end of the matter.
Almost by the day, this chorus of President bashing finds new grounds and manifestations. A few days ago a coalition of civil society groups in Kano decided to sue the Joint Security Force (JTF) for a litany of offences committed in their pursuit of Boko Haram suspects. Many of these offences involve extra-judicial killings. Two days after, a very powerful and very elderly group of northerners visited the President with a long shopping list of grievances and demands, most of which the President is unlikely to have solutions to. They want the president to call his security agents to order, and they want him to rein-in his legion of spokespersons in different guises or forms who abuse and insult the north, and who are sowing dangerous seeds of discord.
These elders left homes quite possibly habouring Boko Haram activists in their neighbourhoods, and yet they want President Jonathan to find solutions just because he is President today. They want him to ask godfathers and official spokespersons to shut up, so that those who abuse him and say he has no handle over Nigerian problems will have their voices heard louder. These same elders did not descend on General Buhari when he used an analogy involving blood in commenting over the 2015 elections, yet they were led by an 85-year old blind man to ask him to play statesman and redress serious security and economic problems, most of which have roots which predated his presidency.
In fact, the evidence that Nigerians are after their President is almost inexhaustible. He asks them to use energy-saving light bulbs, and the nation rose up as one and says it would rather he cancels the increase in electricity tariff which he is just introducing. He posed in January for a European fashion magazine, admittedly at a time the nation was up in arms over the subsidy removal decision, and someone chooses this movement to flood the cyber space with the details and pictures of the President posing. Now, why on earth shouldn’t the President pose for a fashion magazine?
Even his own security agencies appear to be in on the act. How else do you explain the attack on a house in Kano in which all Boko Haram bigwigs meeting in the house and a German hostage were killed? If the security agents had good intelligence that such prime targets were available, you would think the thing to do was to arrest them, or at least try, and therefore gather huge intelligence and boost morale. But no. Truck loads of soldiers and helicopters invaded the building, killing everyone. According to the security forces, the insurgents killed the German before being killed themselves, possibly so the President cannot claim credit for a freed hostage.
This penchant for tearing up the records of achievement of President Jonathan was taken to global airwaves, when the BBC hosted Nasir el-Rufai, Alhaji Gulak and Dr Kabir Mato, as well as hundreds of tweeters and face bookers in a discussion on his performance. It was a very sorry outing for a President committed to righting massive wrongs, to hear Nigerians dismiss his performance so comprehensively. It makes you wonder what can be done to save President Jonathan from the Nigerian people?
George W. Bush
If you dropped into the country from outer space in the last one week; and read newspapers or listened to private radio and television or browsed the social media, you would wonder what can possibly be done to save President Goodluck Jonathan from the Nigerian people. If you are a stranger to Nigerian politics and history, you will be forgiven if your think Nigerians are the most uncharitable people, and their president is the most maligned leader on the face of the earth. How is it possible that an entire nation will find nothing positive about a leader who only last year promised radical transformation and abundant fresh air to build a new nation out of the restrictions and limitations of its past? Chances are, you will think there is no satisfying the Nigerian people; and you will shake your head in pity for anyone who even dreams of stepping into Presidents Jonathan’s shoes in future.
It appears just about everyone now joins in this lynching of President Jonathan, no matter what he does. Just think, what could be more unfair than the Speaker of the House of Representatives choosing a day when the nation celebrated its new democratic tradition, with a PDP President who had just reeled out his achievements, to castigate President Jonathan for being less than diligent in assenting to bills? Although the President replied with a few blows of his own, the damage which this public falling out over a very important matter had been done. It was made worse for the President when the Senate President, a man seen as one of his most reliable pillars and who is being rumoured to be the handpicked successor to Jonathan, also joins the fray on the side of the Speaker, and insisted that the President is frustrating the law-making functions of the national assembly, and denying Nigerians fuller benefits of the democracy they just celebrated.
This quarrel is going on against the backdrop of rampant complaints that the President is foot-dragging over the full implementation of the recommendations of the House Ad Hoc Committee on Petroleum Subsidy. Imagine! Not a word over whether these recommendations have met the minimal legal threshold. And the fact that a responsible President must study the recommendations and get inputs from his Ministers of Justice, Finance and Petroleum, as well as the E.F.C.C and a whole battery of regulatory agencies. And why should he not consult these important people, just because civil society says they have no business holding on to their seats after all the revelations during the hearing? Is he to sack them without evidence and legal advise, the type which only the Minister of Justice who again is being mentioned in the $1.1b Malibu scandal can give? Some even go further than the last one week and remind the nation that the President is relying on faulty legal advise to refuse to re-instate Justice Ayo Salami, when in fact the legal opinion which says he should is very likely informed by partisan considerations.
But if you are looking for evidence that there is a national conspiracy not to see anything good in President Jonathan’s decisions, you will not find stronger one than the uproar which followed his re-naming of the University of Lagos after the late icon of Democracy, Chief M.K.O Abiola. A move which even his worst political enemies should applaud as a masterstroke to regain him some ground in the south west was spun around by parochial forces to portray the President as insensitive, isolated and untutored in Yoruba and Nigerian politics. And to think those who engineered the spontaneous rebellion against the decision thought it will stampede the President into re-visiting the re-naming. Of course they have been proved wrong. Even some members of the Abiola family have written a formal letter of appreciation. But knowing Nigerians, this is highly unlikely to be the end of the matter.
Almost by the day, this chorus of President bashing finds new grounds and manifestations. A few days ago a coalition of civil society groups in Kano decided to sue the Joint Security Force (JTF) for a litany of offences committed in their pursuit of Boko Haram suspects. Many of these offences involve extra-judicial killings. Two days after, a very powerful and very elderly group of northerners visited the President with a long shopping list of grievances and demands, most of which the President is unlikely to have solutions to. They want the president to call his security agents to order, and they want him to rein-in his legion of spokespersons in different guises or forms who abuse and insult the north, and who are sowing dangerous seeds of discord.
These elders left homes quite possibly habouring Boko Haram activists in their neighbourhoods, and yet they want President Jonathan to find solutions just because he is President today. They want him to ask godfathers and official spokespersons to shut up, so that those who abuse him and say he has no handle over Nigerian problems will have their voices heard louder. These same elders did not descend on General Buhari when he used an analogy involving blood in commenting over the 2015 elections, yet they were led by an 85-year old blind man to ask him to play statesman and redress serious security and economic problems, most of which have roots which predated his presidency.
In fact, the evidence that Nigerians are after their President is almost inexhaustible. He asks them to use energy-saving light bulbs, and the nation rose up as one and says it would rather he cancels the increase in electricity tariff which he is just introducing. He posed in January for a European fashion magazine, admittedly at a time the nation was up in arms over the subsidy removal decision, and someone chooses this movement to flood the cyber space with the details and pictures of the President posing. Now, why on earth shouldn’t the President pose for a fashion magazine?
Even his own security agencies appear to be in on the act. How else do you explain the attack on a house in Kano in which all Boko Haram bigwigs meeting in the house and a German hostage were killed? If the security agents had good intelligence that such prime targets were available, you would think the thing to do was to arrest them, or at least try, and therefore gather huge intelligence and boost morale. But no. Truck loads of soldiers and helicopters invaded the building, killing everyone. According to the security forces, the insurgents killed the German before being killed themselves, possibly so the President cannot claim credit for a freed hostage.
This penchant for tearing up the records of achievement of President Jonathan was taken to global airwaves, when the BBC hosted Nasir el-Rufai, Alhaji Gulak and Dr Kabir Mato, as well as hundreds of tweeters and face bookers in a discussion on his performance. It was a very sorry outing for a President committed to righting massive wrongs, to hear Nigerians dismiss his performance so comprehensively. It makes you wonder what can be done to save President Jonathan from the Nigerian people?
FURY OF THE ELDERS
“Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory.”
J. K. Galbraith
Two days after the President’s ubiquitous godfather, Chief C.K. Clark demanded that northern leaders find solutions to the security problems posed by the insurgency of the Jama’atu Allil-Sunnati Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad (Boko Haram) a formidable group of northerners visited the Presidential Villa, reeled out a list of grievances of the people of the north, and demanded that President Jonathan finds solutions to them. They went under the umbrella of the Arewa Elders Forum, which is led by the Danmasanin Kano, Alhaji Maitama Sule. The image of a blind Danmasani in his 80s stooping to greet President Jonathan and Vice President Namadi Sambo will remain indelible in the minds of millions of Nigerians who have a deep cultural appreciation of body language and social hierarchies. Whether he stooped out of habit when he is before superior authority, or he did it to emphasise the abject humility of the group he led, that posture by Danmasani will be the second issue of significance, after the language and content of his address.
The Northern Elders Forum’s visit to President Jonathan must have been designed to convey a clear message that the North is angry, and holds the President and his security agencies or political associates largely responsible for what has become of the security, economy politics of the region. Even where they do not hold him entirely responsible, the long list of grievances and demands suggests that the elders believe that President Jonathan can find solutions to them if he wants to.
And the list of grievances and demands was very long indeed. The elders want the President to revisit many of the reports of investigations into ethno-religious conflicts, and implement their recommendations. They want the Boko Haram insurgency to be isolated from a wider, more dangerous context in which it is seen as a Muslim or northern resistance against the Jonathan administration, and the creation of the impression that the nation is involved in a war. They say that the insurgency, which they condemn, is providing reasons for gross abuses by security personnel, ranging from killings by the Joint Task Force in Maiduguri in thousands, to the latest practice of demolition or razing down residences where activities of Boko Haram insurgents are suspected. They also include detentions of thousands of suspects under dehumanizing conditions, and killings by starvation of detainees. The elders say similar incidents of illegal activities by security personnel which is leading citizens to lose confidence in agents of the state, and adopt self-reliance strategies to protect their lives and property are also evident in Kano, Damaturu, Azare, Gombe, Mubi and other areas. They invoke the authority of the American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who said that the Nigerian security services are responsible for widespread abuses. They demand that security agencies change their modes of operation to gain confidence of the public.
The elders also wanted President Jonathan to call to order people close to him who are responsible for a resurgence of inciting sectional, ethnic and religious rhetoric which also condemns or disparages whole groups or sections, especially from the North. They want him to tackle corruption; stop the arbitrary and indiscriminate removal of senior officers in the Nigerian security and public services; address youth unemployment; stop relocation of military and other security formations or installations which raise suspicions; fund exploratory activities for hydrocarbon deposits in the north; address damaging disparities in revenue allocation between parts of the nation; and resume mediation efforts to dialogue with leaders of Boko Haram insurgency.
There were many more grievances and demands in the document made available to President Jonathan by the elders. It was not surprising that the President merely promised to study the litany of demands and get back to the elders in a few weeks time. If the President takes more than a few weeks to get back to the elders, they may very well be to blame. The elders’ shopping list will intimidate anyone, but to approach President Jonathan with them and demand immediate solutions will amount to overkill. If he does see them in a few weeks’ time, it may be in a private setting where he will tell them that he looks up to them as elders to help expose Boko Haram insurgents, their own children and grand children, who are responsible for the deployment of our entire security arsenal and modes of operation in parts of the north in the first place.
If he does see them in public, he may commit to ensuring that security agencies operate within the law, and in a manner which respects the rights of all individuals and communities. He may say that he had directed heads of security agencies to investigate reported breaches and deal with them. He may mention that the Shiekh Ahmad Lemu and Ambassador Galtimari Committees’ reports have been substantially implemented. He may complain that the biggest challenge in dealing with the Boko Haram insurgency is the insufficient support from communities, including support from Northern Elders, to deal with it at local levels, and that the scope exists for more effective collaboration between government, the communities, the muslim clergy and security agencies. He may say that his doors are open to dialogue with Boko Haram, and request the Elders to make efforts to persuade the insurgency to show itself for talks.
If he sees the elders, he may assure them of his commitment to preserve the unity of the nation. He may acknowledge that the constitution gives all citizens the rights to free speech, including speech which may appear targeted at the interests of a section or community. He may even remind the northern Elders that a northern politician recently made a statement about monkeys, dogs and bloody uprisings in relation to elections. He may appeal to the elders to help lower the political temperature of the nation, and assure all citizens that his government will protect them from people who are committed to violent upheavals and balkanization. Then he may inform them that he has referred all the other demands on their long shopping list to various ministries and other departments of government to assess and advise him. He will thank them for their sense of maturity at a time when the nation needs people like them, and assure them that his doors will always be open to them.
And then what? Will the elders all go back home satisfied that they have done what elders do, which is to step forward and mediate conflicts and provide wise counsel when it is needed? Do the elders have a plan ‘B’, a contingency arrangement which they will activate in the event that the silence from the Villa is long and loud; or that they get only platitudes and promises in return for their brave outing? Will they, for instance, meet with State Governors and speak with them with similar passion and candour, and give them a long to-do list on security and economy the north? Will they meet with other northern groups, community leaders, the clergy and young people and galvanize a pan-northern, community-based movement that will find genuine solutions to the Boko Haram insurgency, the dangerous and increasing marginalization of the north, and the reconstruction of the economy of the north?
It will be most uncharitable to take away from the Northern Elders the credit they deserve in the manner they spoke to power. But just in case power does not respond, one will expect that elders would have thought of options. Having seen the flag, there must be many groups and individuals from the north who would be happy to take it over from the Danmasani group, so that generations are spared the possibility that they will see elderly people like Alhaji Maitama Sule stoop before power in vain.
J. K. Galbraith
Two days after the President’s ubiquitous godfather, Chief C.K. Clark demanded that northern leaders find solutions to the security problems posed by the insurgency of the Jama’atu Allil-Sunnati Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad (Boko Haram) a formidable group of northerners visited the Presidential Villa, reeled out a list of grievances of the people of the north, and demanded that President Jonathan finds solutions to them. They went under the umbrella of the Arewa Elders Forum, which is led by the Danmasanin Kano, Alhaji Maitama Sule. The image of a blind Danmasani in his 80s stooping to greet President Jonathan and Vice President Namadi Sambo will remain indelible in the minds of millions of Nigerians who have a deep cultural appreciation of body language and social hierarchies. Whether he stooped out of habit when he is before superior authority, or he did it to emphasise the abject humility of the group he led, that posture by Danmasani will be the second issue of significance, after the language and content of his address.
The Northern Elders Forum’s visit to President Jonathan must have been designed to convey a clear message that the North is angry, and holds the President and his security agencies or political associates largely responsible for what has become of the security, economy politics of the region. Even where they do not hold him entirely responsible, the long list of grievances and demands suggests that the elders believe that President Jonathan can find solutions to them if he wants to.
And the list of grievances and demands was very long indeed. The elders want the President to revisit many of the reports of investigations into ethno-religious conflicts, and implement their recommendations. They want the Boko Haram insurgency to be isolated from a wider, more dangerous context in which it is seen as a Muslim or northern resistance against the Jonathan administration, and the creation of the impression that the nation is involved in a war. They say that the insurgency, which they condemn, is providing reasons for gross abuses by security personnel, ranging from killings by the Joint Task Force in Maiduguri in thousands, to the latest practice of demolition or razing down residences where activities of Boko Haram insurgents are suspected. They also include detentions of thousands of suspects under dehumanizing conditions, and killings by starvation of detainees. The elders say similar incidents of illegal activities by security personnel which is leading citizens to lose confidence in agents of the state, and adopt self-reliance strategies to protect their lives and property are also evident in Kano, Damaturu, Azare, Gombe, Mubi and other areas. They invoke the authority of the American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who said that the Nigerian security services are responsible for widespread abuses. They demand that security agencies change their modes of operation to gain confidence of the public.
The elders also wanted President Jonathan to call to order people close to him who are responsible for a resurgence of inciting sectional, ethnic and religious rhetoric which also condemns or disparages whole groups or sections, especially from the North. They want him to tackle corruption; stop the arbitrary and indiscriminate removal of senior officers in the Nigerian security and public services; address youth unemployment; stop relocation of military and other security formations or installations which raise suspicions; fund exploratory activities for hydrocarbon deposits in the north; address damaging disparities in revenue allocation between parts of the nation; and resume mediation efforts to dialogue with leaders of Boko Haram insurgency.
There were many more grievances and demands in the document made available to President Jonathan by the elders. It was not surprising that the President merely promised to study the litany of demands and get back to the elders in a few weeks time. If the President takes more than a few weeks to get back to the elders, they may very well be to blame. The elders’ shopping list will intimidate anyone, but to approach President Jonathan with them and demand immediate solutions will amount to overkill. If he does see them in a few weeks’ time, it may be in a private setting where he will tell them that he looks up to them as elders to help expose Boko Haram insurgents, their own children and grand children, who are responsible for the deployment of our entire security arsenal and modes of operation in parts of the north in the first place.
If he does see them in public, he may commit to ensuring that security agencies operate within the law, and in a manner which respects the rights of all individuals and communities. He may say that he had directed heads of security agencies to investigate reported breaches and deal with them. He may mention that the Shiekh Ahmad Lemu and Ambassador Galtimari Committees’ reports have been substantially implemented. He may complain that the biggest challenge in dealing with the Boko Haram insurgency is the insufficient support from communities, including support from Northern Elders, to deal with it at local levels, and that the scope exists for more effective collaboration between government, the communities, the muslim clergy and security agencies. He may say that his doors are open to dialogue with Boko Haram, and request the Elders to make efforts to persuade the insurgency to show itself for talks.
If he sees the elders, he may assure them of his commitment to preserve the unity of the nation. He may acknowledge that the constitution gives all citizens the rights to free speech, including speech which may appear targeted at the interests of a section or community. He may even remind the northern Elders that a northern politician recently made a statement about monkeys, dogs and bloody uprisings in relation to elections. He may appeal to the elders to help lower the political temperature of the nation, and assure all citizens that his government will protect them from people who are committed to violent upheavals and balkanization. Then he may inform them that he has referred all the other demands on their long shopping list to various ministries and other departments of government to assess and advise him. He will thank them for their sense of maturity at a time when the nation needs people like them, and assure them that his doors will always be open to them.
And then what? Will the elders all go back home satisfied that they have done what elders do, which is to step forward and mediate conflicts and provide wise counsel when it is needed? Do the elders have a plan ‘B’, a contingency arrangement which they will activate in the event that the silence from the Villa is long and loud; or that they get only platitudes and promises in return for their brave outing? Will they, for instance, meet with State Governors and speak with them with similar passion and candour, and give them a long to-do list on security and economy the north? Will they meet with other northern groups, community leaders, the clergy and young people and galvanize a pan-northern, community-based movement that will find genuine solutions to the Boko Haram insurgency, the dangerous and increasing marginalization of the north, and the reconstruction of the economy of the north?
It will be most uncharitable to take away from the Northern Elders the credit they deserve in the manner they spoke to power. But just in case power does not respond, one will expect that elders would have thought of options. Having seen the flag, there must be many groups and individuals from the north who would be happy to take it over from the Danmasani group, so that generations are spared the possibility that they will see elderly people like Alhaji Maitama Sule stoop before power in vain.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
LEADERS BEHAVING BADLY
“Practical Politics consists in ignoring facts.”
Henry Brooks Adams
Yesterday, President Goodluck Jonathan celebrated the first year of his own full-bloodied presidency. If the last one year has been eventful, what will the next three be like? Better for Jonathan and the nation? More trying? Can we tell?
These are all legitimate questions to ask in a calm and relaxed environment. But the last two weeks have been anything but relaxed and calm. A huge uproar followed President Obasanjo’s reported claims that the legislature habours criminals and armed robbers, and so they cannot legislate well for the nation. The legislators demanded that he comes and identifies who among them is a criminal and an armed robber. If he does go, it will be a very long line up indeed. Old man C.K Clark enters the fray, and lambasts Obasanjo for pointing accusing fingers. He said a president who owned nothing in 1999 and is now one of the wealthiest men in the country should not speak about corruption.
The quarrel over who is corrupt and a criminal is being overshadowed by the story of how $1.1billion belonging to Nigerian people from the sale of an oil block was shared out to private companies with very close ties to government. Coming within the context of doubts being cast over the President’s political will and commitment to bring to book those identified as being involved in the mind-boggling fuel subsidy scam, this latest revelation will confound even the most de-sensitized Nigerian.
It will all be explained or denied of course, or some token gesture towards investigating will be made. The national assembly will make further incursions into President Jonathan’s territory by undertaking another probe and spectacular public relation outing that will show him as a poor manager. This will be the same institution which Obasanjo says is a den of thieves; the same one which offered damning conclusions on his privatization programme, and the same one which is being queried by the auditor-general for spending billions in un-retired funds. This is same national assembly which probed the fuel subsidy scam started under Obasanjo’s watch, whose report is being studied by the government and may be forwarded to the E.F.C.C. This will be the same E.F.C.C that was in place when the scam took pace, and which has substantial structural weaknesses that make it susceptible to political influences. This is the same E.F.C.C which is prosecuting legislators who allegedly received illegal funds and demanded for more from a public official they were “over-sighting.” This is the same public official who is currently under the close scrutiny of the national assembly for serious breaches in management of her agency and public funds. This is the same agency that was once headed by a chief executive officer who was prosecuted, and is being held responsible for the collapse of the Nigerian Capital Market. This is the same market that still operates substantially on the margins of acceptable standards, and is substantially victim of scheming of very tiny but extremely wealthy and powerful people. These are the same people who are being mentioned in the fuel subsidy scams. These are the scams which were successful only with the active collaboration of banks. These are the same banks that received and kept billions in embezzled funds from the pension scam. This is the same scam being alleged to be so elaborate that it will rope in some of the most powerful people around president Jonathan today, if they are genuinely investigated.
So the revelation and quarrels around incredible corruption are leaving their imprints all over President Jonathan’s one year old presidency. They are also setting an agenda for him, although very few people will expect that all the angles will be covered in the manner these investigation and allegations will be handled. What is certain is that many suspects will hire very expensive lawyers; they will tie up investigations and possible prosecution for as long as they want and there may even be one or two plea bargains involving sloppy deals.
Can this circle be broken? President Jonathan says most of the problems he deals with today have their roots deep in the past, certainly long before his watch began. Perhaps privately, he may even hold Obasanjo responsible for some of them. He could also blame the legislature of playing to the gallery when it choses to investigate certain aspects of the management of the economy, and then leaves him holding the baby, so to speak. Having aroused public sentiment on issues that should be handled with more rigour and scrutiny, the national assembly dumps “findings” on him and accuses him of not prosecuting people. The legislature will say it does its job; and may even query how it is possible that it does it better than the executive arm with its army of investigating agencies. People and organizations investigated by the legislature complain that the process is not transparent, in spite of television cameras and live coverage, and much of the investigation is motivated by considerations other than the search for the truth and pursuit of public interest. Trials on television and bullying by legislators are often heard from people who have been summoned, and while the public cheers and swallows everything it sees, there are complaints that these investigations bring up more mud than water.
In any case, the bottom line is that as President Jonathan celebrates his first year as President elected as a candidate, he needs to know that the institutional collapse under him is assuming alarming proportions. The public service – including regulatory and investigating agencies – are operating under the most challenging circumstances, the most prominent being strong signals that the political level does not welcome wholesale and genuine investigation into transactions and other government business. This is why the subsidy and pension scams can take place right under all the noses – or in collaboration with some elements – of the public service. The legislature will always exploit the opportunity to “oversight” the executive – and expose its weaknesses and shortcomings – and do this substantially at the expense of its more important responsibility, which is to make laws. When Obasanjo lashes at the National Assembly, he is reliving a very old war with a well-known adversary. This adversary will continue to encroach into President Jonathan’s territory in the manner he manages the economy, if he does not improve on his capacity to limit the damage of corruption. Protecting his turf will involve raising the standards by which he and his ministers and other managers of the public service operate. He has to personally distance himself from much of the muck presently flying around if he will be able to do this.
Henry Brooks Adams
Yesterday, President Goodluck Jonathan celebrated the first year of his own full-bloodied presidency. If the last one year has been eventful, what will the next three be like? Better for Jonathan and the nation? More trying? Can we tell?
These are all legitimate questions to ask in a calm and relaxed environment. But the last two weeks have been anything but relaxed and calm. A huge uproar followed President Obasanjo’s reported claims that the legislature habours criminals and armed robbers, and so they cannot legislate well for the nation. The legislators demanded that he comes and identifies who among them is a criminal and an armed robber. If he does go, it will be a very long line up indeed. Old man C.K Clark enters the fray, and lambasts Obasanjo for pointing accusing fingers. He said a president who owned nothing in 1999 and is now one of the wealthiest men in the country should not speak about corruption.
The quarrel over who is corrupt and a criminal is being overshadowed by the story of how $1.1billion belonging to Nigerian people from the sale of an oil block was shared out to private companies with very close ties to government. Coming within the context of doubts being cast over the President’s political will and commitment to bring to book those identified as being involved in the mind-boggling fuel subsidy scam, this latest revelation will confound even the most de-sensitized Nigerian.
It will all be explained or denied of course, or some token gesture towards investigating will be made. The national assembly will make further incursions into President Jonathan’s territory by undertaking another probe and spectacular public relation outing that will show him as a poor manager. This will be the same institution which Obasanjo says is a den of thieves; the same one which offered damning conclusions on his privatization programme, and the same one which is being queried by the auditor-general for spending billions in un-retired funds. This is same national assembly which probed the fuel subsidy scam started under Obasanjo’s watch, whose report is being studied by the government and may be forwarded to the E.F.C.C. This will be the same E.F.C.C that was in place when the scam took pace, and which has substantial structural weaknesses that make it susceptible to political influences. This is the same E.F.C.C which is prosecuting legislators who allegedly received illegal funds and demanded for more from a public official they were “over-sighting.” This is the same public official who is currently under the close scrutiny of the national assembly for serious breaches in management of her agency and public funds. This is the same agency that was once headed by a chief executive officer who was prosecuted, and is being held responsible for the collapse of the Nigerian Capital Market. This is the same market that still operates substantially on the margins of acceptable standards, and is substantially victim of scheming of very tiny but extremely wealthy and powerful people. These are the same people who are being mentioned in the fuel subsidy scams. These are the scams which were successful only with the active collaboration of banks. These are the same banks that received and kept billions in embezzled funds from the pension scam. This is the same scam being alleged to be so elaborate that it will rope in some of the most powerful people around president Jonathan today, if they are genuinely investigated.
So the revelation and quarrels around incredible corruption are leaving their imprints all over President Jonathan’s one year old presidency. They are also setting an agenda for him, although very few people will expect that all the angles will be covered in the manner these investigation and allegations will be handled. What is certain is that many suspects will hire very expensive lawyers; they will tie up investigations and possible prosecution for as long as they want and there may even be one or two plea bargains involving sloppy deals.
Can this circle be broken? President Jonathan says most of the problems he deals with today have their roots deep in the past, certainly long before his watch began. Perhaps privately, he may even hold Obasanjo responsible for some of them. He could also blame the legislature of playing to the gallery when it choses to investigate certain aspects of the management of the economy, and then leaves him holding the baby, so to speak. Having aroused public sentiment on issues that should be handled with more rigour and scrutiny, the national assembly dumps “findings” on him and accuses him of not prosecuting people. The legislature will say it does its job; and may even query how it is possible that it does it better than the executive arm with its army of investigating agencies. People and organizations investigated by the legislature complain that the process is not transparent, in spite of television cameras and live coverage, and much of the investigation is motivated by considerations other than the search for the truth and pursuit of public interest. Trials on television and bullying by legislators are often heard from people who have been summoned, and while the public cheers and swallows everything it sees, there are complaints that these investigations bring up more mud than water.
In any case, the bottom line is that as President Jonathan celebrates his first year as President elected as a candidate, he needs to know that the institutional collapse under him is assuming alarming proportions. The public service – including regulatory and investigating agencies – are operating under the most challenging circumstances, the most prominent being strong signals that the political level does not welcome wholesale and genuine investigation into transactions and other government business. This is why the subsidy and pension scams can take place right under all the noses – or in collaboration with some elements – of the public service. The legislature will always exploit the opportunity to “oversight” the executive – and expose its weaknesses and shortcomings – and do this substantially at the expense of its more important responsibility, which is to make laws. When Obasanjo lashes at the National Assembly, he is reliving a very old war with a well-known adversary. This adversary will continue to encroach into President Jonathan’s territory in the manner he manages the economy, if he does not improve on his capacity to limit the damage of corruption. Protecting his turf will involve raising the standards by which he and his ministers and other managers of the public service operate. He has to personally distance himself from much of the muck presently flying around if he will be able to do this.
PHEW!
“Don’t pay any attention to the critics; don’t even ignore them.”
Sam Goldwyn
Even President Jonathan will be forgiven if he is not sure whether his cup, at the end of his first year as president elected on his own, is half full, or half empty. To say the least, it has been an eventful year; and it will not be an exaggeration to say it may yet be his easiest year of the four he has been sworn to serve. If this has downed on him, it will be a sober President Jonathan who will be celebrating the first anniversary of his own Presidency tomorrow. If it downs on the people with whom he shares responsibility of running the nation, we should hear less of achievements, and more of a stronger commitment to fix the gaping holes in the administration’s record.
Two developments in the last week both define the character of Jonathan’s administration so far, and appear to be the basic issues which will determine his agenda in the future. The first is the emerging story about how $1.1 billion belonging to the Nigerian people from the sale of an oil block which belonged to Malibu oil was shared by private companies owned by people close to the presidency. The second is the statement credited to Chief C.K Clark, the President’s political godfather, that President Jonathan will run for the Presidency again in 2015.
The emerging story about the manner over N150 billion was shared out by private companies on instructions from top government officials will cast a pall on festivities and celebrations. In a nation whose citizens have been shocked beyond belief by scams and outright theft of incredible amounts, these last revelations will cap it all. It will be explained or rationalized, of course, and there may even be a token commitment to investigate. But Nigerians will not believe it. Instead, people are likely to cry once again to the high heavens for heads to roll. The same way they are demanding that heads roll from the fuel subsidy scam. The same way they want heads to roll over the pensions scam. The same way they want all the revelations from the investigations of the National Assembly to be followed up faithfully and culprits brought to book. The first year of Jonathan’s full-bloodied presidency may be recorded in history as the year of huge resistance against anti-people policies, and of monumental theft. A cynical citizenry will become even more distrusting as the administration subjects finding, reports and investigations to further scrutiny, which will allow suspects regain composure and confidence, and cover tracks with good lawyers and bureaucratic lethargy. Between the insurgency of the Jamaatu Ahlis Sunnah Lid da’awati Wal Jihad (Boko Haram) and corruption of unspeakable proportions carried out with chilling impunity, there will be little left for Nigerians to cheer in this anniversary.
It may have been noted by the President and his close advisers, but it needs restating that in two basic areas, this administration has failed very badly. These are in the areas of securing lives and property of citizens and promoting their welfare; the two basic functions of any government. The manifestation of organized violence and rampant violent crimes have rendered life for all Nigerians more precarious. The national assembly has moved into the vacuum created by incompetence and weak political will of the administration to expose how improvements in citizens’ welfare have been hijacked by rampant and entrenched corruption. The President lost much of his turf to organized violence and crimes, and the opportunism of politicians in the legislative arms. He will find it increasingly difficult to put out policies which involve additional hardships for the public, such as the forthcoming review on electricity tariff, if Nigerians hear only of stolen billions.
The second element which has defined the character of President Jonathan’s presidency, and is likely to define his agenda, is his political future beyond 2015. By now, when old man Clark speaks, the wise listen with rapt attention. When old man Clark and Pastor Oritsejafor say the same thing only the most foolish will be indifferent. And both say the only obstacle between Jonathan and another term from 2015 is a stubborn northern resistance, but it will be successfully challenged. Jonathan will run again in 2015 as it is his right to do, and in his interest to do. Others have done it before him, and those opposed to him are only doing so because he is from where he comes from. Nothing about competence, track record, ability or proven capacity to govern an increasingly difficult nation.
So Jonathan’s presidency will have one eye on managing an economy under assault from large scale corruption, and a polity threatened by organized violence and debilitating crimes; and the other eye on consuming maneuvers for 2015. How does he intend to handle these two simultaneously? Or, more significantly, what does he have that will enable him do this successfully? He certainly cannot rely on his public service to shore up deficiencies in integrity, competence and courage, when it is being routinely assaulted by arbitrariness, impunity and corruption. His entire arsenal of institutions and mechanisms intended to prevent the types of outright theft and fraud we see have been rendered laughable by the public stunts of the legislature which uses its oversight powers to show how a poor manager President Jonathan is. He will find it difficult to rely on the nation’s security asset to put an end to the insurgency which is crippling the north and threatening the rest of the nation, because it is more a part of the problem, than its solution. And though the brand new PDP leadership he has just helped install may give him some comfort, his party’s stranglehold on the nation’s political terrain is by no means guaranteed.
The problem for President Jonathan is that Nigerians are not sure who he is, or what he can do. If what they have seen of him in terms of managing crises, the economy or corruption is the Jonathan who wanted so badly to become President this time last year, they won’t be impressed. If there is more to President Jonathan than what Reuben Abati, C.K Clark or Pastor Oritsejafor say, he should show himself to Nigerians. The nation must not be run all the way to 2015, the way President Jonathan has run it so far.
Sam Goldwyn
Even President Jonathan will be forgiven if he is not sure whether his cup, at the end of his first year as president elected on his own, is half full, or half empty. To say the least, it has been an eventful year; and it will not be an exaggeration to say it may yet be his easiest year of the four he has been sworn to serve. If this has downed on him, it will be a sober President Jonathan who will be celebrating the first anniversary of his own Presidency tomorrow. If it downs on the people with whom he shares responsibility of running the nation, we should hear less of achievements, and more of a stronger commitment to fix the gaping holes in the administration’s record.
Two developments in the last week both define the character of Jonathan’s administration so far, and appear to be the basic issues which will determine his agenda in the future. The first is the emerging story about how $1.1 billion belonging to the Nigerian people from the sale of an oil block which belonged to Malibu oil was shared by private companies owned by people close to the presidency. The second is the statement credited to Chief C.K Clark, the President’s political godfather, that President Jonathan will run for the Presidency again in 2015.
The emerging story about the manner over N150 billion was shared out by private companies on instructions from top government officials will cast a pall on festivities and celebrations. In a nation whose citizens have been shocked beyond belief by scams and outright theft of incredible amounts, these last revelations will cap it all. It will be explained or rationalized, of course, and there may even be a token commitment to investigate. But Nigerians will not believe it. Instead, people are likely to cry once again to the high heavens for heads to roll. The same way they are demanding that heads roll from the fuel subsidy scam. The same way they want heads to roll over the pensions scam. The same way they want all the revelations from the investigations of the National Assembly to be followed up faithfully and culprits brought to book. The first year of Jonathan’s full-bloodied presidency may be recorded in history as the year of huge resistance against anti-people policies, and of monumental theft. A cynical citizenry will become even more distrusting as the administration subjects finding, reports and investigations to further scrutiny, which will allow suspects regain composure and confidence, and cover tracks with good lawyers and bureaucratic lethargy. Between the insurgency of the Jamaatu Ahlis Sunnah Lid da’awati Wal Jihad (Boko Haram) and corruption of unspeakable proportions carried out with chilling impunity, there will be little left for Nigerians to cheer in this anniversary.
It may have been noted by the President and his close advisers, but it needs restating that in two basic areas, this administration has failed very badly. These are in the areas of securing lives and property of citizens and promoting their welfare; the two basic functions of any government. The manifestation of organized violence and rampant violent crimes have rendered life for all Nigerians more precarious. The national assembly has moved into the vacuum created by incompetence and weak political will of the administration to expose how improvements in citizens’ welfare have been hijacked by rampant and entrenched corruption. The President lost much of his turf to organized violence and crimes, and the opportunism of politicians in the legislative arms. He will find it increasingly difficult to put out policies which involve additional hardships for the public, such as the forthcoming review on electricity tariff, if Nigerians hear only of stolen billions.
The second element which has defined the character of President Jonathan’s presidency, and is likely to define his agenda, is his political future beyond 2015. By now, when old man Clark speaks, the wise listen with rapt attention. When old man Clark and Pastor Oritsejafor say the same thing only the most foolish will be indifferent. And both say the only obstacle between Jonathan and another term from 2015 is a stubborn northern resistance, but it will be successfully challenged. Jonathan will run again in 2015 as it is his right to do, and in his interest to do. Others have done it before him, and those opposed to him are only doing so because he is from where he comes from. Nothing about competence, track record, ability or proven capacity to govern an increasingly difficult nation.
So Jonathan’s presidency will have one eye on managing an economy under assault from large scale corruption, and a polity threatened by organized violence and debilitating crimes; and the other eye on consuming maneuvers for 2015. How does he intend to handle these two simultaneously? Or, more significantly, what does he have that will enable him do this successfully? He certainly cannot rely on his public service to shore up deficiencies in integrity, competence and courage, when it is being routinely assaulted by arbitrariness, impunity and corruption. His entire arsenal of institutions and mechanisms intended to prevent the types of outright theft and fraud we see have been rendered laughable by the public stunts of the legislature which uses its oversight powers to show how a poor manager President Jonathan is. He will find it difficult to rely on the nation’s security asset to put an end to the insurgency which is crippling the north and threatening the rest of the nation, because it is more a part of the problem, than its solution. And though the brand new PDP leadership he has just helped install may give him some comfort, his party’s stranglehold on the nation’s political terrain is by no means guaranteed.
The problem for President Jonathan is that Nigerians are not sure who he is, or what he can do. If what they have seen of him in terms of managing crises, the economy or corruption is the Jonathan who wanted so badly to become President this time last year, they won’t be impressed. If there is more to President Jonathan than what Reuben Abati, C.K Clark or Pastor Oritsejafor say, he should show himself to Nigerians. The nation must not be run all the way to 2015, the way President Jonathan has run it so far.
Monday, May 21, 2012
2015, OR SOMETHING LIKE IT
“I discovered that being a president is like riding a tiger. A man has to keep on riding or be swallowed”
Harry S. Truman.
You would be forgiven if you think we are already in 2015, or thereabouts, and the election campaigns are in full swing. We are watching a drama unfold, which has many parts that are chilling in their effects. In a few days, President Jonathan will be celebrating his first year in office as a President sworn-in after an election he contested as a candidate. The quarrels over the comment made by General Muhammadu Buhari regarding the 2015 elections are unlikely to have died down by then. This will be unfortunate for a presidency eager to roll out the drums and reel out items of achievement in the transformation agenda. Just one year into a Presidency that was born of frightening rancour and deep damage to the polity, we are being reminded that we are still deep in the woods.
General Buhari had said that if the 2015 elections do not substantially improve on the quality of the elections of 2011, there will be much bloodshed, and everyone will be the loser. He had chosen the Hausa adage of a fight between a dog and a monkey, in which both are substantially bloodied, and it is difficult to tell a winner. The allusion to blood has drawn the heaviest salvos, not surprisingly, from an administration and a party which are grappling with serious issues of escalating violence, and are yet to recover from the bitter and destructive reactions to the outcome of the 2011 presidential elections in parts of the north. The smell of blood in General Buhari’s comment brought out all the sharks: the President’s corner reminded the nation that the General is not a democrat; is un-electable; is a prophet of doom and gloom who is unfit to lead; and that he should be held solely responsible for any violence he is predicting. The PDP rolled out the big guns it reserves for big occasions, and lambasted the General in its traditional and new language.
The General’s party and its allies rallied around him, firing back in language and with passion fit for real war. The dust is still much in the air and the meaning of “bloodied dog, bloodied monkey” is being very carefully scrutinized, and General Buhari is basking in a limelight he has not enjoyed since the aftermath of the 2011 elections. Even northern governors are being affected by this awesome quarrel, and they recently resolved, after their recent meeting in Kaduna, that they will facilitate the emergence of a northern candidate, presumably after they succeed in collapsing all partisan boundaries.
It is important to seek for deeper reasons behind this latest outbreak of squabbles over elections. The outward manifestations of the issues are not difficult to discern. The comments he made and the reactions to them have reminded the nation that General Buhari is very much a factor in Nigeria politics. They are also strong signals that the recent talks over political and electoral alliance between the CPC and ACN represent a real threat to the PDP. Then there is the evidence that the our democratic system does not distinguish periods between governance and partisan, or electoral campaign. 2015 is upon us, whether we realize it or not.
But a worrying question is one which should ask why all this heat will be generated by remarks about the linkages between elections and violence. This is certainly not the first time General Buhari will warn over the dangers of rigged elections, and it will not be his last. Nor is he the only Nigerian who believes that unless our elections successively improve the manner they reflect popular will, they will alienate more and more Nigerians, and many voters and other citizens will take up violence as a means of protesting perceived abuses of the electoral process. Who would believe that it will be all tranquility and peace if the elections of 2015 do not radically improve on 2011, and do so in a manner ordinary voters will recognize and accept?
There is a basic issue about the 2011 elections which represents a serious problem. The presidency and INEC, and a substantial percentage of Nigerian citizenry says the elections were generally good, and represent a new benchmark for credible elections in Nigeria. Another significant proportion of the citizenry says they were substantially rigged, and do not reflect the popular will. Civil society is overwhelmingly critical of the elections, although it says they were better than previous ones. The international community, which has since become a major player in our electoral process, says it was acceptable, and certainly more acceptable than prolonged strife over results.
Now, if you do not accept that the 2011 elections were substantially flawed, why should you go out of your way to fix them? Because Buhari says you must do it, or else blood will flow? And, conversely, why should the electoral process be so comprehensively condemned (and by implication, thoroughly reformed), because politicians who serially lose elections say they are rigged? What, or who will motivate a genuine review of the 2011 elections, and an informed and dispassionate improvement on its manifest weaknesses? INEC will say it has a routinized review mechanism, and will study all the elements of the 2011 elections, plug loopholes, and address weaknesses subject to financial and other support from government. Will that satisfy General Buhari and his supporters and the opposition? The administration will say what INEC and the democratic process need is constructive and genuine critique of our elections, and not wholesale condemnations by politicians who lose elections. It will say it is ready to work with INEC, civil society and the international community to improve upon the 2011 elections, which were, in any case, good. Will this satisfy Buhari and his supports and the opposition?
The most worrying dimension of these quarrels is that they expose the links between the quality of our politicians and of our electoral process. If elections are only free and fair when we win them, and winners will emerge irrespective of the quality of the elections, and then defend the elections they may have rigged as free and fair, then we will never conduct credible and acceptable elections in Nigeria. Ordinary voters who are far from the intricate but damaging manipulations of the electoral process take their cues from the reactions of politicians who win or lose elections. In situations where stakes are raised to extremely high levels by politicians and supporters, suggestions of rigged elections resonate with profound consequences. On the other hand, such is the manner politicians manipulate divisive and parochial values among Nigerian voters, that few voters will question results if they satisfy narrow political goals.
The way things stand now, if General Buhari changes his mind and decides to re-contest as a candidate in the 2015 presidential elections, either on his party’s platform or as a coalition candidate, it is very likely that President Jonathan’s yet-to-be-declared but active interest in running again win be given substance by an alliance between the south south and the south east. As if the dangerous slide we now see into parochialism is not enough, this will polarize the nation even further. To add a massive dispute over elections whose credibility is already being questioned may be too much for this nation to process.
Harry S. Truman.
You would be forgiven if you think we are already in 2015, or thereabouts, and the election campaigns are in full swing. We are watching a drama unfold, which has many parts that are chilling in their effects. In a few days, President Jonathan will be celebrating his first year in office as a President sworn-in after an election he contested as a candidate. The quarrels over the comment made by General Muhammadu Buhari regarding the 2015 elections are unlikely to have died down by then. This will be unfortunate for a presidency eager to roll out the drums and reel out items of achievement in the transformation agenda. Just one year into a Presidency that was born of frightening rancour and deep damage to the polity, we are being reminded that we are still deep in the woods.
General Buhari had said that if the 2015 elections do not substantially improve on the quality of the elections of 2011, there will be much bloodshed, and everyone will be the loser. He had chosen the Hausa adage of a fight between a dog and a monkey, in which both are substantially bloodied, and it is difficult to tell a winner. The allusion to blood has drawn the heaviest salvos, not surprisingly, from an administration and a party which are grappling with serious issues of escalating violence, and are yet to recover from the bitter and destructive reactions to the outcome of the 2011 presidential elections in parts of the north. The smell of blood in General Buhari’s comment brought out all the sharks: the President’s corner reminded the nation that the General is not a democrat; is un-electable; is a prophet of doom and gloom who is unfit to lead; and that he should be held solely responsible for any violence he is predicting. The PDP rolled out the big guns it reserves for big occasions, and lambasted the General in its traditional and new language.
The General’s party and its allies rallied around him, firing back in language and with passion fit for real war. The dust is still much in the air and the meaning of “bloodied dog, bloodied monkey” is being very carefully scrutinized, and General Buhari is basking in a limelight he has not enjoyed since the aftermath of the 2011 elections. Even northern governors are being affected by this awesome quarrel, and they recently resolved, after their recent meeting in Kaduna, that they will facilitate the emergence of a northern candidate, presumably after they succeed in collapsing all partisan boundaries.
It is important to seek for deeper reasons behind this latest outbreak of squabbles over elections. The outward manifestations of the issues are not difficult to discern. The comments he made and the reactions to them have reminded the nation that General Buhari is very much a factor in Nigeria politics. They are also strong signals that the recent talks over political and electoral alliance between the CPC and ACN represent a real threat to the PDP. Then there is the evidence that the our democratic system does not distinguish periods between governance and partisan, or electoral campaign. 2015 is upon us, whether we realize it or not.
But a worrying question is one which should ask why all this heat will be generated by remarks about the linkages between elections and violence. This is certainly not the first time General Buhari will warn over the dangers of rigged elections, and it will not be his last. Nor is he the only Nigerian who believes that unless our elections successively improve the manner they reflect popular will, they will alienate more and more Nigerians, and many voters and other citizens will take up violence as a means of protesting perceived abuses of the electoral process. Who would believe that it will be all tranquility and peace if the elections of 2015 do not radically improve on 2011, and do so in a manner ordinary voters will recognize and accept?
There is a basic issue about the 2011 elections which represents a serious problem. The presidency and INEC, and a substantial percentage of Nigerian citizenry says the elections were generally good, and represent a new benchmark for credible elections in Nigeria. Another significant proportion of the citizenry says they were substantially rigged, and do not reflect the popular will. Civil society is overwhelmingly critical of the elections, although it says they were better than previous ones. The international community, which has since become a major player in our electoral process, says it was acceptable, and certainly more acceptable than prolonged strife over results.
Now, if you do not accept that the 2011 elections were substantially flawed, why should you go out of your way to fix them? Because Buhari says you must do it, or else blood will flow? And, conversely, why should the electoral process be so comprehensively condemned (and by implication, thoroughly reformed), because politicians who serially lose elections say they are rigged? What, or who will motivate a genuine review of the 2011 elections, and an informed and dispassionate improvement on its manifest weaknesses? INEC will say it has a routinized review mechanism, and will study all the elements of the 2011 elections, plug loopholes, and address weaknesses subject to financial and other support from government. Will that satisfy General Buhari and his supporters and the opposition? The administration will say what INEC and the democratic process need is constructive and genuine critique of our elections, and not wholesale condemnations by politicians who lose elections. It will say it is ready to work with INEC, civil society and the international community to improve upon the 2011 elections, which were, in any case, good. Will this satisfy Buhari and his supports and the opposition?
The most worrying dimension of these quarrels is that they expose the links between the quality of our politicians and of our electoral process. If elections are only free and fair when we win them, and winners will emerge irrespective of the quality of the elections, and then defend the elections they may have rigged as free and fair, then we will never conduct credible and acceptable elections in Nigeria. Ordinary voters who are far from the intricate but damaging manipulations of the electoral process take their cues from the reactions of politicians who win or lose elections. In situations where stakes are raised to extremely high levels by politicians and supporters, suggestions of rigged elections resonate with profound consequences. On the other hand, such is the manner politicians manipulate divisive and parochial values among Nigerian voters, that few voters will question results if they satisfy narrow political goals.
The way things stand now, if General Buhari changes his mind and decides to re-contest as a candidate in the 2015 presidential elections, either on his party’s platform or as a coalition candidate, it is very likely that President Jonathan’s yet-to-be-declared but active interest in running again win be given substance by an alliance between the south south and the south east. As if the dangerous slide we now see into parochialism is not enough, this will polarize the nation even further. To add a massive dispute over elections whose credibility is already being questioned may be too much for this nation to process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)