This
piece was inspired by a video of the Kenyan National Prayer Breakfast, which
recently went viral. In that video President Uhuru Kenyatta and opposition
leader Raila Odinga publicly offered apologies to each other over the
contentious and acrimony-laden 2017 presidential election in the country. Uhuru
Kenyatta, 56, is the son of Kenya’s first President, Jomo Kenyatta, while Raila
Odinga, 73, is the son of the country’s first Vice President, Odinga Odinga. In
that video, President Kenyatta, who took the lead in proffering apologies,
said: “We have campaigned against each other, we have said nasty things against
each other, and we have hurt each other. My brother Raila, I ask you for
forgiveness, and I tender my apology.”
The
public show of reconciliation between the two politicians was very emotional
and reminded me of what could have been for our country, if President Buhari
had listened to the advice of little-known fellows like us and privileged
reconciliation and nation-building over strong arm tactics. Some of us had
argued that after a very bitter election in a highly polarized country like
ours, what we needed was not a new sheriff in town but a Nelson Mandela who
would eschew all temptations and resist all pressures for vengeance under
whatever rhetoric. It is tempting to speculate on what would have been the fate
of South Africa today if Mandela had not opted for the course of reconciliation
and had caved in to the pressures from some Black activists seething for
revenge against purveyors of the apartheid system and the many sins they
committed under that perverted ideology. And considering that the
Apartheid system jailed him for 27 years, to eschew the temptations to revenge
(no probe rhetoric against F.W. de Klerk!), it is understandable that many
regarded Mandela, from his ascension to the presidency to his death, as the
greatest living moral authority of our time. I was among those who consistently
nudged Buhari in that direction, condemning the emerging probe rhetoric that
exceedingly pleased those of his supporters who were baying for the blood of
their supposed ethnic, religious and class enemies.
Today,
many of those voices have become muffled or quickly changed their tunes (as
they are wont to do) while some have joined the ranks of those the town criers
at the presidency call ‘wailing wailers’.
Had
the initial promise by the President that he would not bother himself with the
past but would draw the line from the day he was sworn in going forward been
kept, perhaps the country would not have been as polarized as it is today.
True, the probe rhetoric and the de-marketing of the Jonathan government
exceedingly pleased some hardliners, but as predicted by many of us, it also
stoked the embers of our identity politics and won sympathies for Jonathan. We
got in return the Niger Delta Avengers while the supporters of Jonathan or
simply those who did not like Buhari or were suspicious of him, became
radicalized. The Niger Delta Avengers were able to cripple crude production
which helped to push the country into recession. The polity became overcharged
and the social distance among Nigerians became wider than ever.
Had
the Buhari government avoided the temptations of triumphalism and listened to
those who urged for the immediate past government to be treated with more
respect – if only to incentivize leaders who lose elections to concede – the
current angst that Buhari may not concede defeat if he loses may not be there.
Many of those who called for caution in the way the immediate past government
was being demonized were branded ‘Jonathanians’ – not minding that the broader
motivation was the need to deepen our democracy. Of course the argument was
never about letting those who stole money go scot free but to encourage
practices that would encourage future election losers to concede. If
Buhari loses the 2019 election, I will defend any attempt to demonize him or belittle
his contributions to our political economy because it will not bode well for
anyone. I am one of his critics but I also have deep respect for him as
an elder statesman who has done his best for the country.
Had
the Presidency taken a different approach to the issue of the leadership of the
National Assembly that apparently emerged against its wishes, perhaps the
current Cold War with the National Assembly may have been averted. I fail to
understand why Buhari, a distinguished retired army general, seem not to mind
his aides opening several war fronts at the same time on his behalf. Whether we
like Senator Bukola Saraki or not, the fact remains that he is a heavy weight
in Kwara politics and has shown he can hold the National Assembly together. I
thought that on the eve of an election year, the presidency should be courting
him and others at least in a bid to bolster their chances in the 2019
elections. With the presidency not sure it can count on the votes
of the States suffering the most from herdsmen attacks – Benue State, Taraba
State and Plateau State, joining Kwara States to those states does not
seem like a good political strategy to me.
Had
the President maintained the national image he got after re-invention in the
run-up to the 2015 elections, several of the challenges and suspicions of
hidden agenda he faces today would probably not be there. Prior to the 2015
election, Buhari never won any state in the southern part of the country partly
because of a perception (exaggerated in my opinion) that he was a Northern
supremacist. True, the Daura General committed some gaffes that strengthened
that suspicion. After that re-invention, that stereotype of him was negated.
However a golden opportunity of permanently changing that perception of him in
the south and becoming a national icon was lost, first with the lopsidedness in
the initial appointments of his kitchen cabinet, and second, with an
ill-advised gaffe about 97% and 5%. Though the regime has tried to correct that
initial error, his subsequent moves seem to be filtered in many places,
especially in the South, through the prism of those initial errors.
Had
Buhari listened to small voices like mine that corruption is only a symptom of
a more fundamental social malaise and not the fundamental cause of our
challenges, he would perhaps have adopted a different approach in fighting the
problem. I have been a consistent critic of the EFCC’s ‘gra-gra’ method
of fighting corruption since the days of Obasanjo and nothing has convinced me
that the contraption is succeeding. Rather, what fighting corruption under this
dispensation has succeeded in doing is scaring people who have money to invest
from coming out, worsening the economic squeeze in the country. By the
way, the government asking people to herd back to agriculture as a way of
fighting unemployment or creating sufficiency in food production seems
uncreative to me. The truth is that as countries develop, the share of the
population working in agriculture declines. For instance while some 70
per cent of the population in poor countries work in agriculture, less than
five percent of the population in the developed economies does so. Yet they are
able to apply the developments in science and technology to produce more than
their societies need. In this sense, asking young people (irrespective of
their own visions of their future) to herd back to agriculture seems to me a
sort of forward to the past.
Had
Buhari shown tough love to the herdsmen – most of whom are his fellow Fulani –
as Obasanjo did with the OPC and Governor Peter Obi did with MASSOB when
he ordered ‘shoot-at-sight’ on them, the current suspicions that he is
soft, if not turning a blind eye on the murderous activities of the herdsmen,
would perhaps not been there.
I
will like to see Buhari succeed in his job because that will benefit everyone.
However to succeed, we necessarily have to look back and interrogate some of
the missteps, or as my people will say, understand where the rain started
beating us.
Adibe can be reached
via pcjadibe@yahoo.com and on Twitter: @JideoforAdibe
No comments:
Post a Comment