Goodluck
Jonathan's former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity who is a
columnist for The Guardian, has written yet another interesting piece to
Nigerians. It's a must read.
President Buhari
President Muhammadu Buhari’s strategists, if they are at work at
all, are chasing ants and ignoring the elephant in the room. They do him
great disservice. Their oversight is hubristically determined either by
incapacity or a vendetta-induced distraction. It is time they changed
the game and the narrative; time they woke up.
It’s been more than 15 months since the incumbent assumed office as
President, but his handlers have been projecting him as if he is a
Umaru Musa Yar’Adua or a Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, first time Presidents
who could afford the luxury of a learning period before settling down to
the job, and who in addition must prove themselves to earn necessary
plaudits.
In making this mistake, President Buhari’s handlers created a sad
situation whereby they have progressively undermined his image. The
truth is that Muhammadu Buhari is neither a Yar’Adua nor a Jonathan. He
may have sought the office of President in three previous elections,
before succeeding at his fourth attempt in 2015, but he came into office
on a different template.
He had been Head of State of Nigeria (1983-85) and had before then
served his country at very high levels as military administrator, member
of the Supreme Military Council, head of key government institutions
and subsequently from 1985 -2015, as a member of the country’s Council
of State, the highest advisory body known to the Nigerian Constitution.
In real terms, therefore, General Muhammadu Buhari did not need the job
of President.
If he had again lost the election in 2015, his stature would not
have been diminished in any way. His place in Nigerian history was
already assured. That is precisely why it was possible to package him
successfully as a man on a messianic mission to rescue Nigeria from the
People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and whatever is ascribed to that in the
emotion-laden field of Nigerian politics.
He might have acquired many IOUs when he assumed office in 2015, as
all politicians do, but he was not under any pressure to pay back and
he was so well positioned in the people’s reckoning and historically
that he could call anyone’s bluff and get away with it. That much is of
course obvious. Many of the persons and groups who could claim that they
helped him to get to power a second time are today not in a position to
dictate to him.
Long before such persons left their mother’s homes for boarding
school, he had made his mark as a Nigerian leader. He could look them
straight in the eye and cleverly put them in their place. Corrupt
patronage is a strong element of Nigerian politics and so far, President
Buhari has shown a determination to limit the scope of such politics.
Whether that is right or wrong is a matter of political calculations,
and if current intimations are anything to go by, that may even prove
costly in the long run.
Nonetheless, when a leader assumes office with his kind of
helicopter advantages, it should not be expected that he would hit the
ground like a tyro in the corridors of power. Not too many persons in
his shoes get a second chance to return to power after a gap of 30
years. As it happened in his case, he would be expected to run the
country as a statesman, not as a party man, as a bridge-builder, not as a
sectional leader and as father of all.
The writer of his inaugural speech alluded to this last point in
that borrowed statement about belonging to everyone and to nobody.
Charles de Gaulle of France originally made that statement in 1958 when
he returned to power as President and founder of the Fifth Republic.
Charles de Gaulle had been an army General and one of the key figures in
the drama of World War II. In his second coming, De Gaulle built an
unforgettable legacy.
President Buhari’s handlers may have had an idea of going in such
direction but so far, they have taken their eyes off the legacy project.
The best way to remember a President of the incumbent’s status is with
regard to the legacy he leaves behind. We do not need to travel to 20th
century France to borrow an elaborate example. We have the home-made
example of former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Like Buhari, Obasanjo had
been Head of State. Like him also, he returned to be civilian
President. Obasanjo did not try to impress Nigerians with the daily
grind of governance or obsession with the past. He played a legacy game
from the first day.
The military had been excused out of power. Nigerians by 1999 were
so angry with military rule, they just wanted change. Obasanjo
capitalized on that and helped to prepare the foundations for the
consolidation of the democratic process. Nigeria had been a pariah
nation within the international community and a weakling within the
continent. With a combination of charisma, street wisdom and the
reactivation of old networks, Obasanjo regained for the country, the
respect it deserves.
He met a country in debt. He paid off the debts by 2005, and made
the country financially stable again. He surrounded himself with bright
and talented technocrats, including foreign consultants and within
government circles if not outside, he actively encouraged the free flow
of ideas. In doing this, he cultivated the image of a strong,
charismatic leader.
He also refused to be trapped by ethnic or religious
considerations. He had his own faults and there was a lot to complain
about as I did at the time, but looking at the big picture, Obasanjo was
a good manager of complex relationships, and he had a good sense of
humour. Out of office, it is possible indeed to speak of the Obasanjo
legacy in Nigerian history in rich and detailed terms.
There are parallels between the circumstances that brought General
Obasanjo and General Buhari back to power, and if you wish, you could
tease out the connections. But while the former immediately began to
build a legacy out of the opportunity, the latter is yet to embark on a
defined legacy mission. No political leader ever built a legacy out of
complaints and excuses.
An obsession with the past does not produce a legacy; it defeats
it. Nor is the restriction of human freedom a legacy-building gesture.
General Sani Abacha violated the dignity of virtually every institution
in the country but he is remembered more for stabilizing the economy and
for creating additional states, particularly Bayelsa, where he is
considered a hero.
Obasanjo often deployed power as if it was a whiplash, making his
politics ambiguous, but that is not the substance of his legacy. A
leader’s legacy lies in those steps he takes to transform society for
good and for the people’s benefit. President Buhari’s handlers should
begin to think of what legacy he intends to leave behind. A legacy is
something big and memorable, not routine exertions or bland ceremonies,
the type civil servants are perpetually bringing before a sitting
President to keep him in motion, in the absence of movement.
I do not intend to construct a possible legacy project for the
Buhari administration: a legacy is meant to be the product of careful
deliberation, vision and resolve, not something to be thrown up casually
in a limited newspaper copy. But there are grand moves to be made, and
that should be done, because a legacy cannot possibly arise from the
mere fact of being President of a country twice between the 20thand 21st
centuries. If I must make a few suggestions, however, it seems to me
that there is a legacy-building opportunity in the same National
Political Conference Report that the government of the day seems
determined to ignore.
Even if that 2014 Report is ignored: the issues relating to the
restructuring of Nigeria have been on the table since independence and
more coherently since the 2005 Political Conference which was aborted
due to a controversial attempt to hand over a Third Term to the Obasanjo
administration through the back door. President Buhari has both the
pedigree and the courage to take some bold steps about how Nigeria is
presently constituted and ensure not limited reform but far-reaching
transformation: create new states, merge some states, if possible,
review the revenue allocation formula, embark on legacy infrastructure
projects, introduce some alterations in key areas of national life,
merge parastatals to reduce cost and duplication, take up some neglected
ideas about public finance and give effect to them, revisit the oil and
gas sector and further reform it, crush Boko Haram.
Nigeria’s politics is complex and can be frustrating for those who
choose to swim in its murky waters, but ultimately every leader will be
judged on his record. How would President Buhari like to be judged? It
is not too early to pose this question. Legacy is not a destination; it
is built one step at a time. It is not an accident; it is a process and
the summation of concrete steps to make a difference.
The Buhari administration should begin to develop a legacy mindset;
this will include measuring the feedback from the people carefully in
terms of how their expectations are being met or denied. If this will
require a change of team or emphasis, now is the time to take that
decision.
About the Author:
Reuben Abati is a columnist in The Guardian and former Special
Adviser on Media and Publicity to former President Goodluck Jonathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment