Read Reuben Abati's article below...
During the Jonathan administration, an outspoken opposition spokesperson had argued that Nigeria was on auto-pilot, a phrase that was gleefully even if ignorantly echoed by an excitable opposition crowd. Deeper reflection should have made it clear even to the unthinking that there is no way any country can ever be on auto-pilot, for there are many levels of governance, all working together and cross-influencing each other to determine the structure of inputs and outcomes in society.
To say that a country is on auto-pilot is to assume wrongly that the only centre of governance that exists is the official corridor, whereas governance is far more complex. The question should be asked, now as then: who is governing Nigeria? Who is running the country? Why do we blame government alone for our woes, whereas we share a collective responsibility, and some of the worst violators of the public space are not even in public office?
The
President of the country is easily the target of every criticism. This
is perhaps understandable to the extent that what we have in Nigeria is
the perfect equivalent of an Imperial Presidency. Whoever is President
of Nigeria wields the powers of life and death, depending on how he uses
those enormous powers attached to his office by the Constitution,
convention and expectations. Nigeria’s President not only governs, he
rules. The kind of President that emerges at any particular time can
determine the fortunes of the country. It helps if the President is
driven by a commitment to make a difference, but the challenge is that
every President invariably becomes a prisoner.
He
has the loneliest job in the land, because he is soon taken hostage by
officials and various interests, struggling to exercise aspects of
Presidential power vicariously. And these officials do it right to the
minutest detail: they are the ones who tell the President that he is
best thing ever since the invention of toothpaste. They are the ones who
will convince him as to every little detail of governance: who to meet,
where to travel to, and who to suspect or suspend. The President
exercises power, the officials and the partisans in the corridors
exercise influence. But when things go wrong, it is the President that
gets the blame. He is reminded that the buck stops at his desk.
We
should begin to worry about these dangerous officials in the system,
particularly within the public service, the reckless mind readers who
exploit the system for their own ends, and who walk free when the
President gets all the blame. To govern properly, every government not
only needs a good man at the top, but good officials who will serve the
country. We are not there yet. The same civil servants who superintended
over the omissions of the past 16 years are the ones still going up and
down today, and it is why something has changed but nothing has
changed. The reality is terrifying.
The
officials at the state levels are no different, from the Governor down
to the local government chairman and their staff. They hardly get as
much criticism as the folks in Abuja, but they are busy every day
governing Nigeria, and doing so very badly too. Local government
chairmen and their officials do almost nothing. The Governors also try
to act as if they are Imperial Majesties. The emphasis on ceremony
rather than actual performance is the bane of governance in Nigeria.
Every one seems to be obsessed with ceremony and privileges.
A
friend sent me a picture he took with the Mayor of London inside a
train, in the midst of ordinary citizens and asked if that would ever
happen in Nigeria. The Mayor had no bodyguards. He was on his own. In
the Netherlands, the Prime Minister is a part-time lecturer in one of
the local colleges. Nigerian pubic officials are often too busy to have
time for normal life. Even if they want to live normally, the system
also makes it impossible. We need people in government living normal
lives. Leaders need not be afraid of the people they govern. They must
identify with them. There is too much royalty in government circles in
Nigeria. No matter how well-intentioned you may be, once you find
yourself in their midst, you will soon start acting and sounding like
one, because it is the only language that is spoken in those corridors.
Elsewhere,
ideas govern countries. People become leaders on the basis of ideas and
they govern with ideas. That is why the average voter in Europe or
North America knows that what he votes for is what he is likely to get.
Clearly in the on-going Presidential nomination process in the United
States, every voter knows the difference between Bernie Sanders and
Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side and between Ted Cruz and Donald
Trump on the Republican side. Such differences are often blurry in
Nigeria: our politics is driven by partisan interests; a primordial
desperation for power, not ideas. It is also why Nigerian politicians
can belong to five different political parties and movements within a
decade.
Even
when men of ideas show up in the political arena, they are quickly
reminded that they are not politicians and do not understand politics.
Gross anti-intellectualism is a major problem that Nigeria would have to
address at some stage. Some of the administrations in the past who had
brainy men and women of ideas in strategic positions ended up not using
them. They were either frustrated, caged, co-opted or forced to adapt or
shown the door. The question is often asked: why don’t such people walk
away? The answer that is well known in official corridors is this:
doing so may be a form of suicide. Once inside, you are not allowed to
walk out on the Federal Government of Nigeria, and if you must, not on
your own terms. So, governance fails even at that level of values: that
other important element that governs progressive nations.
Partisan
interests are major factors in the governance process. These seem to be
the dominant factor in Nigeria, but again, they are irresponsibly
deployed. The crowd of political parties, religious groups, traditional
rulers, ethnic and community associations, professional associations,
pastors, priests, traditional rulers, imams and alfas, shamanists,
native doctors, soothsayers and traditional healers: they all govern.
They wield enormous influence. But they have never helped Nigeria and
they are not helping. All the people in public offices have strong links
to all these other governors of Nigeria, but what kind of morality do
they discuss? Those with partisan interests, including even promoters
of Non-Governmental groups (NGOs) all have one interest at heart: power
and relevance.
The
same priests who saw grand visions for the PDP and its members over a
16-year period are still in business seeing visions and making
predictions. Those who claim to be so powerful they can make the lame
walk and the blind see have not deemed it necessary to step forward to
help the NNPC turn water into petrol. If any of these miracle-delivering
pastors can just turn the Lagos Lagoon alone into a river of petrol,
all Nigerians will become believers, but that won’t happen because they
are committed to a different version of the gospel. As for the political
parties: they are all in disarray.
The
private sector also governs Nigeria. But what is the quality of
governance in the corporate sector? The Nigerian corporate elite is
arrogant. They claim that they create jobs so the country may prosper,
but they are, in reality, a rent-seeking class. They survive on
government patronage, access to the Villa and its satellites, and claims
of indispensability. But without government, most private sector
organizations will be in distress. The withdrawal of public funds into a
Treasury Single Account is a case in point. And with President
Muhammadu Buhari not readily available to the eye-service wing of the
Nigerian private sector, former sycophants in the corridors are
clandestinely resorting to sabotage and blackmail. A responsible
private sector has a duty in society: to build society, not to donate
money to politicians during elections and seek patronage thereafter. And
if it must co-operate with government, it must be for much nobler
reasons in the public interest.
The
military are still governing Nigeria too. They may be in the
background, but their exit 16 years ago, has not quite translated into a
loss of influence or presence. In the early years of their
de-centering, many of them chose to join politics and replace their
uniforms with traditional attires. Their original argument is that if
other professionals can join politics, then a soldier should not be
excluded. They failed to add that the military class in politics in
Africa has shown a tendency to exercise proprietorial rights and powers,
which delimit the democratic project. In Nigeria such powers and rights
have been exercised consistently and mostly by, happily for us, a
gerontocratic class, whose impact, I believe, will be determined by the
effluxion of time.
And
it is like this: the President that emerged in 1999 was a soldier: the
received opinion was that only such a strong man could stabilize the
country. His successor was the brother of another old soldier; he and
his Deputy were personal chosen by the departing President. He died in
office, but for his Deputy to succeed him, it helped a lot that he was
also a favourite of the General who chose his own successors. When this
protégé fell out with the General, in retrospect now, a miscalculation,
the General turned Godfather swore to remove him from office. And it
happened. In 2015, another former soldier and strong man, had to be
brought back to office and power. When anything goes wrong, a class of
old Generals are the ones who step forward to protect and guide the
country. The only saving grace is that they do not yet have a
successor–class of similarly influential men with military pedigree. But
when their time passes, would there be equally strong civilians who can
act as protectors of the nation?
The
media governs too. But the media in Nigeria today is heavily
politicized, compromised and a victim of internal censorship occasioned
by hubris. Can the media still save Nigeria? It is in the same pit as
the Nigerian voter, foreign interests, the legislature and the
judiciary. But when there is positive change at all of these centres of
power and influence, only then will there be change, movement and
motion, and a new Nigeria.







No comments:
Kindly post a comment