WHAT DOES MUHAMMADU BUHARI STAND FOR?
THE RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS OF JOHN DANFULANI IN FAVOUR OF NIGERIAN PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANT MUHAMMADU
BUHARI
AN EXAMPLE OF THE MENTAL POVERTY AND ANTI-DEMOCRATIC MENTALITY OF SOME PRO-BUHARI SOLDIERS
Toyin Adepoju
Danfulani makes these arguments in his rejoinder to Soyinka's critique of Buhari titled "The Nigerian Nation Against General Buhari"detailing acts demonstrating the dictatorial nature of Buhari's government.
Danfulani argues that Wole Soyinka, one of the most illustrious Nigerians, the only Nigerian Nobel Laurete-Literature 1986, one of the greatest African writers and world writers, activist active in in Nigerian politics since the build up to the Nigerian Civil War in the 1960s, is a lunatic because of Soyinka's critique of Buhari. Danfulani titles his piece, presented on the Yahoo group Dandalin Sinyasya, "ANOTHER INSTANCE OF LAUREATE'S LUNATISM". I am shocked at the culture of argument through an effort to dehumanize others that Danfulani represents but I want to focus on the ridiculous character of his arguments in favor of Buhari.
After reading my response pointing out of the ridiculous character of Danfulani's argument,one is better positioned to decide who is more mentally sound,Soyinka, or Danfulani, Danfulani, a man who scores a goal against his own side by presenting Buhari as a puppet,unaccountable for his own actions and generally irresponsible,a person who can manage nothing, talk less of an entire nation.
Such a perspective from a Buhari's supporter leads one to wonder what Buhari stands for. A resurgence of military dictatorship in civilian clothing? Does Buhari understand the rudiments not to talk of the more refined aspects of democracy? With supporters like Dan Fulani arguing in support of a military dictatorship in the form of a civilian Buhari government,should Buhari be allowed to come anywhere the centre of power in Nigeria?
On Buhari's Responsibility for the Dictatorship He Ran as President of Nigeria
Danfulani agrees that "Gen Muhammadu Buhari headed a crew of cabal that liquidated Shehu Shagari's regime on 31st December 1983. Of course, the Peoples General was Chief of Supreme Military Council that marched many politicians to the gulags, enacted decree No 2 that quarantined freedom of speech" running the country in a manner that brooked no dissent but ran on fear.
Danfulani goes on to argue that Buhari cannot he held solely responsible for that dictatorship because he was only the head of the ruling body, the Supreme Military Council and that Gen. Tunde Idiagbon,Domakt Bali and the now infamous Sani Abacha and Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida were the kingpins in the regime:
". But were... wrongdoings perpetrated and sanctioned by the General as an individual or by a body of junta that lead Nigeria under the period? Were the draconian decrees singlehandedly promulgated by him or the entire ruling Supreme Military Council? Is...all that transpired [not] a collective decision of the whole bunch that constituted the then Supreme Military Council? Who were kingpins of the "evil" regime? Gen. Tunde Idiagbon, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, Sani Abacha, and Domkat Bali."
I cant help laughing at this sad argument.Is Danfulani trying to absolve Gen Muhammadu Buhari, the then Chief of the Supreme Military Council,the man at the head of government in Nigeria at the time,of responsibility for the actions of the ruling body he headed? Is Buhari then,not accountable for the actions of the body he was head of?
If he is not accountable,what business does he have seeking to become President of Nigeria again?
What a horrible argument.It would take some doing to find a worse argument to defend Buhari.Buhari's place in Nigerian history is defined by those very dictatorial initiatives,understood as demonstrating his own understanding of how to run the country.As head of the central ruling body of Nigeria,the character and style of rulership of that body necessarily bears his stamp, unless he was a puppet.
Is Danfulani stating that BUHARI WAS A PUPPET at the hands of Idiagbon,Abacha,Bali and Babangida?
Can we argue that he was wholly or partly a puppet and that was why Babangida overthrew him through another coup?
If so,Buhari has no place running for office for anything,not to talk of the Nigerian Presidency.
If he was not a puppet,we agree then,that he was guilty of masterminding a violent, anti-democratic assault on the rights of Nigerians to choose their own leaders through elections and so has no place trying to manage a democratic system.He should either be tried for the treason of coup plotting or allowed to go home and leave the country alone.
On Buhari's Responsibility for the Coup the Made Him President of Nigeria
Danfulani goes further to present Buhari as not accountable for his own actions by arguing that he was not alone in planning and executing the coup through which he came to power:
"coups are collective conspiracies by a collective, not an individualistic power adventures. If this truth is self evident; why placing the burden of uprooting a regime and "crimes" committed thereof, on the head of an individual- instead of the gamut of the characters that played roles in ousting the regime?
Again,Danfulani suggests that Buhari should be seen as at best a figure head in the coup through which he came to power.How else are we to take his argument that since a coup is a collective action and civilians may also be involved,that the leader of the coup,the man who headed the government established through that coup,General Muhammadu Buhari, should not be held primarily accountable for that violent capture of power? If the head of government is not centrally responsible, who is? Why was he the head then? Or is Danfulani trying to show us that Buhari cannot be held responsible for the ACTIONS that DEFINED A GOVERNMENT of which he was the leader? Is Danfulani arguing that the head of a government does not represent, does not stand for his government? Why is he the head of government then?
If Buhari is not primarily accountable for his actions as head of the government formed through the coup that brought him to power,if he is not primarily responsible for the fact that he became President through a violent seizure of power,then why should he be considered responsible enough to lead Nigeria? A man whose so called leadership makes him responsible for nothing,not to talk of the actions of VIOLENT SEIZURE OF POWER AND DICTATORSHIP that DEFINED HIS GOVERNMENT.
If Buhari is to be held responsible for coming to power through violence and for the dictatorship he ran,we need to ask ourselves,can a former coup plotter and dictator make a good democrat? Has he then and since shown an understanding of and commitment to democracy? Do his campaign promises go beyond a promise to discipline Nigerians as if they were soldiers in a barracks? Does he know how to create consensus,which is at the heart of democracy,not a barracks like conformity? Shall Nigerians be safe under such a military style culture which does not understand the relationship between freedom,the rule of law and the development of a democratic nation?
Danfulani then proceeds to argue that when Buhari came to power through a coup in 1983,violent seizure of power was not an aberration all over the world:
"were coups, revolutions and other violent avenues of liquidating governments an aberration way back 1983? The now laid to rest Cold War was at its height and the means acquiring power was quadratic in nature".
Really laughable. In the 20th century? Is Danfulani living in prehistoric times? For at least the last 100 years,coups are best understood as demonstrations of national instability. They demonstrate an inability to elect a government through a consensual and peaceful manner,ideally,based on a comparative examination by the electorate of the relative qualities of the various parties seeking power.Through such a method, the electorate is empowered to choose its own leaders based on their perceived performance in office.Its an ideal but one far superior to brute seizure of power based on nothing but the creation of fear through the fear of death by being shot.
To state or suggest that Buhari should not be described as demonstrating anti-democratic credentials because the coup he led and which made him President was a legitimate method of forming a government in 1983 suggests that Danfulani might have just arrived from the stone age.
On the Attitude of Nigeria and the International Community to the Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of Coups as a Means of Gaining Leadership of a Nation and on Attitudes to Crimes Committed by Heads of State
Danfulani goes further to make the equally laughable argument that because Nigeria was not expelled from international bodies like the UN after the Buhari coup, and Buhari and his fellow conspirators in dictatorial attacks on human rights were not charged of crimes by the Nigerian and the international community,therefore "Everybody, including International Human Rights Commission understood the exigencies of the time and are not making a case out of it, except[Soyinka], the last defender of human rights standing"
It is difficult to construct a more foolish argument in support of Buhari. How many Nigerian heads of state have been charged for anything,in spite of the explicit and implicit abuse of power they demonstrate? None. Abacha's family was held for monies he stole only because Abacha died.Babangida has never been charged because he is alive.Babangida has never been charged to answer for the assassination of Dele Giwa in which his aide Halilu Akilu and the then director of military intelligence,Tunde Togun, are implicated by association,at the very least,in spite of the best efforts of the lawyer Gani Fawehimi..In spite of the culture of political assassinations with which the PDP was associated when Obasanjo was leader of Nigeria as a member of that party,and the actions of Obasanjo himself and allegations against him,he has not been charged for anything.
Due to the culture of fear and intimidation created by such violence as the culture of coups,Nigerian heads of state are not charged for crimes they committed while in office.
To argue, as Danfulani does, that the fact that Buhari was not charged by Nigeria for his crimes against the nation indicates support for those crimes, is at best sheer hypocrisy,at worst absolute delusion.
Does Buhari represent such self serving but obviously delusional fantasies and efforts to distort history?
The failure of the international community to sanction any Nigerian government for coming to power through a coup demonstrates the character of the Western powers and their satellites as largely neo-imperialist bodies whose interest in Nigeria is primarily what they can get from it. Meanwhile,while the country has been run largely through coups,the multinationals continue to run the the central industry in Nigeria,Nigeria's oil industry. As long such gains are flowing to the West,as far as they are concerned,anybody can be in power.
Is Buhari to be identified with such ignorant interpretation of international affairs? I cant help laughing.Is Buhari advised by characters like Danfulani who seem to live in a mental village? May such an abomination cease to be the fate of my country,Nigeria.
On Buhari's Contempt for the Oputa Panel Judgement Process
Danfulani goes on to further demonstrate sheer confusion about and disdain for the public mind,the public mind at the heart of democracy, central to democracy through his defense of Buhari's failure to attend the Oputa panel convened to address questions of abuses in the course of Nigerian history. Danfulani states that Buhari was wise not to attend the panel because the panel was stage managed to manipulate Nigerians in the interests of Obasanjo's government which was then in power and that the failure to prosecute people based on the panel's findings demonstrates its ineffectuality.He argues that what he understands as the failure of the similar but superior South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee underscores the futility of the weaker version represented by the Oputa Panel.
Why did Buhari not show up at the Oputa Panel panel and make a case for its inadequacy and short comings? In spite of his culpability in the hyper dictatorial and assassination laden regime of Sani Abacha,as Abacha's reportedly very powerful ADC, Colonel Mustapha is known for presenting his case at the Oputa Panel with a degree of self respect and courage. Whatever one may say about him,he cannot be accused of being coward or of not facing up to accusations against him. Granted,he was forced to attend since he was in prison while Buhri could choose not to attend beceause he was a free man and could not be compelled to attend.Buhari's non attendance at the panel has permanently marked him as displaying contempt for an effort at openly addressing lingering problems in Nigeria and no excuse will turn back the clock against him on that score. You cannot critique or improve a democratic arrangement by flouting it as Buhari did by toppling a government through a coup and his decision not to appear the Oputa panel.If Buhari had appeared and made a case against the value of the process represented by the panel, the substance of his case,and perhaps, his sense of self determination,courage and critical acumen would have been be remembered.Instead he kept away in silent ignoring of a process of national accounting initiated by the then President.
Is that the kind of character who is now touted as being able run a democratic nation?
The issue is laughable to say the least.
What is Buharism,Visionless or Visionary?
Danfulani concludes:
"Buharism is a political philosophy working hard to find its place in the world political lexicon. He might or might not have the chance to put into practice his thoughts, but we take solace on the fact that, he has disciples who will keep the flame burning until the end of ages.
Hope this round of laureate lunatism is Kongi's[Soyinka's] swan song".
What is the content,the vision,the goals and methods of this so called Buharism? Is it a vision of not not being accountable for one's actions,of contempt for democratic r processes,of a shameful ignorance of history and international affairs,of using violence,verbal or otherwise on people who disagree with you,a culture of vilence in which power is to be gained and kept by any means,including violence?
Has Danfulani demonstrated ANYTHING that represents a VISION FOR NIGERIA in his defense of Buhari?
Do Danfulani's shallow, ridiculous and self defeating arguments and ignorance of history represent what Buhari and his supporters stand for? Is that the essence of what Danfulani calls Buharism?
I cant help laughing at this amateur but fanatical effort at politics.Is this Buharism?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment