Adeshina Afolayan
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
From: OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <adifada1@gmail.com>
Sender: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:51:50 +0100
To: <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>; Tony Abolo<abolotony2@gmail.com>; Akin Solanke<aakinsol@gmail.com>
ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - " THE DOG AND THE BABOON WILL ALL BE SOAKED IN BLOOD" : THE FINAL SETTING OF THE SUN ON THE PUBLIC POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMADU BUHARI
" THE DOG AND THE BABOON WILL ALL BE SOAKED IN BLOOD"
THE FINAL SETTING OF THE SUN ON THE PUBLIC POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMADU BUHARI
Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju
Muhammadu Buhari, unsuccessful Presidential candidate in the 2011 Nigerian Presidential elections, alluding to the forthcoming 2015 Presidential elections, was recently quoted in a n interview in the Vanguard of May 15, 2012, as stating that "If what happened in 2011 (alleged rigging) should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood.''
I respond to an Hausa speaker like Buhari who argue that Buhari's words, spoken in Hausa, are purely metaphorical in the context of that language like the sense of the English expression "to give a bloody nose" to another political party in an electoral combat.
Is the expression disputed?
No.
The man said "The dog and the baboon will all be soaked in blood".
Are you suggesting that that this expression is purely metaphorical?
Even if it is, you should be aware of what is known as social context of language.
Even if it is, you should be aware of what is known as social context of language.
Context determines the full significance of an expression in a particular situation.
If you are part of a situation where someone's nose was broken, and you then threaten to give someone a bloody nose, your expression will be more correctly identified with the literal meaning, with a physical broken nose, though the figurative meaning is also known.
If you are Buhari and have the following direct and indirect associations in your history, then your declaration that "If what happened in 2011 (alleged rigging) should again happen in 2015, by the grace of God, the dog and the baboon would all be soaked in blood'' should be associated with bloodshed:
1. At the last elections, you urged your supporters to actively protect their votes. You did not qualify that by indicating the right and wrong ways to do it. You lost the elections which you could not have won because your followership was concentrated in the North and you were described as late in reaching out to other parts of the country in your campaign.
Your supporters went wild and butchered people innocent people en masse.
Before that butchering, you were accused of inciting violence by your unqualified comments about vote protection. After the butchering, people were convinced the violence you incited had come to pass. They continually pointed accusing fingers at you. The government panel investigating the violence stated you were partly responsible for the murderous violence by your inciting comments.
2. In all your time in opposition after the election, you have not put forward policy proposals to counter that of the government. You have not demonstrated practical initiatives that would demonstrate what people should expect if your party-I cannot bear to countenance even the idea of such a honour going to such an individual as yourself, so I will focus on your party- assumes the central seat of government.
All you are known for is prophecies of doom. One day it is prophecies of revolution. Another it is claims that suggest that if you lose the Presidency again, the "the dog and the baboon will all be soaked in blood".
What is the most realistic way to interpret you? As speaking metaphorically, or as a desperate man who achieved his only time in leading the country through violence, through a military coup, and whose thinking begins and ends with force and violence? A man whose words portend violence, as depicted by 2011? As a reckless man, who thinks if he does not get what he wants, the place should burn down?
Should your opponents be trusting enough to think you are only speaking metaphorically? Should they not see your supporters as very capable of and likely to interpret your comments as a call for bloodshed if you lose, supporters thereby primed by you actualise in a literal sense your speech that "the dog and the baboon will all be soaked in blood", creating an even greater bloodbath than they did when you lost in 201, supporters who went mad with bloodlust when you lost in 2011, against the background of comments you made to them that were even much less incendiary than the one you have just made? In fact, is it not wise to treat what you are saying as a threat and prepare accordingly, because once you lose, 'blood must cover dog and baboon', you who could never have won in 2011 in the first place?
3. To make your case even more ugly, you belong to a group of regional politicians people are eying in connection with terrorism from your region and religion, terrorism devastating lives, security and property in your region in the name of that religion. These terrorists , like you, hate the government. One of these politicians, the infamous Atiku Abubakar, having failed, like you, to become President of the country, prophesied violent change . One of his compatriots promised chaos and an ungovernable country. Some say that compatriot is yourself. Your supporters have been struggling to shield you from such stains.
Yet you open your mouth and declare that if what happened in 2011 happens in 2015, "the dog and the baboon will all be soaked in blood". What happened in 2011? You lost an election you could not have won because you did not have the necessary geographical spread. Should people take your comments as harmless in a context where so much blood has already been shed and is being shed daily? Should they not better see you as a dangerous person, an egomaniac who should not be running loose, who should be closely watched for the security of the country?
Brethren, please look at this matter carefully.
Buhari is dangerous to this country. He is a disgrace to the North.
Buhari is finished as a political flag bearer.
Anybody who fields Buhari will lose that election.
The time has come to distill what is relevant from Buhari's legacy but drop the man as a political figure. He is a liability.
Also posted at
Scribd (PDF)
--
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