My People:
The whole sordid point of this write-up is summarized in this paragraph:
QUOTE
Back to Buhari, he too apparently doesn't see how his parochialism undermines his mission for Nigeria. As The PUNCH editorialised, favouritism in appointments is itself a form of corruption. Actually, it is a much more serious form of corruption. After all, Nigerians are better off with a corrupt government than one that will dismember the country. Mercifully, a principled and astute fight against corruption shouldn't result in such a choice.
UNQUOTE
I violently disagree. Nigerians are NOT better off with a DEMONSTRABLY corrupt government than one that THE WRITER THINKS will dismember the country because of allegedly "parochial" appointments, and re-defining "parochialism" as an example of "corruption" does not make it so.
If we are running a Presidency as we are, not a Parliamentary democracy - as we should - then the President HAS the right to choose his team members within the ambit of the Constitution. He has chosen one Minister per state, as required by the Constitution. He has chosen officials from ALL over the country, even if you and I believe that some region is more favored than the other at this time; some would want EVERY set of appoitments to be EVENLY distributed across all political zones or every state or every federal constituency - but that is not always possible, and in any case, we are NOT the President. If you believe that he has violated the Constitution by his appointments so far, then the case should be brought before the National Assembly for impeachment. If it does not rise to a constitutional violation, but the alleged parochialism leads to INEFFICIENCY, then voting the President out after four years (there are only three years left now) is what should be done, and that should not lead to "dismemberment" of the country.
What all this amounts to is post-election heckling of the President. The "equal distribution" advocates simply wail at the loss of "equal access" to the levers of federal power, and not necessarily because the appointees are not competent. Or else, there is the secret belief - like Whites secretly believe about all Black appointees in America - that most of those that have been appointed so far are inherently incompetent because of their preponderance from one section of the country - say the North.
Here is my other point: there are one Federal Government, 36 States, 1 Federal Territory and 8810 Local Governments in our governance structure in Nigeria. The states have officials from those states, abi? Same as the 8810 Local Governments, abi? Are their appointments too also skewed? Why are they not performing, even with the little that they have? Why are we so obsessed with federal appointments - while leaving the state and local governments without account? It is because we ourselves are un-anchored at our local levels, and so want to be eating and drinking at the federal trough - and are unhappy because we don't know all the people there that are being appointed by the President.
Yep. Let us think about that.
Here is my point: if I were President, I might choose differently from PMB. If you my reader or the writer of this essay below were President, he probably would choose differently. But neither I, you or the writer are the President, PMB is. So let us leave him to choose his own people - he may change then in six months, one year, he may NEVER change them, depending on his pleasure, and let him succeed or fail on his own terms, and in three years time kick him out in democratic elections if we so feel. Of course, we have every democratic right to point out DEFICIENCIES in the performance of these individuals - which is apart from our feeling of parochialism; I have pointed out some of them myself - but wishing for coups, or having secessionists dreams - as some have dreamt - are out of bounds. That is not in the democratic spirit.
And there you have it.
Bolaji Aluko
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 1:25 PM, therealsegun via AfricanWorldForum <africanworldforum@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Between nepotism and militancy
August 7, 2016
Minabere Ibelema
Last Monday, The PUNCH ran a blistering editorial on the parochial pattern of President Muhammadu Buhari's appointments. And on the same day, PUNCH online carried a story on why a militant group recently aborted a planned declaration of a Republic of the Niger Delta. The president and the militant group are at loggerheads, yet it is remarkable how the articles demonstrate their commonality and illuminate a problem with Nigeria.
Buhari seems impervious to criticism regarding his parochial appointments. After the uproar over the appointment of special advisers, one would think that the retired general would begin to reckon with obvious sensitivities, sensitivities for which the constitution wisely prescribes an accommodation. What has happened instead is an audacious pattern of regression in regional balance. Rather than redress past lopsided appointments, he is aggravating matters by firing Southern officials and replacing them with Northern Muslims.
This begs for explanations. Might Buhari be so implacably parochial that the criticisms run off him like water on the back of a duck? Could it be that in his quest for a government of integrity, he can only find prospects among Northern Muslims? Might he be psychologically disposed to trusting primarily those who share his cultural and religious background?
Nigeria would be in the deepest of trouble if any of the above is true. Alas, given the solid record of nepotistic appointments, as amply summarised in The PUNCH's editorial, one is hard pressed to find palatable explanations.
This raises another series of questions: Are Buhari's advisers and members of his cabinet speaking out? If they are not, why not? Are they under his spell, believing that whatever Buhari does is what Nigeria needs? Or do they fear for their jobs? If they are speaking out, is Buhari just ignoring them?
At the minimum, the pattern of appointments suggests a messianic approach to governance. That is, messianic in the sociological, rather than theological, sense. It is the perspective that society's problems can be solved only through one person's vision, and nothing else matters in that singular quest.
Remarkably, this is the same perspective that is emerging from the newly formed Niger Delta militant groups. Actually, the older groups also manifested this tendency to some degree. The new ones are just asserting it more audaciously.
When the Niger Delta Avengers first announced their presence, the news release included a warning to Niger Delta leaders not to meddle in the group's undertaking. "It is not your business," they said rather incredulously.
In a recent release, a related group, the Adaka Boro Avengers, issue a similar warning. This time it was directed more specifically at one of the original militant groups, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta.
"We are … saying this for the benefit of President Muhammadu Buhari and Nigerian government to stop wasting their time with those greedy fellows that call themselves MEND because nothing good will come out of them rather than sabotage," The PUNCH quoted ABA's spokesman, Edmos Ayayeibo as saying in a statement.
"Everything they are saying, not even one will be accomplished. We will never agree with anything they say and henceforth MEND should watch their back because we have tolerated them for a very long time…. Enough is enough, since they want to set confusion in the Niger Delta we will start from them."
This is much like a declaration of civil war within the Niger Delta. Yet in the same statement, ABA's spokesman had stated, "We adhere to the voice of our people, because our struggle is for the Niger Delta people and not for selfish reason."
That raises the question, did the people authorise ABA to declare war on MEND? Did the people get a chance to decide whom they would rather have press their cause? For that matter, when ABA decided to declare a Republic of the Niger Delta, how were the people consulted?
Clearly, this is another messianic approach to the affairs of the people, much like Buhari's. The NDA and ABA seem to be saying to critics and rivals alike: "Shut up, we know what is good for you. And if you don't shut up, we will deal with you."
According to the ABA spokesman's statement, the group called off the declaration of the Republic of the Niger Delta following appeals by several Niger Delta notables, including ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and the first governor of Rivers State, King Alfred Diete Spiff. In a fuller story on Tuesday, The PUNCH reported that the declaration may have been aborted because of a large contingent of troops sent to the area.
If the ABA aborted the declaration at the behest of the Niger Delta chieftains, that is a good sign. At least the group is heeding legitimatised leaders of the people. But that doesn't diminish the implication of its apparent claim to be the sole voice of the region. If there is an overarching lesson of Biafra, it is that secession is not something to be undertaken on the whim, regardless of the provocations. It requires a real consensus and thought-out plan. Above all, it is a last recourse.
Back to Buhari, he too apparently doesn't see how his parochialism undermines his mission for Nigeria. As The PUNCH editorialised, favouritism in appointments is itself a form of corruption. Actually, it is a much more serious form of corruption. After all, Nigerians are better off with a corrupt government than one that will dismember the country. Mercifully, a principled and astute fight against corruption shouldn't result in such a choice.
Militant groups such as NDA and ABA didn't emerge because of Buhari's lopsided appointments in favour of fellow Northerners and Muslims, but it is aggravating the grievances that gave rise to them. And the impunity of the administration can only inspire impunity in the militants.
Nugget of Wisdom
Justice Learned Hand, founding Chief Judge of the 2nd Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals (1948-1951), writing of the importance of diverse opinions in democratic governance: "The First Amendment … presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all."
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment