In Need of Shock Therapy
It is safe to assume that all enlightened Nigerians are agreed on the proposition that Nigeria is in dire need of a drastic reset and redirection towards a development oriented society. Rather than revolution, I call the need a shock therapy-‘sudden and drastic measures taken to solve an intractable problem’. This perspective is derived from the identification of the underdevelopment malaise of Nigeria as the syndrome of a consumption driven (as opposed to development driven) economy. The interminable socio political crisis Nigeria has endured mostly stem from contestations over access and expropriation of the national largesse. Needless to suggest that if our primary concern and motivation is the development of Nigeria, we would complement rather than antagonise one another. There would be no need to obsess for power in Abuja and the lesser tiers of government if the motive for political participation is to add value; to ask- as in the idealistic exhortation of John F Kennedy, ‘not what your country can do for you but Every group has a grievance. But the beauty what you can do for your country’. and attraction of a federation is that it allows
Karl Marx and Max Webber of the differing different groups to air their grievances and socialist and capitalist schools of thought work out a mode of co-existence. The National similarly (theoretically) attested the primacy Assembly and the National Council of State of the work and productivity ethic to national are the legitimate and appropriate bodies for aspirations for development. ‘From each national discourse. The national consensus according to his ability and to each according is that, it is better to live together than to to his need’ is the utopian evangelical mission live apart’ statement of Marxism. In his attribution of On behalf of Nnamdi Kanu, Professor Ben capitalist development as a derivative of Nwabueze stated their joint position thus the Protestant ethic-of being motivated to “President Buhari will be looking for trouble produce wealth as a calling (beyond the desire if he tries to usurp the constitutional powers and gratification of personal consumption) of the people to ask for a better Nigeria Webber was making the same call. through a change in structure. The power
On the main issue of the day, namely the to restructure belongs to the people, not the proposal of a constitutional restructuring of National Assembly, and the government Nigeria, both proponents and opponents are must not toy with this for the peace of the equally pledged to the common objective nation. Kanu has mandated me to declare of the ethical overhaul of Nigeria. Where to Nigeria that he is ready to call off the the two camps begin to diverge is the struggle for Biafra if progress is made in instrumentality through which this end may restructuring Nigeria.” be best achieved. What then are the options The truth is that the election of President available? The spectrum of options runs the Mohammadu Buhari in 2015 was neither gamut of the propositions of the political accidental nor unwitting. Those who voted for status quo bulwarks like former President him knew precisely why they cast their ballots Olusegun Obasanjo and incumbent President accordingly. The preference was attributable to Mohammadu Buhari to the fundamentalist either one or a combination of the following repudiation platforms of Nnamdi Kanu. factors. First was the facility of the perennial Between the status quo bound responses ethno regional predicate of Nigerian politics; of the two Presidents and the extremism of second was the reinforcement of the former the secessionist contenders lies the middle by the near total ethno regional animus of ground advocacy for restructuring. the Moslem North on the perception of
Said Obasanjo “My own restructuring is being cheated of their turn at the Nigerian what I have said, we have to restructure our political throne ( following the premature mentality, we have to restructure our mind, exit of late President Umaru Yar’adua); third we have to restructure our understanding was the rounded personification of this pan of Nigeria. What country do we want? And Islamic/regional irredentist outrage by the if we decide on what kind of country we political profile of Buhari; fourth was the want, how do we get that country? All hands conspicuous and self-destructive incompetence on deck, how do we get inclusive, how do of the Goodluck Jonathan Presidency; fifth we get every Nigerian feeling a sense of… was the allure of federal government power having a stake in the country”. to the dominant faction of the South West
On his return from extended medical political establishment; sixth was the covert attention abroad, Buhari reflected ‘This is support of the international community. not to deny that there are legitimate concerns. The most significant, for the purpose of our
THISDAY Newspapers Limited. presentation today, was Buhari’s reputation of a tough minded anti-corruption, anti-impunity crusader. The reason it is significant is that the critical support of the national intelligentsia and the international community was predicated on the philosophy that whatever he lacks in detribalised nationalist profile would be offset by his potential ability to tame runaway impunity and paralytic corruption in Nigerian public life-the prioritisation of the utility of the latter over the deep seated misgivings of the former. The enormity of the scourge of corruption and impunity was reckoned to have attained such proportions that little else mattered. Buhari himself captured the rationale in the pithy campaign rhetoric that ‘Nigeria needs to kill corruption before corruption kills Nigeria’.
On the assumption of office in 2015, the President wasted little time in giving credence to the saying that a leopard does not change its spots. On a goodwill visit to the United States and in the presence of bewildered American officials, he, in remarkable candour, wondered aloud why anyone should expect him to deal equally with those who gave him 95% and those who grudgingly gave 5%. In fairness, he, in characteristic tactlessness, was merely overstating an implicit doctrine of partisan politics. In the United States (redoubt of western democracy) for instance, brazen partisanship is exemplified in the standard practise of Democratic Party and Republican Party Presidents to alternately appoint ideological partisans to the bench. Pushing the boundaries of acceptable partisan behaviour, Buhari subsequently upped the ante to a point where legitimate partisanship degenerated to outright nepotism. Still, the prevalent opinion was that this disappointment is acceptable collateral damage for the promise of the anticipated deployment of messianic zeal to humble corruption and associated vices.
But in vain does Nigeria wait. Going back to the drawing board we made the following findings: First the fault does not all lie in Buhari’s star. Second is the limitation of the contextual difference between military dictatorship and democracy. By definition, democracy has to necessarily constrain the leadership latitude license of dictatorship and so the latitude that enabled Buhari to exercise those virtues (as military head of state) was rendered nugatory in a checks and balance participatory political milieu. Third is the toll of naturally degenerative advancing years-both physiologically and in old age compromised political character that could no longer meet the demands of ethically defiant aggressive leadership. Fourth was the desire to fill the vacuum for an Islamic North irredentist leadership provoked by the regional loss of political hegemony hitherto enjoyed unfettered before 1999. In other words, his political behaviour is liable to the interpretation of his return to the pinnacle of political power as a mission to re-establish Northern hegemony in the politics of the Fourth republic. These three factors constitute the hurdle that has precluded him from manifesting the anticipated shock therapy leadership utility.
Beyond Buhari and before 1999 there was the predisposition of projecting and perceiving military intervention in Nigerian politics as serving the shock therapy utility. However, after repeated loss of credibility and governance failure especially since the 1993 debacle, public perception of military rule intervention has become that of a cure worse than the disease. Whatever the extenuation, the reality today is that a combination of happenstances including governance inertia and poor crisis management skills has once again driven Nigeria to the cusp of acute socio political disorder.
The ramifications of a potential Buhari Presidency failure are far reaching. It will foster loss of faith in the capacity of the status quo to self-correct and undermines the notion that all it takes to solve the governance problem of Nigeria is a federal character search for the right leadership. In the aspiration for the socio political reformation of Nigeria, leadership change is the irreducible minimum-which falls short of the promise of other available options and beggars the following posers: When would the meritorious leadership emerge? For how long can Nigeria be subjected to the whimsical experimentation and expectation of the messiah? And If and when the messiah cometh, is his kingdom not subject to term limitation? I have argued several times on this page that it is scientifically wrong to predicate the enduring development of a modern society on individual leadership capacity and competence. Such a philosopher king predicated utopia belongs in the antiquity of Athenian democracy and the fertile imagination of Plato.
In the design of any human mechanism, science assumes the worst case scenario not the best case. If I may again borrow the American democracy analogy, the American constitution does not assume that good and competent actors would constitute government. As a matter of fact, it assumes the contrary and thereby instituted structural (federalism) and institutional constraints of checks and balances and separation of powers to limit the damage that mediocre or rogue leadership can inflict. This is the containment strategy whose utility is being presently validated in the reining-in of the one man wrecking crew of Donald Trump.
Political advocacy has been my caller identification and I shall remain true to myself once again. Since the departure and deviation point of 1966 we have experimented with a number of shock therapy measures and all seemed to have ended in futility. Shouldn’t we go back to the drawing board and embark on a journey of rediscovery? Beyond its theoretical and practical applicability to our unique aspiration for unity amidst diversity there is also the potential of restructuring (federalism) serving the utility of shock therapy-a structural reinvention of Nigeria, but a reinvention nonetheless.