Any doubt about the nation being
imperilled by its warped leadership recruitment has been counteracted by sundry
developments in this electoral season. We are again confronted with the stark
reminder that in over five decades, those we have entrusted with leadership
have often unravelled as a bunch of incompetents who strive to plumb the nadir
of retrogression. Thus, the tragedy is that in every epoch, the messiah we
think has been thrown up to reverse the savage depredations of his predecessor
uncannily considers himself as holding the mandate of surpassing the greed and
a lack of direction of past national villains.
To be sure, this
bleak state of national affairs becomes inevitable as long as it is not those
who have prepared for leadership that we allow to lead. We are neither
attracted to them by the incipient genius in leadership they have demonstrated
in community service nor their championing of a pro-people cause. Eventually,
those we are saddled with as leaders, in the words of Nasir El-Rufai are
“accidental public servants.”
How does a nation
develop when we give leadership to those who do not understand its demands? For
too long, we have given leadership to those who think the purpose of their
being in public office is to serve the parochial interest of their families,
tribe or religion. Of course, past leaders in the country have demonstrated
this proclivity. But this fiendish leadership trajectory has gripped the public
imagination in the past three years and some months because President Muhammadu
Buhari has taken it to an intolerable level. Thus, we must come to terms with
the reality that if the country must develop through adherence to the
principles of democracy as enunciated in our constitution despite its phalanx
of imperfections, there should be no reason to doubt the fidelity of our
leaders to its demands.  |
| *President Buhari and Gov El-Rufai |
Here lies the perennial national tragedy. Our leaders who ought to be the
custodians of democracy are its implacable foes. Yes, in some cases, there is a
linkage between their anti-democracy disposition and their metamorphosis from
military despots. But the fact we must note is that they fail as democrats
because they have also failed as leaders in military jackboots. However, we are
reminded by history that there have been military leaders who became the
sources of the transformation of their nations. If our former military leaders
who now consider themselves as born again democrats cannot render themselves
amenable to the nuances of democracy, we endanger democracy and our nation when
we allow them to occupy leadership positions. If they think that because they
have become used to coups and they have become incapable of engendering good
governance by persuasion and consensus as required by democracy, we should save
our democracy and nation by rebuffing their offer to serve us.
The resistance to
the imperatives of democracy by former military leaders is demonstrated by the
then President Olusegun Obasanjo who introduced electoral victory by “capture”
and “do or die “into the nation’s political lexicon. This is a lexicon that
captures a disposition to thwart the electoral process and appropriate an
electoral favour that the electorate have not willingly dispensed. It then
ceases to surprise that El-Rufai who had his political tutelage in the Obasanjo
era has swelled the political lexicon by introducing body bags. El-Rufai who is
currently the governor of Kaduna State recently warned foreign authorities not
to interfere with Nigeria’s electoral process or they would return home in body
bags. The offence of these observers was that they made public their agitations
about the Buhari government’s negations of free and fair elections and the
dialogic character of democracy.
Those who expected
Buhari to repudiate El-Rufai’s rhetoric of violence were disappointed. Buhari
declared publicly that El-Rufai articulated the position of his government. But
Nigerians and other nationals were not to wait for long before they understood
why Buhari offered this robust defence of El-Rufai. For, in Buhari, the
propensity for a macabre political lexicon has found its boldest expression.
Yes, Buhari is a retired military general. He fought in the civil war. And in
his current government, he has seen or heard of so much blood being spilled by
Boko Haram and Fulani helmsmen.
But these probably
are not why Buhari sees nothing wrong with politics steeped in the blood of
fellow citizens. Remember, as far as 2012 Buhari demonstrated that he would not
mind shedding the blood of his fellow citizens to achieve his aspiration of
being the nation’s president. He warned that if the presidential election of
2015 was rigged against him, the dog and baboon would be soaked in blood.
Hence, if we are shocked now that Buhari gleefully disclosed that he had
ordered the military and the police to kill ballot box snatchers and other
electoral enemies, it only means that we had thought that he had changed.
But then, why
would he change if he believed that it was such rhetoric of violence that
quickly made Goodluck Jonathan to concede defeat? Perhaps, he also expects
Atiku Abubakar to demur at the prospect of a blood-soaked national landscape
and accept his electoral misfortune. At the same time, it could also be clear
to Buhari that Atiku is not likely to quickly accept defeat like Jonathan. And
that is why this time, Buhari is not content with the use of animal imagery to
convey the harm he is capable of inflicting on the nation. He rather opted to
undisguisedly alert us to the human destruction that he could inflict through
the military and the police.
The outrage has
been deafening. Shocked citizens have drawn the attention of Buhari to the
law’s provisions for such electoral offences that Buhari wants to address with
summary death. But Buhari has not recanted. Rather, the presidency has insisted
on the justness of his position. His aides have rapturously embraced an
opportunity to proliferate sophistries in sycophantic loyalty to Buhari.
Despite all the protestations of Buhari and his aides, it is clear that the
president’s position is by no means reflective of a disposition to protect
democracy. If Buhari really wanted a transparent electoral process that is
unsullied by thuggery, he would have signaled this by signing the electoral bill.
Again, Buhari would not have endorsed a perverted electoral process that gave
his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) victory in Osun State.
Buhari’s hostility
towards other arms of government is not meant to protect democracy but truncate
it. He takes actions that cast doubts on the sanctity of the electoral process.
He chose to remove the Chief Justice of Nigeria Walter Onnoghen about three
days before the jurist set up panels to consider petitions arising from the
elections that were scheduled to hold weeks away. How would those from the
opposition who would lose at those panels accept that the judges are not made
to do the bidding of the ruling party? If they are not sure of getting justice
from those panels would they not resort to self-help and endanger our democracy
and the nation?
Thus, if the nation must protect its democracy, it should not make people like
Buhari and El-Rufai its guardians. And the next elections offer the citizens an
opportunity to choose the right people who can protect democracy. They should
not count Buhari among these people because he did not pay any price for the
return of democracy. While Nigerians were being killed in the fight for
democracy, Buhari was hobnobbing with the dictator Sani Abacha.
Again, if democracy
must outlive these body bag democrats, they should not be allowed to have their
way. For it is clear that their body bag rhetoric has the potential of
truncating the nation’s democracy. Consider this: If a soldier or policeman who
is carried away by the order of Buhari shoots dead an innocent person, there
would be apocalyptic reprisals. Even if the person shot is a supposed ballot
box snatcher, it would still trigger the same baleful consequences. Worse,
there is the danger of the APC using this order to pervert the electoral
process. Now, peace-loving Nigerians would be scared of going to discharge
their civic responsibility of casting their votes. And if that happens, the APC
would now have the opportunity to claim victory.
If democracy must
survive the onslaught of these body bags democrats, the leaders of the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the military and police like
other citizens must protect it in legitimate violation of the ruthlessness and
illegality Buhari wants to perpetrate through them. For the managers of INEC,
it should go beyond just declaring that the position of Buhari conflicts with
the provisions of the electoral act. INEC should conduct transparent elections
that would deny these body bag democrats the pleasure of quenching their thirst
for blood. Nigeria needs true democrats who would seek votes based on their
nascent or demonstrated commitment to the welfare of the citizens and not
through the perversion of the electoral process and the unleashing of violence.
*Dr. Onomuakpokpo is on Editorial Board of The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment