By Olu Fasan
Someday, chroniclers of history will tell the stories of the 2023 general elections, the worst in Nigeria’s recent history. They will narrate the noble and ignoble roles played, respectively, by heroes and villains of the elections. Among the political class, villains abound. But two interest me here: Professor Charles Soludo, current governor of Anambra State, and Mallam Nasir el-Rufai, outgoing governor of Kaduna State. Neither covered himself in glory!
You might ask: why single out Soludo and el-Rufai? Well, few political office holders in Nigeria today entered politics with the technocratic pedigree of Soludo and el-Rufai: the former was a smart presidential economic adviser who became a reformist governor of the Central Bank; the latter, a brilliant director of the Bureau of Public Enterprises who became a transformative Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Both are first-class technocrats and administrators.
But that’s the point of this intervention. Yes, they’re outstanding technocrats and administrators, but they’re dreadful politicians. Truth is, technocracy is not enough. To succeed, “technopols,” as economists Jorge Dominguez and Richard Feinberg call technocrats in politics, must possess non-technocratic qualities, such as integrity, tolerance, and humility. Yet, Nigerians celebrate technocrats without looking for these “soft” qualities. I, too, contributed to the glorification of Soludo and el-Rufai.
In 2015, shortly after he was sworn in as
governor of Kaduna State, el-Rufai took some radical measures to cut the cost
of governance. I praised him in a piece titled: “El-Rufai’s exemplary
leadership on cost of governance” (BusinessDay, June 29, 2015). Last year, when
Soludo became governor of Anambra State, I hailed him in a piece titled:
“Soludo: A philosopher-king emerges in Nigeria”(Vanguard, March 31, 2022). I
was beguiled by the halo effect of their technocratic past.
But I should have known they
lacked non-technocratic qualities. After all, in his long-running didactic and
disparaging articles against Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in 2015, Soludo showed he
could fight dirty, prompting the latter’s remarks that Nigerians should beware
of “so-called intellectuals without character and wisdom.” And didn’t former
President Obasanjo describe el-Rufai as “a pathological purveyor of untruths
and half-truths with little or no regard for integrity”? He did (My Watch, Vol
2, pages 110-112)! Yet, the worst in Soludo and el-Rufai emerged as
politicians. To varying degrees, they’re hubristic, intolerant, and divisive.
For instance, although he denied
the allegations, Soludo was accused of instigating the police arrest of Labour
Party activist, Chude Nnamdi, and of influencing the outcome of the House of
Assembly polls on March 18. In one video, he said those who didn’t vote for his
party in the elections would suffer consequences. There’s no smoke without
fire. The fact that Soludo is even remotely linked with these allegations
undermines his technocratic credentials and the promises in his inaugural
speech to be “the chief servant” of Anambra people and shun profligacy.
Consider his lavish “one year in office” celebration last week!
As for el-Rufai, well, he’s utterly beyond the pale. His state, Kaduna, is one of Nigeria’s most ethnically and religiously polarised; yet el-Rufai is Nigeria’s most ethnically and religiously divisive governor. He defiantly runs a Muslim-Muslim governorship in utter disregard for, and insensitivity to, the large but marginalised Christian population in Southern Kaduna. Unfortunately, he also has a toxic influence on national politics, acting against the national interest, against the imperatives of religious harmony and internal cohesion in Nigeria.
El-Rufai was the brain behind
Bola Tinubu’s Muslim-Muslim ticket. He wanted to escalate the divisive approach
that has destabilised Kaduna, a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, to
Nigeria, a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country. Yet, the people of Kaduna
State rejected Tinubu’s Muslim-Muslim ticket. He secured only 29 per cent of
the lawful votes cast!
However, once INEC declared
Tinubu “winner” of the sham presidential poll, el-Rufai and his party began to
use the prospect of a Muslim-Muslim presidency at the centre to campaign for
the Muslim-Muslim ticket of his anointed successor, Uba Sani, and his Muslim
running mate, Hadiza Balarabe, and viciously unleashed state security forces on
the opposition.
Even so, the majority of Kaduna
State voters rejected the APC candidate. But INEC declared Sani “winner” with a
margin of 10,000 votes while it invalidated 19,114 votes and ignored the
disenfranchisement of voters in opposition strongholds through sponsored
violence. With an independent and impartial judiciary, Sani’s “election” won’t
stand. But that’s a matter for the election tribunal and the courts.
Which brings us to Soludo and
el-Rufai’s irrational and malicious attitude towards Peter Obi, Labour Party’s
presidential candidate. They would be right to oppose Obi on party-political
grounds, but their attitude was driven by sheer personal animosity. El-Rufai
hated Obi viscerally; Soludo loathed him. But they underestimated Obi in the
presidential election.
I mean, el-Rufai said Obi was a
“Nollywood actor”, not a serious candidate. Yet, Obi nearly level-pegged Tinubu
in Kaduna State, securing 294,494 votes (21%) against Tinubu’s 399,293 (29%).
Soludo said the contest was between Tinubu and PDP’s Atiku Abubakar, adding:
“the rest is exciting drama.” Really?
Sadly, Soludo’s reputation as an
economics professor with strong analytical and predictive power is dented. In
his polemical article titled: “History beckons, and I will not be silent (1)”,
Soludo appealed to ethos, to authority, staking his professional credibility on
predictions he said were based on “my head and facts on the ground”. Yet, he
was fixated on “structure”.
Soludo said Obi would get 25 per
cent in just four states; he won 12 states outright, including Abuja and Lagos,
and evidently won Rivers State too! Of course, Soludo’s overall thesis was that
Obi “can’t win and won’t win”. Well, truth is, Obi won more than the 6.1m votes
and 12 states declared by INEC; his votes were distorted nationally. But let
the judiciary decide! In his cynical congratulatory message to Tinubu, Soludo
said Nigerian youths were the “true heroes” of the election. But who inspired
the youths, if not Obi? History beckoned, but Soludo chose to be on the wrong
side of it!
So, yes, Soludo and el-Rufai are
excellent technocrats and administrators, but they are deeply flawed
politicians. Nigeria needs technocrats in political leadership, but, beyond
technocracy, they must have integrity and sound political judgement!
*Dr. Fasan is a public intellectual
No comments:
Post a Comment