By Segun Gbadegesin
We are overwhelmed and anxious. We are frightened and confused. And we are not silent about our fears. We cry out but we don’t seem to be getting help. Not from our governments because, from local to state and national governments, they are also out of their wits. It is the case of the one who promised to loan you a pant. You size him up and the one he’s wearing is in shreds.
How and why did we come to this sorry state? It’s a good question. After all, the elders teach us that when kids stumble, they only look forward because they are focused on their destination. But an adult who stumbles would look back to see what caused it. We have done a lot of this looking back to no avail. It appears that we keep stumbling anyways.
Which leads to the rationale of a different question: What exactly is going on? What is the explanation for our inability to secure our land from domestic terrorists, kidnappers, bandits, armed robbers and cultists? This is not a question about looking back to what caused insecurity. Whatever was responsible, the question here is why are we unable to deal with it in the present?
Following the popular game show Jeopardy’s signature answer format, there are four narratives of insecurity: What is leadership incompetence? What is an uncaring leadership? What is a situation beyond our control? And the most controversial of all: What is a land-grabbing strategic conspiracy? Our interest today is to examine these four narratives.
First, leadership incompetence. It’s the least controversial of the narratives if only because there is an expectation of competence in leaders. In light of the standard that we set, we entrust them with our safety, seemingly persuaded by their previous achievements. If, upon ascending to power, they fail to live up to expectation, citizens have a right and an obligation to call them out. “You are incompetent” is the least controversial assessment.
Between 2013 and 2015, the Jonathan presidency was the butt of relentless criticisms from the opposition, the media, and the general public, this columnist included. Why would school girls be abducted from their hostels and government couldn’t do anything about it? Why would swaths of land be captured and local government areas controlled by Boko Haram terrorists and government was helpless?
The opposition party picked a former military general and head of state with a reputation for discipline, toughness, and successfully fighting insurgency. And the contrast was apparently clear. Evidential competence against demonstrated incompetence! We would get rid of Boko Haram and restore peace in a jiffy. Before the election, it was as clear as day where the sentiment of the electorate was. Insecurity was the undoing of the Jonathan presidency.
If voters prioritized their security so much that they voted out an incumbent because they judged him incompetent to deal with security, can we fault them now if they also use the same evaluative criteria in their judgment of the new leadership? This is what consistency means.
A second narrative surprisingly doesn’t buy this recourse to incompetence as the explanation of what’s going on with insecurity. How can a general of the president’s background, experience, and standing be incompetent? That’s just sheer humbug! Didn’t we all witness his record of achievements? Generals will always be Generals with tactical and strategic advantages no matter their age! The real issue, according to this narrative, is whether he cares what happens. A carefree attitude to the security of the people, the narrative goes, is the real issue.
This is a damning narrative. How can someone who voluntarily sought the position of leadership, knowing fully well that it entails securing the lives and property of the people, get the position and then care less for whatever happens to them? It would be considered callous on his part! But the narrative insists, with what it suggests as evidence.
Unfortunately, the president appears to inadvertently lend some credence to this narrative of an uncaring leader. The narrative’s evidence is his hesitancy in empathizing with victims. It took a national outcry before he visited Benue State when the state was devastated by farmer-herder conflicts. He has been reluctant to address the nation directly on the various flash points in the last five years. The presidential podium is a bully pulpit and a comforting minbar. It is a place of national reckoning with tragedy. A president should use it to address his constituency directly on their fears and anxieties.
A third narrative doesn’t rule out leadership incompetence or uncaring attitude. But it zeros in on a far more intractable challenge that is our plight. Boko Haram which began as a domestic insurgency has escalated to international jihadist terrorism with global funding. The group has access to sophisticated weapons that the Nigerian military doesn’t possess. The military recently agonized on the state of the fight and its comparative disadvantage in terms of weapons. If Boko Haram has international sponsorship, we are in a serious trouble and we need to up our game.
This is where the fourth narrative comes in with a highly controversial claim. Surely, it suggests, the Nigerian nation can stand up against Boko Haram and/or any other terrorist group. Leadership knows what to do. Coalition of willing partners is necessary. After all, what ails us will ultimately afflict our neighbors. And the developed world cannot close its eyes on our plight because they know how strategic Nigeria is, not only in the West Africa sub-region, but across the continent.
What then is the real explanation? The conspiratorial narrative suggests a sinister leadership motive in cahoots with the military and the Fulani ethnic nationality. The most explicit of this narrative is attributed to former Chief of Army Staff and former Minister, General T. Y. Danjuma. I have seen a WhatsApp posting bearing his name many times. And interestingly, as I type this column on my IPad, as if by telepathy, a message popped up on my WhatsApp page. It’s the same message that has been “forwarded many times.”
I don’t know if General Danjuma has himself owned up to authoring this statement. But it sums up clearly this narrative of conspiracy. It reads in part: “T.Y. Danjuma: Fulanis have declared war against indeginous (sic) Nigerians and grabbing our lands in the North and Middle Belt and we’re playing games with Buhari…The game should be up now……Rise and defend your land now before it is too late….”
Now, it is easy to see why this is the mother of all the narratives for the explosive nature of its accusation against the president and his leadership. For even if there is no truth to this accusation, if a large segment of the population, from the Middle Belt to the entire South, shares this mindset of fear and suspicion, there is no way we can fight in unity against international and/or domestic terrorist forces that are ferociously lined up against us.
Yet this narrative of an elaborate conspiracy doesn’t just pop out of thin air. It has a basis in a widespread perception of an uncaring attitude as expressed in narrative three above. Consider the fact that beside the Boko Haram insurgency, we are dealing with killer herders and kidnappers. If we give up Boko Haram to international Jihadist plot, for which we are ill-prepared, why aren’t we dealing with killer herders and farmland invaders? Why do we throw our hands in the air as if defenseless citizens should give up their means of livelihood or lose their lives?
This is the crux of the matter. The conspiracy theory won’t go away, and it is dangerous because it is fueling the various self-determination agitations. No one wants to be second-class citizens in their country. Leadership has a grave responsibility to deliver on its duty of securing the lives of all citizens and avoid the perception of an ethnicization agenda. A unified stand against insurgency and criminals of all stripes requires that leadership be above board. Incompetence can be forgiven. A generalized perception of ethnic conspiracy is on a different threat level. It can cause war.
