Category: Columnists

  • Averting the fire next time

    Had last week’s go-back-to-work-or-face-a-sack order handed to the striking university teachers by the federal government not grated sufficient nerves to the point of rage, we should ordinarily be savouring the prospects of an engaging conversation on the future of our ivory towers in the global academe, and the crisis of our education in general. For not only has the latest but most unfortunate tango that has left public universities in utter paralysis for five months running rendered the conversation urgent, it is now such that the nation can only postpone the exercise at its peril.

    Now, there are those who believe that our nightmare is about ending – barring of course the threat by the unimaginative federal government to dislodge ‘recalcitrant’ teachers should they fail to report at their duty posts at the expiration of yesterday’s ultimatum. They have a good reason to be: with N200 billion in the kitty and the promise of naira rain totalling N1.2 trillion in the coming years; soon it would be time to savour the peace purchased with tears and a precious blood – that is, assuming that the remaining elements in the 2009 sticky agreement, especially the clause mandating another round of negotiation few months from now in 2014, sails without rancour.

    No doubt, the N200 billion intervention fund – slated to be shared among the three score plus four universities – federal and states – may seem a lot of money at this time. More like throwing water to a parched soul, it is a lifeline, sort of. However, the fund, when spread among the 701 projects dotting our universities’ landscapes as identified by the Committee on NEEDS Assessment of Nigerian Public Universities, which found 163 of them abandoned and another 538 on-going, it comes to pretty little – a drop in the ocean of the universities’ needs.

    By the way, the universities running costs are an entirely different matter; they are just as inadequate to cope with the demands of modern centres of higher education. It takes only a visit to our supposed citadels of higher education to appreciate the depth of the decay ranging from inadequate classrooms, ill-equipped libraries and laboratories to basic conveniences like lavatories and rest-rooms. The situation, to put it mildly, is unimaginable.

    The fundamental question remains – what happens after the N1.2 trillion is fully disbursed? Would that also call for another round of strike to press the same point about revitalising the institutions? And by the way, where is the guarantee that the current truce would last particularly as a lot depends on what happens in the coming months? Moreover, to the extent that the same elements of bad faith – which was not in short supply these past years – would remain a constant factor in the 2014 negotiations and beyond, the road ahead promises to be just as bumpy.

    The ultimate challenge, in the situation, is to find a lasting solution to the crisis to avert the fire next time.

    To be sure, the crisis of funding in our universities mirrors the larger crisis of our public finance system, the corruption and the rot, not excluding the warped definition of what constitutes national priorities for a nation that aspires to join the league of the top 20 economies in less than seven years from now.

    That is why the big question really is what to do – in the environment of competing demands on public funds not just in the context of the abysmal state of infrastructure, but also in the context of the grim reality of declining per capita spend on recipients of tertiary education in the last few years. Put simply: it is how to bridge the observed financing gaps in tertiary education.

    Now, if you are, like me, persuaded that the nation does not have an inexhaustible vault from where it could always draw upon, you may also agree that it’s time the beneficiaries are called upon to do their bit for the overall good of the system. Coincidentally, as Professor Niyi Akinnaso would have us know in his column in The Punch last year, Nigeria is not alone in this. Drawing his example from his base in the United States where he teaches, he noted that government appropriations, having dropped from over 50 per cent of university budgets in the 1980s to between 12 and 20 per cent in the 2000s has led to the hiking of tuition fees from some five per cent or less to between 25 and 35 per cent of university operational budgets.

    In our environment, such a proposition is certainly not popular to push. The truth however is that the illusion that tertiary education could be had for free can no longer be sustained any more now than the loathing of the idea of pricing that level of education like any other economic good. The challenge, to start with, is how to overcome the confounding reluctance by the universities themselves to determine the per capita cost of academic programmes as a necessary step to addressing the problem of funding in a realistic way.

    I had cause to address the issue on this page when the staff and students of Lagos State University took to the barricades shortly after the institution hiked tuition in that institution. Imagine a situation in which it costs N600,000 to produce a well-rounded doctor and the government is only able to put, say N300,000 on the table. Let’s also say, for the purpose of argument, that the student is made to pay additional N100,000 in tuition and associated fees. Of course, even if we take out the factors of corruption and leakages in the system, only in our typically creative imagination can we conceive of a situation in which N400,000 input would deliver the result of N600,000 input! Has anyone considered the output in terms of the cadaver that our medical trainee would never get to ‘see’ outside of the theoretical anatomy class throughout the entire five-year duration of the course?

    Here is my simple proposition: let begin with determining the cost of each academic programme. In addition to capital grants, let the government state how much, per capita, it is willing to put in. It is the educated thing to do. That way, everyone knows the gap to be filled. In the long run, the challenge is how to ensure that bright, indigent students are not denied university education.

    By the way, I have heard the suggestion about transforming the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) into an education bank to avail everyone that desires higher education loans.  If you ask me, I would not consider it a bad idea. Why should we baulk at the idea only because the Students Loans Board of old failed? And what is so sacrosanct about the TETF bureaucracy?

  • Sosoliso crash and memory of LJC-60

    Sosoliso crash and memory of LJC-60

    Exactly eight years ago today, 61 students of the Loyola Jesuit College (LJC) were headed home for the Christmas holidays when the Sosoliso aircraft conveying them crashed in Port Harcourt. These students, who had left their school and friends less than two hours earlier, were barely minutes away from re-uniting with their families when the tragedy struck. The crash claimed all the lives on board, except two (one LJC student and another passenger). It was an overwhelming catastrophe that cast a shadow in the lives of everyone involved and the nation as a whole.

    The scope of that tragedy and the sharp poignancy of its hurt are sufficient triggers to provoke a crisis of faith in those less toughened by the imperatives of love and deep belief in the omniscience of God. But even when we cannot understand why those 60 children were taken away from us, we have taken solace in God’s words in the Bible that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways.

    Today, eight years may have passed and the scars are gradually healing but we will never forget our children who left us in the most heart-breaking manner. Yet while they live forever in our hearts, we want their memories to enrich the lives of others as we demonstrate that abiding bond between parents and children that is aptly captured in the motto of the LJC PTA: “For the sake of our precious jewels”!

    However deep our pain as parents, the tragedy of December 10, 2005 was not only for the PTA but also for the Loyola Jesuit College. Having 60 promising lives, 10 percent of its entire student population, cut short in one fell swoop, was too much for any school to bear. Yet out of that tragedy, a new Jesuit Memorial College has emerged, on the same ground that our children perished in Port Harcourt. Also, there is now an annual memorial drama by students of LJC Abuja in honour and memory of their departed senior colleagues.

    At a moment like this, we cannot but draw strength from the courage and resilience of Kechi Okwuchi, the only Loyola Jesuit College survivor of that tragic incident, who continues to remind us of the obligations that the living still owe the dead. Kechi experienced the tragedy and lives it every day but she has refused to allow it to define her and the future that is still within her reach.

    However, as we mark the eighth anniversary of this tragedy today, our unceasing prayers go out to the parents and guardians of our departed 60 children as well as the Port Harcourt branch of the LJC Parents Teachers Association, the management and staff of Loyola Jesuit College, and indeed all Nigerians.

    For reasons beyond our knowledge, those beautiful children came to us; and for reasons also beyond our comprehension, they left us. And today in their memory, we have decided to express gratitude instead of grief at the privilege of experiencing their warm companionship. However fleeting their friendship and love, gratitude is a preferable healing force and the path of positive faith. Certainly, those young spirits would wish this path for us because to live forever in the hearts of those who bore and nurtured them is really not to die.

    It is from this backdrop of love that the Abuja branch of the Loyola Jesuit College PTA has decided to take a practical step of faith and build other monuments in memory of our departed students. These monuments are to externalize the depth of our timeless ties to these 60 innocent souls. Our purpose is to erect structures that will be an enduring legacy and simultaneously serve a practical purpose for the host school in loving memory of the LJC-60.

    For us, a day like this also offers opportunity to reflect on some of the challenges of our country, especially with regards to the education of our children. We believe that the PTA, alumni associations and other public-spirited institutions should get involved by coming together to provide solutions to some common problems in our schools. That is the spirit which defines communities that care.

    December 10, 2015 will mark the 10th anniversary of the Sosoliso crash and the Abuja branch of the LJC PTA has chosen to commemorate the lives of our 60 children with a worthy project, the ”Loyola Jesuit 60 Angels Memorial Buildings” – a staff residence of 60 units of two bedroom flats comprising five blocks with 12 flats each – to be dedicated on the anniversary itself as a lasting legacy in the school for years to come.

    The architectural concept of the proposed monument will be deliberately designed to speak to the minds and hearts of the stakeholders who lost their loved ones and also be at once a reminder and warning to our society to hold fast to enduring values.

    We have marked out January 30 next year as the day for the ceremony and cheque presentation. We hope President Goodluck Jonathan who is our special guest of honour will join us on that day as we take a practical step in the bid to redefine the role of parents in the schools their children attend. We are also grateful that the Bishop of Sokoto, His Lordship Matthew Hassan Kukah has graciously accepted our invitation as the guest speaker to engage the interconnection between education and aviation, two critical sectors that are seriously challenged in our country today.

    However, to achieve our objective for immortalizing our departed 60 students, the LJC-PTA has set out to raise N500 million by taxing and tasking ourselves and seeking the support of public-spirited individuals and credible institutions. Interested corporate bodies may alternatively opt to undertake erecting a building worth N100 million that would be credited to them. We know we have set for ourselves a big task but it is a deliberate attempt to awaken that spirit of generosity and sense of community that define our people for the sake of our precious jewels.

    At this existential level on a day such as this, the least we can do is to create a symbol, a structure, a totem that honours our fallen students. For sure, this cannot, and will not annul the hurt we still feel. Nor will it bring back the dead. But this gesture will signify faith in the past and future. Most importantly, it will serve as a healing gesture for our grieving colleagues who lost their children in such a tragic manner.

    We therefore appeal to moral and political leaders, educationists and believers in the power of the future to donate generously to this project. After all, as the French philosopher and Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, incidentally a member of the Society of Jesus, owners of the Loyola Jesuit College, once observed, “We are not just human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

    Taking to heart the core of this rather radical perspective will surely provoke a shift in the understanding and a new appreciation of this journey of life. What’s more; it may force us to deepen and reassess our relationships with others. It will definitely help us to appreciate, perhaps like no other perspectives will, that we are building a monument to 60 LJC spirits that will never die.

    • Mrs Momoh is chairperson of the LJC (Abuja branch) PTA

  • Tata Madiba: 1918-2013

    Tata Madiba: 1918-2013

    Where were you on February 11, 1990? I mean where were you the day the world’s best known political prisoner and anti-apartheid activist Dr Nelson Mandela was released from prison by the then racist regime in South Africa?

    It was a wet day in Lagos, one of those weekend days I think, and I was at a hotel lobby that mid morning with other reporters on assignment when the news break came: Nelson Madela, leader of banned African National Congress (ANC) has been released from prison on the orders of South African president Frederick Willem de Klerk. The government also unbanned the ANC setting the stage for the total dismantling of white supremacist rule in South Africa for majority rule four years later.

    Struggle against apartheid for which Mandela dedicated 67 of his 95 years on earth, 27 of which were spent in jail was about to end and South Africa, finally about to be free.

    The news wasn’t totally unexpected; it had been in the air for some time that the white only regime in South Africa was thinking of abolishing apartheid and allowing the black majority to participate fully in the affairs of their country. But even after the announcement, it still sounded unbelievable. So Mandela would be released and we’ll see him flesh and blood?

    I remember the then African Concord magazine was running a cartoon competition asking readers to draw a sketch of how Mandela was likely to look like after 27 years in prison. Such was the expectation and frenzy in the media in Nigeria as elsewhere around the world that we all feasted on the news of his release.

    And when Tata Madiba as he was fondly called passed on, December 5 2013 at his home in Johannesburg, the whole world rose in unison to mourn and celebrate a rare human being with a soft heart even for his enemies.

    As Mandela begins his final journey home today recalling all the achievements and the good works he’s left behind would be enormous, but watching the internecine war going on in the Central African Republic reminds one of one of Mandela’s greatest contributions to African unity; restoring place and unity to the warring Burundi. If he could look back Madiba would feel bad that the Central African Republic and indeed the whole of that region in Africa, including the Great Lakes Region, which also includes Burundi, are in turmoil again.

    Since President Francois Bozize was ousted in March by a rebel alliance-Seleka, led by Michel Djotodia, CAR has known no peace as rival ethnic militias fight for control of this landlocked country of just 4.6 million people.  With about 3,500 child soldiers in their rank, the rebels have been particularly ferocious in the last few days killing no fewer than 394 people just as the war has taken a sectarian dimension. The pro Djotodia group, mainly drawn from among Muslims now pitted against a mainly Christian militia have virtually divided capital Bangui into two sections, reminiscent of the sectarian divide that tore Lebanon apart in the past and still threatening the unity of the Arab country.

    There are 2,500 African Peacekeepers in CAR backed by 1,600 French soldiers all trying to restore peace to the country. And according to the United Nations, no fewer than 9,000 Peacekeepers would be required to bring the chaos in CAR which has led to about 10 per cent of the population already displaced under control.

    Now what are African leaders doing in this respect and what efforts are they making to prevent all these avoidable conflicts and blood lettings in the continent? In particular, what would Mandela have recommended if he were to be alive and able to intervene in the CAR internecine war?

    While we may never know this, Mandela, wherever he is today would most likely applaud the decision to set up a permanent Stand-By Peacekeeping Force for Africa to intervene and restore peace to troubled countries in the continent and most importantly nip in the bud any simmering crisis likely to blow into armed conflict.

    At a Paris summit on Peace and Security in Africa last week, the decision to put in place a wholly African Peace Keeping Force not later than 2015, marked a shift from the reluctance of African leaders in the past to intervene in the internal affairs of another (African) country, even when and where such happenings are likely to have serious consequences for neighbouring countries or an entire region.

    The principle of non-interference which was included in the charter of the defunct Organisation of African Unity (OAU) by its founding fathers was largely seen by critics as a way of protecting and keeping unpopular regimes in power across the continent. The experience of the Liberian civil war that nearly destabilised the whole of the West African sub region in the 1990s was to change the position of most African leaders away from protecting tyrants to acting in the best interest of the people of the country in question.

    Were it not for Nigeria and a few ECOWAS member states that braved the challenge and constituted a wholly West African peace keeping force known by its acronym ECOMOG, Charles Taylor and his band of rebels would have plunged an entire sub region of over 200 million nationals of 15 different countries into turmoil. I think the African Union, the African Old Boys club that replaced the OAU must have learnt a lot from the Liberian experience, enough for it to back this new initiative of a permanent African Peace Keeping Force.

    According to Nigeria’s president Dr Goodluck Jonathan who was part of the Paris summit, the proposed force “can mobilize quickly whenever we have challenges and there is the need to deploy them…when you have this stand-by force, they now have an operational order covering the whole of Africa. Anywhere there is conflict, it will not require UN resolution, but a host country’s invitation and an endorsement by AU.”

    This is laudable if it can be carried through and the support of France in particular is also commendable. The French rightly or wrongly have been accused of backing these tyrannical and often despotic regimes in Africa in the past for selfish reasons. French troops stationed in most French speaking African countries have been used in the past by Paris to put down any popular revolt against these unpopular regimes. But the economic and political burden of carrying these countries on her back now appears to be too much for France, hence the resort to backing a permanent African High Command to take care of conflicts on the continent. .

    But good as this stand-by force idea is, having to rely on invitation by the host (troubled) country before peace keepers can be sent in to intervene could leave the force impotent as these leaders would naturally not support such intervention and never issue an invitation for such  even if their countries are bleeding. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and Laurent Gbagbo’s Cote d’Ivoire are good examples here. So African leaders must find a way of going above such despotic leaders if the need ever arose to send in peace-keepers and restore peace in such countries. This will make Nelson Mandela happy in his grave satified that Africa is finally taking her destiny in her hands.

    Good night Tata Madiba. We will never forget you.

  • With malice towards none

    With malice towards none

    When he eventually soared into silence, we were shocked even though we expected it. His health became a drama not of an impending tragedy, but a spectacular ending. The sort of ending Shakespeare described as “sweet sorrow.”

    Many craved the chance for a last peep at the dying man, even if he was in a futile rage against his dying light. Throughout his life, we saw the fighter who was a man of peace. He wanted to avenge the white man but he became a reconciler of races. He had a bad temper, but he lightened the world with his supernova smiles and his torso dances with children, if ungainly. Unlike his contemporaries, he did not die in office so he could live in the hearts of his people. He was the one who first invited his foes to dinner and then to share power. Later they shared the Nobel Prize. A statesman who felt cold comfort in a politician’s robe. A revolutionary with royal bona fides. He had every reason to be bitter, but he became a proselytiser of one world. A Samson in battle, a Solomon in council. Heroic and stoic.

    He forgave everyone who in 27 years stole his vital years, a law career, the pride of family, gregarious bliss of friendship. He became an inmate, menial labourer, active vegetable, loner, wearer of shorts, mine worker, hewer of water and wood, an innocent in jail, at the beck and call of his white accusers.

    He returned bigger than his superiors, became president, a statesman, citizen of the world, an activist for the world’s ravaging disease, a concert organiser, a host of presidents and students, and by the time he turned 95, he had morphed from human to a saint, from villain to champion. The pugilist who never relished an uppercut except against injustice, who never wept because they damaged his tear-duct at a salt mine, who hid his quiet solitude at not really having a traditional, stable family, who adopted the world as family. The man after turning 95 had become, in his odyssey from apotheosis to apotheosis, the most towering figure of the past 50 years. In company with such colossi as Churchill, Roosevelt, Lincoln, he belonged to the ages. So when Nelson Mandela died last week, we were relieved of the angst of expecting. We were taken out of our misery.

    “Anticipation is more potent than surprise,” wrote poet Samuel Coleridge. It was a great and delicious misery. Never was a death so expected, and never was its arrival so celebrated. A celebration so solemn as the man.

    Yet it is his death that strikes me in this column, and I use it to tell the story of Nigeria. I wondered, if we had a Mandela here, if we would have called for a national conference. He emerged from jail to face a South Africa on the verge of what many called a civil war. He faced ethnic suspicions, racial tension, intraparty fission, elite disarray, ideological warfare. His freedom had caged his country in chaos. He needed to bring them together.

    Many say that was his greatest legacy, he who grew up a man of feuds became the symbol of one South Africa. In his death, that is the envy of every testimony. He acted “with malice towards none and charity to all” according to another reconciler, Abraham Lincoln, who wove heroism out of the throes of division.

    It is the tragedy of us as a nation that we have never had a personage like him in all our history. Not even Herbert Macaulay, with all his nationalist grandeur, left this world with enough heft to hold very ethnic group in awe. All our heroes have been ethnic heroes, and all of them died ethnic champions. We have never had a truly Nigerian hero, one who fired our imagination unsullied by tribe or faith.

    The closest would have been Nnamdi Azikiwe, who, after taking over the mantle from Macaulay, rose in stature, and fired our zeal as a polyglot liberal with easy charm and warm diction and bonhomie. But he lacked the moral stamina, first when he had to deny the partisans of his movement and ran away into hiding when he thought the colonial lords hunted him. He also could not rise above Chief Awolowo’s Action Group’s corralling of his NCNC footprint in Western Nigeria. It denuded him of the chance to be premier. Rather he paid Awo back in his ethnic coins by ousting Eyo Ita. So the Zik of Africa had shrunken into the Zik of Igboland. In the Second Republic, he presided over the NPP that was essentially an eastern advocate. When he died, after his nine lives, he was seen principally as an Igbo icon. Although we pretended it was a National burial, just as Ojukwu’s, the Igbo saw his funeral and the approbation of his life as principally theirs.

    Of course the passing of Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, enmeshed Nigeria into its sanguinary chapter we call the civil war. He was unabashedly a northern imperialist with regal hauteur and a sense of entitlement to Nigeria for the North. His death was mourned mainly in the North. Nzeogwu might have thought he was doing an anti-feudal good, but he ended up with a profile of slayer of a people’s beloved. It made Nzeogwu a tribal champion.

    For Awo, he had an austere pose, an almost ascetic grandeur. He was the most profound, methodical, and visionary of any leader we ever had. The greatest Nigerian ever, he crafted templates that all the other regions followed for governance. Few can doubt his role in turning the Western Region into a place of wealth and envy. Paradoxically when Awo died, it was not essentially a Nigerian death. It was a Yoruba death. Awo’s role in stealing Zik’s thunder in the West has irritated the Igbo up till today, so also were his assertion about starvation as a legitimate weapon of war. We cannot forget the oporoko and second hand clothes speech, or when he sent a Yoruba man to Sokoto to represent UPN at the polls even though the party had Hausa.

    Achebe, no icon in that regard, described Awo a tribalist. A nation lives the way it mourns. In each of the deaths, the Yoruba, Hausa and Igbo saw them as the heroes, as their special tragedy. Each tribe was an exclusive club of mourners, jealous of their funeral woes and tears, their magnificent misfortune. The deaths of our icons have followed the big three patterns noted above. All the whites and black tribes, and Indians and other Asian indigenes of South Africa saw Mandela above the parochial traps of tribes and race. None of our leaders has been seen to have flown of their primordial cages. Perception is the problem. We don’t trust or even forgive.

    It calls for extraordinary statecraft, an ability to persuade by words and deeds, by character and symbolism. We are not Nigerians yet. In many states, politics of ethnicity has ruptured prospects of harmony.

    Mandela did not organise a national conference. He did it by example. This is the way our political elite should grow. United States President Barack Obama cannot build a coalition like Mandela partly because of his race and partly because of his inability to connect with people on an emotional level. This Mandela had aplenty. He combined a mystique of moral grandeur, a playful humanity, deep empathy to bring people to his side.

    We want leaders who have mastered the “other,” a Yoruba or Hausa leader who can feel the Igbo deep in his bones the way President Clinton warmed to blacks in the US. Or an Igbo leader not ensconced in his tribal cocoon.

    When they die, and all Nigerians mourn, then we have that sense. Gani Fawehinmi inspired close to that pathos, but he was an activist, not a political leader. Such a leader would not fall to narrow cant or tantrums, but will contain the Nigerian multitude, like Madiba did his people.

  • Reflections on post-Awoism

    In the context of impermanence, it was always logical to contemplate, if not envision, the decline, if not the demise of the socio-political philosophy of the legendary Chief Obafemi Awolowo, on account of which he earned die-hard loyalists as well as unrepentant adversaries. It would appear that the inevitable dawn of new realities is already here, with the uncreative but calculating redefinition of progressivism implied by the cohabitation of varied political impulses under the banner of the recently realised All Progressives Congress (APC).

    The party’s unlikely emergence, following the merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and the absorption of a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), which was complicated enough, has been compounded by the noisy addition of five state governors from the country’s ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). There is no doubt that the entry of Rotimi Amaechi (Rivers), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Abdulfatah Ahmed (Kwara) and Aliyu Wamakko ( Sokoto), particularly because of their political background and the contentious circumstances of their disengagement from the PDP, will most probably further deepen the difficulty of identity for their new party.

    It is indisputable that a major constituent of the party, the defunct ACN, whether consciously or subliminally, operated with a sense of awe-inspiring canonisation of Awolowo, a tendency that the others did not necessarily embrace. Interestingly, therefore, while the leadership of the Southwest states controlled by this component of the party religiously invokes the spirit of Awolowo, who died in1987 aged 78, like some mantra that projects a specific desirable governmental orientation, the others do not essentially share such mindset. Indeed, the concept of Awoism, which more or less defines good governance in the ex-ACN circle, is not interpreted in the same terms by the others.

    It is an intriguing measure of the Awolowo mystique and influence that in certain quarters the belief in Awoism, or the branding as an Awoist, is regarded as a prerequisite for political leadership in the Southwest. It is precisely this fallacy that informed the paradoxically corroborative defence of Osun State Governor, Rauf Aregbesola, in an article entitled “Aregbesola, Awoist and Awoism”, written by Prof Moses Akinola Makinde, the DG/CEO, Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, which was established by his administration. Makinde, perhaps unwittingly, advanced the same misleading notion, saying, “Surely, if there is any politician who may be seen as an Awo incarnate in his Philosophy, Ideology and art of Good Governance, it is Aregbesola.”

    The question is: Must Aregbesola of necessity be an Awoist, or practise Awoism, to actualise exemplary governance? If the answer is negative, then it amounts to rather unproductive labour to make arguments to prove that the governor is indeed of such persuasion. Without discounting the reported achievements of his three-year-old administration and the wide social approval he allegedly enjoys, does the fact that Aregbesola unapologetically hero-worships Awolowo make him ipso facto better equipped for positive leadership? To believe in and even promote such a tenuous link not only amounts to mystification of administration; it also unfairly discredits the possible personal brilliance of the governor, removed from any influence of Awolowo.

    The obsessional focus on Awoism, which Makinde describes as “the totality of the doctrines of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in thought, words and deeds,” apparently belongs to a past era, and may be inapt within the framework of changed actuality. It is, for instance, difficult to imagine the grand Awolowo in a road show designed to more or less beg rebellious governors in a rival party to join his group, which was the approach adopted by the APC leadership. Also, it is improbable that the fastidious Awolowo would have been impressed that in the perception of Amaechi, for instance, former president Olusegun Obasanjo and ex-military ruler Ibrahim Babangida are political heroes, contrary to their low ranking in public estimation. In an interview which touched on his idols, Amaechi said of Obasanjo, “He has a God complex. What I mean by God complex is the Messianic complex. He thinks he wants to save the country.” Then on Babangida: “very suave, very intelligent, a true politician that ordinarily he shouldn’t be a military head of state.” These descriptions are revealing of the shades of political consciousness harboured by the APC, and signal a corruption of its Awoist content.

    It is significant that Makinde, in an elaboration of Awolowo’s values, emphasised that “The philosophical foundation of Awoism is the doctrine of mental magnitude.” Awolowo truly demonstrated uncommon concentration on the improvement of the mind as an invaluable training for leadership, particularly by his deep writings on his socio-political thoughts intended as illuminating guides on the subject of good governance in a pluralistic society. He was popularly and rightly regarded as a “philosopher king” and “sage”, which underscored his towering intellect employed in the context of political administration. Tragically, the important connection between cerebral acuity and forward-looking people-oriented governmental policies, particularly in the areas of education, health and infrastructure, which he reflected, is today generally less appreciated among the political players, especially with the reign of “negative emotions” that inspire basic personal aggrandisement.

    Another central point of departure has to do with Awolowo’s stature as the soul of the political parties he originated, namely, the Action Group (AG) and the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), in which he commanded overwhelming authority. Current realities, specifically in connection with the APC, but also in general, suggest that the kind of vice-like grip he had on party affairs belongs to a bygone age.

    Additionally, in character and lifestyle, his sometimes impolitic directness, informed by well- meaning sincerity, as well as his Spartan existence, despite his means, placed him in an inimitable class. The doublespeak associated with characters in politics did not have an accommodation with him, and the people knew where he stood on issues, even when this worked against him. Fascinatingly, he lived above fleshly indulgence, and was not a materialistic exhibitionist, contrary to the ways of many who govern today.

    Perhaps the greatest charge against him, even among his followers, was his principled inflexibility and customary conviction about his correctness, which his political foes often interpreted as haughtiness. Ironically, his supreme moment came at his death with the outpouring of flattering tributes from friendly and hostile quarters, especially the one which eloquently described him as “the best president Nigeria never had.”

    In the final analysis, it remains to be seen just how effectively the two institutions established to promote his ideals, incidentally by state governments, the Obafemi Awolowo Institute of Government and Public Policy, Lagos, and the Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, will perform in safeguarding Awoism.

  • ASUU’s deadlocked strike

    When President Jonathan engaged the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on their five months old strike, there was general optimism that the end to the dispute was in sight. After about 13 hours of negotiations between the executives of ASUU, leaders from the Nigerian Labor Congress NLC and Trade Union Congress TUC, key decisions were said to have been evolved to end the strike.

    As part of the understanding, ASUU undertook to present the resolutions to its National Executive Committee NEC and report back to the federal government. The union subsequently came up with some conditions which it wanted the government to endorse for the resolutions to be binding and the strike called off.

    These included the depositing of the N200billion revitalization fund for public universities in the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and subsequent disbursement to the benefiting universities within two weeks; inclusion of the non-victimization clause in the agreement and insistence that the resolutions be signed by the government.

    But the federal government saw these as entirely new demands and evidence that ASUU was up to sabotage all efforts at sorting issues. It therefore called for broke directing all Vice Chancellors of federal universities to re-open them immediately and threatened to sack all lecturers who defy this order by failing to report and sign the attendance register by last Wednesday.

    ASUU is adamant insisting that the strike will continue in view of the turn of events. It has argued that the letter it wrote to the president through the supervising minister of education did not amount to new demands. According to the union, the N200 billion revitalization fund as contained in the government white is meant for 2013 and as such its demand that it should be disbursed within this time frame is nothing new. Similarly, it argued that the non victimization clause is a universal practice while the insistence that the resolutions be signed by both parties is a requirement of all agreements.

    As things stand, the end to the strike is not in sight. There is every indication that the toughened positions of both parties might worsen matters. Thus the education system which has been lying prostrate these five months will continue to suffer further devastation as the strike lingers. The federal government and ASUU are in mutual recrimination as to who takes the blame for the current impasse. And the court of public is expected to give a verdict on the matter. Whether the verdict of the public will suffice to end the strike is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    The key issue here is whether the three items contained in ASUU’s letter to the president constitute new conditions and whether ASUU was right to have made those demands. On the other hand, even if they were new demands, was it also proper for the government to have reacted in the way and manner it did? ASUU does not see them as new demands on the grounds of the reasons stated above. But that is exactly where it did not get the matter right. It does not consider asking the president to remit the N200 billion revitalization funds to the CBN and disburse same to benefiting universities within two weeks as a new condition. This is at best laughable. If it is not a new condition why did the union come up with it at the last minute? And why was it not raised during their meeting with the president? And if the non victimization clause is a universal practice as ASUU has argued, it should have been taken for granted. It wants all the decisions reached to be signed. What is not clear is whether it is the president with whom they sat in negotiation they want to sign that document. If it is so, they must have gotten the matter wrong. Discussions with the number one citizen of any country are not something to be trivialized. The impression one gets from all these is that the union does not trust the president. That is very unfortunate indeed. By giving the impression that the president cannot be trusted and then requiring him to sign the document, the ASUU leadership conducted themselves as if they have no respect for that office irrespective of whoever occupies it. The very fact that the president undertook personally to negotiate with them was enough for them to have given him the benefit of doubt. They should have deferred to him and watch out for the eventual outcome. But to now begin to insist that the president must deposit the money in the CBN and disburse same within two weeks is enough to ruffle shoulders. Things do not necessarily work out that way.

    The impression one gets from the position of ASUU is that it want to win all. Zero sum game option in decision theory goes with fatal consequences. And as can be gleaned from the impasse, it has turned out a monumental calamity at a time hopes were high that the strike was about to end.

    It is however, a different thing altogether whether the response of the government was the most appropriate in the circumstance. The government went to the extreme in its reaction to the new demands of the union. There are other ways the matter could have been handled without bringing about the current pass. The net effect of the action is the continuation of strike thus defeating the whole idea of getting our universities back to the classroom. It will not serve the cause of our universities better.

    But central to the constant strikes in our universities is the issue of funding. It is not enough for the government to make commitments to fund the universities adequately. Neither will disbursing the agreed sum be the end to the poor funding of the universities. The truth of the matter is governments both federal and state are increasingly finding it difficult to fund the universities in the current form they are run. University education is very expensive. The government knows this. ASUU and the general public are not unaware of this also.

    But for some inexplicable reasons bothering on political expediency, the federal government is yet to muster the necessary courage to be decisive on the introduction of school fees in the universities. That is the crux of the matter. It is not that the government is not willing to introduce such fees. It is afraid of the backlash of the policy given public perception of the waste and unabated corruption in public places. Our people see free university education as the only way to benefit from the enormous resources nature bestowed on this country bountifully.

    That has been the problem. But for how long shall we continue with the rot in our universities on account of government’s inability to fund them adequately? The time has come for the government to rise to the challenge that it can no longer fund the universities solely. It is better we charge some fees and provide quality university education than allow the current drain in our foreign exchange on account of the high number of our citizens that study outside this country. Already some state universities have risen to this challenge by charging school fees like the private ones. Ironically, some of these fee paying state universities are also in the strike for very hazy reasons. And if one may ask, what is their business in this strike? Why should they deny children who have paid for their education access to it? Or are they also hoping to get part of the revitalization fund meant for federal universities? Such state governments must order the teachers back to classes now.

  • Ekweremadu’s dangerous naivety

    Ekweremadu’s dangerous naivety

    Because of the urgency required to address Senator Ike Ekweremadu’s stinging heresy, I am postponing till next week my comment on the passing of the great icon, Nelson Mandela. Senator Ekweremadu is deputy president of the Senate and chairman of the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution. By virtue of his three positions as a senator, deputy president of the Senate and chairman of the constitution review committee, the 51-year-old lawyer and three-time senator occupies a pivotal position in the National Assembly. He is not only an influential Southeast politician, it is safe to conclude that when he talks and acts, he does so with a fair degree of responsibility and deliberateness. This is why I am reluctant to let his discourse on single term and 2015 elections go unchallenged for more than a few days. To ignore his alarming views for more than a week would be unacceptable, if not unpardonable.

    Distilled into its essential elements, Senator Ekweremadu’s discourse falls under two main headlines judging from an interview redacted by The Punch newspaper – his proposition for a single tenure of either five or six or even seven years for the executive; and his preparedness, enthusiasm even, to countenance postponement of the 2015 elections by two years both as a sop to restless executive power mongers and as a fail-safe measure to take the sting out of the succession battles certain to accompany the next polls. Drawing inspiration from other jurisdictions, as he put it, the senator advocates amendment of the constitution to accommodate the changes he believes would stand the country in good stead, even if the constitution had to be amended again to what it was before the first amendment.

    Senator Ekweremadu simplistically explains the electoral nightmare he thinks the country is certain to encounter in the next polls. Says he: “I believe that the way it could work is, now, people have been elected for four years; let everybody complete the four years tenure for which he or she is elected. And then, through the doctrine of necessity, or a sort of jurisprudential approach, do some kind of transition of two years. In which case, the present occupiers like the President and state governors, who are completing their tenures, maybe, will now do another two years that would end in 2017. You can see that those who are fighting the President, their complaint is that, if the President gets his second term when they are gone, he would start to chase them. So, if we all agree that that is a way to solve the problem, after two years, both the President and other governors will now exit, I believe that the fear would not be there and there would not be much pressure on the polity.”

    If his approach is adopted, suggested the senator, it would be a win-win situation. He did not explain how a hideous attack on the constitution could accord to sensible politics, or how refusal to confront our demons would amount to a win-win. As a lawyer, he talks glibly of jurisprudential approach. But how does yielding to the greed of politicians for power strengthen both the law and constitution? If the power mongers are accommodated today, would there be no other reasons on some hypothetical tomorrow to yield some more in order to sate the pleasures of unconscionable politicians? Senator Ekweremadu holds a disturbingly capricious view of the constitution, and is not averse to having the great document turned hither and thither simply to accommodate the undisciplined politicking of Nigerian leaders. But he gives no guarantees that the experimentation would stop at a determined point. Nor can he.

    It should occur to any lawyer of modest talent, let alone one who has a masters in law and has been thrice elected into the Senate, that law and order in Nigeria is undone not by copious strictures, legal or administrative, but by an undisciplined refusal to advance the cause of justice. As a lawyer, he should understand that. But he seems to have resigned himself, perhaps unconsciously, to the Nigerian president’s inimitable power to whimsically turn the instruments of state against opponents. It is a fact that they do so, as amply demonstrated by Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan. But rather than campaign to turn the Senate into a bulwark for the defence of our freedoms, Senator Ekweremadu advocates creative bastardisation of the law to excuse national indiscipline and lack of will. The senator assumes quite cavalierly that the governors are fighting the president because many of them will be out of office in 2015 and fear they could become victims of politically motivated witch-hunting. His solution, therefore, is to reward their fears rather than dispel them, while at the same time taking the unpleasantness out of the president’s desire for more time in office by adding two unconstitutional and unsolicited years to the warring executives.

    But even this dubious solution is not half as repulsive as his argument that the two years bonus would serve as a breathing space for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and free the electoral body from the pains of organising a cumbersome election into all elective offices at once. Indeed, this stupendous suggestion comes barely three weeks after INEC proved conclusively in the Anambra governorship poll that its problem is not time or magnitude of work, but simply one of competence and staff collusion. Until INEC finds a creative way to run elections, checkmate the tendency of its staff to collude with vested interests, and structure polling in such a way as to enhance transparency which even the law enforcement agencies would not be able to corrupt, elections would continue to fail disastrously.

    In all, Senator Ekweremadu’s suggestions are obviously self-serving. They involve undermining the constitution and rewarding or pacifying the president. Though he tried to spread a veneer of patriotism on his suggestions, the hidden objective is clear. As everyone knows, the president has hungered for either an extended tenure or a second term. Barely a few months after he won election in 2011, Dr Jonathan curiously began a campaign for single-term tenure of seven years without bothering to convince us of the arithmetic benefit of gaining an additional three years in office without the restraining influence of re-election. All he said at the time was that re-election was divisive and costly, but gave no corresponding consideration of the unbearable cost of three additional years in the hands of an incompetent president. Senator Ekweremadu has merely modified the argument by predicating the avoidance of re-election or second term on the disruptive political battles between fearful governors and an imperious and petulant president.

    Senator Ekweremadu has couched his suggestions in altruistic and independent terms. No one is fooled. Not only are the grounds of his argument specious and absolutely unconvincing, they are equally naïve, mischievous and dangerous. The arguments are escapist, for they make the country avoid confronting and solving its problems. More disturbingly, as the Jonathan presidency finds the opposition to his re-election tightening, he and his sounding boards in the states and the national legislature are more likely to embark on subterfuges, many of them so brazen as to be downright annoying, cynical and puerile.

    The Senate, it is clear, and as this column has asserted repeatedly, has become reactionary and imprudently pro-Jonathan. It no longer has a soul it can call its own, and it has become so morally enfeebled by its lack of conviction and strength of character that its leaders poll-parrot the ultra-conservative and anti-people views of the president. The legislature is supposed to be a distinct arm of government, serving as a check on the executive; instead, the Nigerian Senate has become indistinguishable from the presidency and has offered accommodation and camaraderie to the government rather than the restraint and moderation the constitution and even common sense should inspire in them. The senate president, David Mark, a few months ago spoke and behaved disingenuously over the national conference issue, quibbling and genuflecting; now his deputy, Senator Ekweremadu, is engaged in similar conniptions designed to scare us into granting Dr Jonathan and his man Fridays political waivers alien to the constitution.

    Let the inventive Senate keep its troubled peace, and let Dr Jonathan quietly prepare for his party’s primaries. If he wins, as his party’s glowing habit of oppressing the weak makes us to expect, let him boldly stand for election in 2015, losing the poll as our innermost yearnings lead us to hope, for his government has in the past five years led the country to such lows of despair that no literary fecundity can conceivably make worse, not even with the grandest prose.

  • Mandela: An excerpt from Three long goodbyes (December 30, 2012)

    Mandela: An excerpt from Three long goodbyes (December 30, 2012)

    It was an unplanned but remarkable coincidence around the Christmas holiday period of 2012. Nelson Mandela, 94, Margaret Thatcher, 87, George H. Bush, 88 all found themselves in hospital to receive medical attention. Mandela went in to treat a stubborn lung infection, Bush the Elder to treat a fever and other associated ailments that kept popping up one after the other, as his doctors ruefully observed, and Thatcher to remove a growth on her bladder…

    In a way, however, and no matter how much we still want the three leaders with us, I think they have started to say their long goodbyes. They left power a long time ago, and so their final departure may not have the same dramatic impact their exit from office had, but there is no doubt that much more than their countries, the world will be sad to see them go. They were not just iconic, brilliant, prescient and charismatic – Mandela and Thatcher more so – the breadth and content of their leadership, the visionary quality of their administration, and the continuing relevance of their policies, ideas and styles have combined to imbue them with a freshness and permanence that belie their age and health. Thatcher vacated office 22 years ago, Bush Snr 19 years ago, and Mandela 13 years ago. But it seemed like only yesterday…

    Mandela’s successors obviously do not take after the great man, perhaps because by having him so close to them, they have taken him and his qualities for granted. Thabo Mbeki, Mandela’s immediate successor, for instance, could hold himself anywhere in the world intellectually, but he exhibited none of the charisma, joie de vivre and general humanism that hallmarked his predecessor’s leadership. In addition, his detached and sometimes woolly style, his seemingly non-partisan politics of expressive sombreness that grated on the ears of the South African rabble contrasted with the welcoming, lively and eccentric style of his successor, Jacob Zuma.

    Mandela in office sometimes seemed a paradox, with a half of him oozing gravitas, and the other half skirting close to an inscrutable form of libertinism that made him contradistinctively sociable and prudish. But the real paradox of South African politics is the unexampled fashion Mbeki took Mandela’s cerebral endowment without the redeeming and tempering influence of the great man’s sociableness; and Zuma took and embellished Mandela’s love for life without the catalysing and uplifting influence of Madiba’s deep longing and respect for knowledge…Of the three great world leaders, Mandela is probably the most solid and respected, Thatcher the most impactful and iconoclastic, and Bush the most measured and influential…

    With each passing day, Mandela has seemed to loom even larger than most world leaders, becoming an example of a statesman growing in stature and relevance, like a good wine, as his years out of power increase…More and more, as Africa produces mediocre leaders by the dozen, the power and nobility of Mandela are reinforced by his canniness in foreshadowing the problems of multiculturalism in a way even Europe has not come to terms with. Imagine if the superficial Zuma had taken over from F.W. de Klerk! Indeed, the long goodbyes of the three statesmen speak more to the leadership tragedy faced by Africa in general and more poignantly to the appalling refusal, not to say criminal negligence, of Nigerian leaders to learn both from the ancient history of their country and the modern history of the world in relation to the issues and phenomena that drive, sustain and shape great leadership.

  • Camelot, fifty years on

    Camelot, fifty years on

    (On the myths of nations)

    Some moments past mid-day (Central Time) on November 22, virtually the whole of the United States stood still for one minute. It was in honour and commemoration of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the thirty fifth American president, who was slain exactly 50 years earlier. In downtown Dallas where the great reckoning around a small plaza took place, the mayor waxed lyrical describing it as the moment when hope collided with hatred. Fifty years later, the myth of Camelot survives in the heart and imagination of most Americans. And so does the Kennedy mystique.

    Camelot was not original, to be sure. It belongs to the legend of King Arthur and the fabled knights of the round table. But it was the magical motif that John Kennedy chose for the moment. It was meant to invest his administration with the aura of nobility of purpose. Yet there are those who insist that it was not a profoundly imaginative or a particularly brilliant choice of myths. King Arthur, they point out, was a political failure and a cuckolded husband who lost both his kingdom and his queen.

    However that may be and whatever the fatal foibles of their king, it is the glorious legacy of the knights in shining armour and of their gallantry and chivalry that has been handed down from generation to generation. When and where it mattered most, Jack Kennedy always had his heart and political instincts in the right place.

    It will be foolish and futile to continue to debate whether nations need myths or not. All human societies and nations in particular thrive on imaginary delusions. This is the only way to nudge humanity towards a higher telos. When it is not a particular myth of creation, it is a potent legend of re-creation. Certain existential dilemmas and intolerable contradictions such as death and the finitude of existence are resolved at the level of the imaginary.

    So it is that in some traditional societies, death and dying which ought to be the ultimate nemesis of the ruling class in its firm, final and irrefutable logic, is magically transformed into a natural ally of the dominant caucus. The king does not die, he merely ascends to the ceiling. Thus the natural pecking order subsists in life hereafter. There is no point in killing the king. You are merely consigning him to the inconvenience of early dinner somewhere else, and in the same royal splendour.

    But some nations and societies are better and more collectively talented at self re-creation and ceaseless self-invention. The myth of Camelot was particularly good for America and the Kennedy clan at that point in time. America had been founded amidst such impassioned rhetoric and grandiloquent grandstanding as a new haven of freedom and equality for humanity. But the actual reality was less than flattering. Slavery, pogrom and genocide of the local populace were the order of the day. When Abraham Lincoln proclaimed democracy as the government of the people by the people and for the people, universal adult suffragette was a myth and the true political emancipation of the Black people was still centuries and momentous protests away.

    Fifty three years after, the election that brought Jack Kennedy to the American presidency looks like a done deal. But it was in reality a hard slog and obstacle course indeed, owing as much to Kennedy’s personal charm and magnetism and equally to the potency of the ruthless political machine the older Kennedy had put in place.

    The very idea of a Catholic president was considered an affront and an aspiration of incredible temerity to the delicate political palate and sensibility of the real American power brokers. A generation earlier, the Irish populace was regarded with the hostile political curiosity reserved for scumbags. The Boston Brahmins viewed the Irish as belonging to an inferior caste and Joseph Kennedy in particular as a dangerous bounder. It was not until old Joe stole the thunder from them by marrying into the local nobility and bootlegging his way to stupendous riches that they began to reckon with him.

    The election of Kennedy was a watershed in American history, just like the triumph of Barack Obama several decades later. The baby boomers had come of electoral age, altering the demographic and electoral complexion of America forever in favour of youth and idealism. Before then, America was run like a corporate guild presided over by old, doddering authoritarian no-nonsense figures whose feet were firmly planted on earth and who had no time for fancy stuff. They were old American conservative patriots who viewed untested youth as a stuff that must be endured and only barely tolerated.

    Kennedy’s predecessor in office, Dwight Eisenhower, a veteran of two World Wars and indisputable hero of the second, was so vexed by his film star glamour and highfalutin rhetoric that he dismissed the youthful senator from Massachusetts as a whippersnapper. A whippersnapper is a young fellow whose pretensions to knowledge and political nous can be quite irritating to older folks.

    But not to worry. The young man from Hyannis Port seized the American imagination with his stirring and sterling rhetoric. He was not going to be stopped in his track by some fuzzy-woozy old men who were past their political sell-by date. Particularly resonant with the American people was his admonition that one should ask what one can do for his country and not what the country can do for one. It was a motif from the Arthurian legend. The American torch had indeed passed to a new generation.

    After the somnolent and somnambulist years of Harry Truman, the former haberdasher from Missouri, and Eisenhower during which the USSR managed to send the first man into space, America was stirring anew. Here was the new knight in shining armour and a new American prince to boot. The superman had finally arrived at the supermarket. There was an infectious optimism in the air. For good or bad, America would never be the same again.

    And John Kennedy looked every inch the part. He was rich, young, handsome and delectably telegenic. He was courtly, courteous and charismatic in the extreme. He went to Harvard, had written books and was a war hero to boot. He had the aura of a film star. There was something about him which made women swoon. Half of them wanted to be his mother and the other half his wife.

    Meanwhile, his real wife, the former Jacqueline Bouvier, of French extraction, brought a French élan and chic sophistication to the White House. This was life imitating a great movie. The normally sedate residence of American presidents bristled like a great Parisian café with aficionados of the arts and the illuminati of the haute couture. It was too good to be true. Something was bound to give. This kind of charismatic authority is always brittle and unstable, and so disruptive of normal life.

    Predictably, the enthralling movie ended in a real nightmare in downtown Dallas 50 years ago with Kennedy’s brains and blood sprayed and splashed into his wife’s dress. It was said that earlier on while the Kennedys were on a state visit to France, Charles de Gaulle had taken a wistful look at the wife and then noted to associates that he could see her in another 12 years on the yatch of a rich Greek shipping tycoon. Whether this was due to exemplary political clairvoyance or to the fact that the great French wizard was privy to some classified intelligence which showed Aristotle Onassis, the fabled Greek Casanova, already making hay behind JFK’s back will never be known.

    Like everything Kennedy, it was very difficult to separate myth from reality and fact from fiction and fantasy. Kennedy himself was very much a creation of myth and ruthless modern marketing. When the fact got in the way of the legend, it was the fact that gave way. Contrary to the myth of superhero, Kennedy had been sick and sickly for a long time and relied heavily on massive doses of pain killers to get by.

    Jack was also a serial philanderer who turned the White House to a sexual Bedlam. Even his war record was largely pumped up fiction. His older brother, the late Joe, was the real thing. Joe had volunteered for a dangerous aerial mission and was never to be seen again. As for being a book writing intellectual, a close scholarly associate noted wryly that the late American president only managed to finish one serious book he knew about.

    But this grand occlusion of reality and illusionist fantasia worked magic with the American people and the world at large. The bouffant Kennedy hair-do became a global brand. JFK seized the American and global imagination in a way that no leader had done before. Whenever and wherever he visited, the crowd went into a frenzied adulation. It was charisma in the original sense of the ancient Greek word.

    Yet where and when political sorcery ends, reality sets in. Somebody had to pick the tab of magic. It was the American people—and the world at large. Kennedy’s inflammable rhetoric of American exceptionalism and the gung-ho mindset of the “best and brightest” team he had assembled set America irrevocably on a war path which was to end in tears and tragedy. You cannot procure laughter with the coins of pains.

    The Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs fiasco are just two sides of a bad coin. America was trapped in its imaginary delusions. The lesson had to be taught that America was not founded as a martial nation. The doughty and hardy Vietnamese who had earlier given the French a bloody nose were lurking in the wings to give the Americans their own comeuppance. A dark chapter had unfolded in American history. It is also to be noted that even the great Civil Rights reforms initiated by Kennedy were eventually consummated by his successor, the earthy, joyously profane and gleefully oafish Lyndon B Johnson.

    Fifty years ago, the magic ended in downtown Dallas. But John Kennedy lives on in the imagination of many who saw him as a symbol of hope and national capacity for self renewal. A nation perishes without visionaries. It has been argued that Kennedy was neither a great president nor a particularly good one. Death spared him a horrible fate. But when allowances have been made for human lapses and frailties, it is the magic that endures and not the grim mathematics of political failure. Therein lies the secret of the enduring myth and the continuing global fascination with an authentic American icon.

  • ASUU, Wike and shifting ultimatum

    Convinced that the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) was being needlessly intransigent and combative in its strike, President Goodluck Jonathan and the supervising minister in the Ministry of Education, Nyesom Wike, have become even more openly bellicose. Would to God they had been bellicose against Stella Oduah’s malfeasances. The latest stalemate began when the leaders of ASUU sought written assurances that the federal government would keep its own side of the bargain. First to meet the university teachers with discourteous outburst was Mr Wike himself, Dr Jonathan’s redoubtable man Friday. There would be no written assurances whatsoever, he shut back in anger, nor any assurances for that matter. The president’s word was good enough, he claimed. Thereupon he launched into the most obscene and fawning rhapsodies of Dr Jonathan’s attributes and the incontestability of presidential powers.

    Dr Jonathan himself, inflamed by his aides’ rhapsodies and sweeping and uncouth denigration of his opponents, summarily and unprecedentedly declared that ASUU had become subversive and a tool in the hands of the opposition. If the presidential hysteria was not embarrassing enough, Mr Wike, still breathing imprecate against the government’s phantom enemies, reviewed the December 4 ultimatum he gave the striking teachers to resume or be sacked. They should now resume work on December 9 or get the boot, he thundered as one completely ignorant of the way universities are run.

    It is sad that a matter about to be resolved has become complicated by the insensitivity of the Jonathan presidency. Could university teachers, as enlightened and diverse as they are, offer themselves to be used by a political party? Is the decay in universities not apparent enough? And had teachers not gone on strike over the years, who could guess how much worse the rot would have been? Clearly the country is in need of being saved from the hands of Dr Jonathan and his fawning aides. If Dr Jonathan is still capable of listening, would former presidents please gently remonstrate with him to stop embarrassing the country he has misled for the past five years or so?