No hee-hawing: Muhammadu Buhari, president of the Federal Republic, is provincial! But is that necessarily bad?
In a multi-national country, with a parlous record of northern political domination, that would appear a disaster. The image of the Nigerian Presidency as bastion of northern hegemony creates a disturbing déjà vu: we had seen it all, in those bad old days, many would sneer. Now, are we condemned to living it all, in this season of purported change?
Believe it, the image is not exciting! But the substance?
Put another way, does provincialism automatically negate Buhari’s fine natural traits which, in part, powered him to the Nigerian presidency?
Before you answer that question, just ponder these two situations, between President Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo — Osinbajo, said to be as cosmopolitan as his principal is provincial — on account of picking their very close staff: chief of staff and senior special assistant for Media.
If you discount Femi Adesina, Buhari’s and Osinbajo’s picks, for chief of staff and chief of media, follow the same geographical parallel. The president picked Abba Kyari, as chief of staff; and Garba Shehu, as senior special assistant (SSA) media; both northerners. The vice-president picked Ade Ipaye, as chief of staff; and Laolu Akande, as SSA media, both Yoruba.
Now, what is the definitive difference between these two picks? Still, that Osinbajo picked fellow Yoruba as closest staff — does that then re-make him as provincial; or even make his choice evil?
And if both cosmopolitan and provincial end up with similar principles to choose close aides, shouldn’t it be clear there could perhaps be more fundamental dynamics driving both — indeed, everyone — beyond the political correctness of being “Nigerian”, to hypocritical applause?
Indeed, there is a deeper principle; and it is that Nigeria is a federation. A federation is no fancy tag: it is a country peopled with different peoples, though it is hoped these different peoples will eventually yoke, in a melting pot; and that alchemy would produce a “national” culture. Still, a person gets to know first, families and friends; and not a few go through life trusting this immediate environment, no matter how limited or extensive their exposure has been.
In Nigeria’s often emotive media, such people have often been demonised as tribalist or bigoted; but go ahead to glamorise the other extreme as detribalised, whatever that means. So, to be a proper Nigerian, you must erase your cultural nativity?
This emotive imaging has caused a lot of havoc in the political space, though it is fair to say such havoc resulted from mutual distrust, which emanated from real and potent fears of unfair domination. Three names, in Nigeria’s political history, past and present, will just anchor this point.
Obafemi Awolowo. He was the most rigorous political thinker of his generation. Yet, conventional “Nigerian” wisdom dismissed him as “tribalist”. Why? Because his closest aides were generally Yoruba; who he often despatched to sensitive duties all over Nigeria, even during election time. Still, there is no proof the tribalist tag diminished his rigour or vision. But on that sole score, he never became Nigeria’s prime minister or president — hard as he tried.
Olusegun Obasanjo. He is Awolowo’s very opposite, unabashedly “Nigerian”; and his admirers followed up to gift him the eulogy of “father of modern Nigeria”, which Baba Iyabo merrily lapped up. As elected president, he went ahead to reflect perhaps the most pan-Nigeria outlook in appointive decisions. But after all that, what? Not unlike the Biblical white sepulchre: all-gleam outside but all-rot within — for beyond imaging, Obasanjo’s pan-Nigeria ensemble didn’t appear to have got the job done. If they had, Nigeria won’t be in this terrible pass today.
Muhammadu Buhari. By Nigeria’s terrible political-speak, Buhari would be the first “tribalist” to make the Nigerian presidency. During electioneering, his opponents threw everything at him: tribalist, northern irredentist, religious bigot.
Yet, such was the rot; and such were his perceived sterling basic qualities that they shone through the clouds of negative coloration, that his coalition powered to the presidency: on account of massive votes in the core North; and his make-over in the South West and the Middle Belt.
But the distemper of electioneering would appear to linger, coupled with new-found panic in the South West.
That brings the discourse to the rather unflattering reaction to Buhari’s latest appointments which, in truth, is skewed in North’s favour. And the South East, somehow not unusually, has been most strident.
No doubt, the South East, as any other part of the country, has the right to yell and kick, if it feels short-changed. And despite that region’s clear general anti-Buhari electioneering and electoral posture, some South Easterners still stuck out their neck for the president. These presidential allies would be most hit. They face “we told you so!” jeers from their people, but little to cheer from their stubborn electoral choice.
Still, the South East stridency would appear hobbled by its mainstream political elite’s culpable indifference, particularly when such appointive injustices are in their people’s favour. Strictly on principle, Buhari’s perceived northernisation of his government is no worse than Goodluck Jonathan’s easternisation of his. Yet, the South East elite appeared comfy with the Jonathan-era injustice — a case of the Achebe quip that you don’t spew out palm kernel put in your mouth by benevolent spirits? If that were so, what is the justice in the present South East’s shriek of alleged injustice?
As for the South West and South-South, the dominant political elite would appear a confused lot. In Ripples‘ opinion, Lagos’ Babatunde Fashola and Rivers’ Rotimi Amaechi would appear the best two governors in the national gubernatorial class of 2007-2014. Yet, both blocs, though fired by different motivations, went on over-drive demonising the duo. But when the dust cleared, and appointments had gone elsewhere, they suddenly jerked awake to bawl “northernisation!” and “marginalisation”!
Even if Buhari was really “northern” in his outlook, what chances did these sniping South West and South-South ancestral warriors give him, to essay a change of heart? Please note that the Fashola and Ameachi examples are only metaphors of the wilful lack of strategic thinking demonstrated by these two blocs. It didn’t mean both Fashola and Amaechi were in contention (even if they were, Ripples was in no position to know), though either making the list would have drastically changed the Buhari Presidency’s perception as “northern”.
Still, nothing from this piece should be interpreted as an endorsement of Buhari’s northernisation of his presidency, perceived or real. Just as Obasanjo’s pan-Nigeria imaging shielded his government’s rot until it was too late, Buhari’s emerging image of a northern presidential laager may too early blind the polity from the president’s promise of a nation-changing tenure.
If Buhari’s electoral coalition could boast a pan-Nigeria mandate (though located more in the North’s three geo-political zones and the South West), it should be capable of pan-Nigeria citizens of quality and character, from all parts of the country.
Any rationalisation short of that standard is nothing but presidential cant — and presidential cants can’t agree with the president’s mantra of change.
Quote: “Buhari’s perceived northernisation of his government is no worse than Goodluck Jonathan’s easternisation of his. Yet, the South East elite appeared comfy with the Jonathan-era skewing“
