Former president, Olusegun Obasanjo last week, threw some insight into the rationale for his choice of successor at the twilight of his regime. In an interview with a local television station, he said he chose the late Umaru Yar’Adua because he was the only one among those eying the job that was not corrupt.
According to him, while one of those who wanted the job was heavily corrupt, another contender came to him and said – Sir, I like your job. But I cannot do it the way you are doing it. His reading of the latter was that the contender had plainly told him he did not have the kind of stamina (he) Obasanjo applied to the job. For that reason, he does not see any appeal to help him get the job. Justifying his decision further, he said “with all the people that are available for successor, what we came out with was about the best we could think of at that time,”
What can be deduced from the above is that the desire to enthrone people of impeccable character into that elated office as a prelude to battling corruption weighed very heavily in Obasanjo’s calculations of who to succeed him. Thus, in considering those he needed to help get to the exalted office he took into account their records in the public offices they then held. Based on this critical index, he said his choice of Yar’Adua was the best at that time.
Obasanjo is entitled to his opinion. His claimed commitment to very credible and non corrupt leadership at that level may have been the critical factor for his choice of successor. Thus, the appeal of Yar’Adua who according to him, stood shoulders high above his peers within that matrix. There was no doubt that Yar’Adua was a modest, selfless and honest person. Not many will fault him on that ground. The issue that was copiously raised against his candidature bordered on his fragile health which many feared could not withstand the rigors of that office. Unfortunately, the same fears came to pass through his unfortunate demise barely two years in office.
His death may have denied the nation the benefits of those high-minded virtues that endeared him to Obasanjo for which he thought he would have been a shining example in probity and accountability- leadership qualities the nation is in very dire need of. With his passing on, it is difficult to fathom the impact he would have brought to bear within this critical index. By the same twist of fate, there are no sufficient grounds to fault Obasanjo over that choice even as the stamina of an obviously unhealthy person was also in doubt. So we are left with no option than to believe that Yar’Adua, given this rating, was the most suitable among those who showed interest for that office within the ruling PDP.
By extrapolation, the choice of his Vice, Goodluck Jonathan followed the same consideration. Obasanjo paved the way for his national ascendancy when in a very crude manner he procured the services of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC to impeach his boss, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha in the most controversial manner. He was also to pick him to run with Yar’Adua. Obasanjo acknowledged this role in his controversial letter to Jonathan titled “before it is too late” He had in that desperate letter designed to dissuade Jonathan from running the last elections, captured Jonathan’s impression of his role in his life thus, “You put me third after God and your parents among those that have impacted most in your life”.
In that letter, he also levied all manner of allegations against Jonathan. These included incompetence, running aground the economy, training snipers and corrupt practices. Today, the impression is high that the Jonathan administration encouraged corruption. The allegation has been bandied and bought into by sundry personages including those who personify all that is bad about corruption in our national life. If this impression is taken as the correct representation of extant realities, would Obasanjo not take vicarious liability for its outcome?
Beyond this however, there are issues that have been thrown up by the revelations from Obasanjo. And they have wider repercussions for the type of democracy we operate in this country. There is the inevitable impression given the way he spoke that the choice of his successor was solely his. And his perceptions rightly or wrongly determined what was best for the country. The other fallout is that freedom of choice- a cardinal feature of representative democracy had to succumb to the dictatorship of a behemoth. There are serious problems with such a reality because the views of one man or an oligarch in such critical issue as who leads a country can be highly circumscribed. And as can be gleaned from his choice of Yar’Adua and his deputy Jonathan, Obasanjo shares vicarious responsibility for the current mess the nation found itself. The convoluted impression by a few people that they would ever remain the conscience of the country because of the positions accidents of history entrusted on them is at the root of the nation’s retardation. Had Obasanjo and his henchmen allowed that freedom of choice which is the lynchpin on which democracy revolves, those thrown up through popular will may have turned out better. Perhaps also, the country could have been saved all the distractions these past years that nearly dismembered it. Obasanjo fell short of regretting those choices when he admitted that ‘if you take your son as your successor, you are not sure of what he will do when he gets there’.
The other evidence of faulty interpretation is shown by his reading of the statements of one of the contenders who had told him he liked the job but could not do it the way Obasanjo was doing it. Curiously, the former president interpreted this to mean the man does not have the stamina to do the job. That is a simplistic perspective of the obviously loaded statement. Obasanjo should have asked himself what is that way he did the job the contender said he could not? Answers to this will vary. He may even discover to his dismay, that some of his ways may have fallen short of known best practices. He may have even found out that his way may not be another persons’ way and that approaches to statecraft vary a great deal. There is even the added possibility that his style may have even been an unmitigated liability to the flourishing of the pristine tenets of the democratic culture. The boundaries of such inquisition and possible exposures are limitless. But then, why must Obasanjo want his successor to go about things the way he did it. When has his style become the standard practice or moral guide for action?
Take the issue of corruption which he said was the major consideration. Were those he described as rottenly corrupt not products of the system he superintended over? How did that system allow them to amass such humongous wealth with him in control?
These posers come handy because of the obvious excesses and overbearing influence that characterized his days in power. That was the time the EFCC was straddling the landscape like a colossus. That was the time the same Obasanjo procured the services of the body to impeach duly elected governors. He may argue that impeaching some governors the way it happened during his regime represented his own response to battling corruption. That could as well be. But that strategy did incurable damage to the image and credibility of that commission such that even today, it is being seen as a partisan tool in the hands of the ruling government. That time saw the EFCC being variously and viciously deployed to haunt and tackle political foes or those who refused to toe the line of the president. There was therefore a lot wrong with Obasanjo’s style of administration to expect that his ways amounted to the right ways forward.
Perhaps, it is safer to assume Obasanjo was compelled to those choices having been boxed to the corner by the premature death of his third term gambit. Someone engrossed with such a weird ambition would be left with little time for a workable succession plan. What we are facing today may be the prize for stopping Obasanjo from his self perpetuating plan. Even within the index he assessed those to hand over to, it is still a moot issue if he represented a good example.
