It is understandable that the unruly, anarchic and utterly uncouth behavior of a not insubstantial number of legislators when President Muhammadu Buhari presented the 2019 budget estimates to the National Assembly last week Wednesday has been widely condemned by several analysts. The protesting legislators not only exhibited an unwarranted contempt for the person of the President, they also sought to diminish and treat the exalted office of President with ignominy. It is absolutely indefensible. You don’t have to like the incumbent. But you are duty bound to respect the institution.
In the Second Republic, President Shehu Shagari and his fiercest opponent and critic, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, were not necessarily the best of political pals. But Shagari was gracious enough to award Awo the National Honour of Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR) for his contributions to national development even though it is a title reserved for occupants of the office of President. That is the height of graciousness and civility.
Now, is the legislature supposed to acquiesce to the executive’s budgetary proposals or any other legislative agenda whatsoever without asking questions? Surely, no one can rationally make such a proposition. A robust legislature that steadfastly protects its systemic boundaries as an institution from the incursion of the executive is critical to the tenets of separation of powers as well as checks and balances that constitute the defining elements of the presidential system. The opposition, in particular, is expected to robustly but constructively interrogate the budget and other legislative proposals from the executive especially where legislators belonging to the ruling party are inclined to supinely act in accordance with party solidarity.
If we take a cue from history, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, leader of opposition in the First Republic, offers us a model of how to engage the executive’s proposals, especially budgetary estimates, in a most rigorous, yet even-handed and constructive manner. Awolowo’s party, the Action Group (AG) was diametrically opposed to the ruling coalition of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) ideologically and philosophically. This meant, of course, that the AG had radically different ideas as to what ought to be the country’s socio-economic objectives and, by implication, what should be the budgetary mechanisms, the mix of monetary and fiscal policies, to achieve them. Yet, at no time did they vociferously seek to prevent the Minister of Finance from articulating the government’s economic programme as embodied in the budget in parliament.
For instance, in a speech on the 1961 Appropriation Bill given in the House of Representatives, Lagos, on 7th April, 1960, Awolowo declared “It is common for the members of the Government Bench to speak of constructive criticism. They have accused the opposition on a number of occasions of failing to be constructive in their criticism…I think that the Government’s idea of constructive criticism is that people should come here and sing the praise of the government all the time; but our idea of constructive criticism is that we should point to those flaws and defects in the government’s policies and then proceed further, and not just stop there, to make suggestions as to how those flaws and defects could be removed and ameliorated”.
Having laid this premise, the leader of opposition then undertook a pungent and unsparing critique of the budget proposals after which he said, “What do we then do to avoid this borrowing spree from various countries? I have eight points, which I would submit for the serious consideration of the government”. This was not just criticism for its own sake. But could the AG have given a thorough analysis of the budget and offered concrete alternative proposals to ameliorate its flaws, if its members had created a chaotic scene in parliament and strenuously sought to prevent a smooth presentation of the 1961 budget proposals?
Would it not have served the PDP and indeed the nation better if its legislators opposed to PMB and the APC had listened attentively to the budget presentation, gone on to study its key proposals carefully and then during the session provided for its discussion at plenary, clinically dissect and thoroughly deconstruct the document? Unfortunately, by attempting at every turn to obstruct PMB’s delivery of the budget address, the opposition legislators created the impression that they had a hidden motive for not wanting millions of Nigerians watching the event live on television to hear what the President had to say. If the budget was irredeemably flawed and the government’s claims mostly false as alleged by the heckling legislators, why then were they so desperate to prevent the President from getting his message across?
What was showcased, once again, by the indecent conduct of the opposition legislators at the budget presentation is what the late Claude Ake characterized as the ‘overvaluation’ of state power by the political class. This refers to the preoccupation of the political elite with the acquisition of power by all means and at all costs even if to the detriment of the public good. With the fixation of the PDP on reclaiming power at the centre next year after the 16 years of the locusts to which it subjected the country between 1999 and 2015, they do not mind to desecrate and devalue the high office of President, which ironically the party is desirous of occupying again. This is rather unreflective, short term thinking.
The overvaluation of political power is, in turn, actuated mostly by the perception and utilization of state power as a means of corrupt enrichment and mindless material acquisition. It is indeed in the national legislature that this trait has been most prominent in this dispensation what with the humongous illegal allowances the legislators notoriously award themselves across party lines. It is important to stress here that the culprits in this regard are not just PDP opposition members as this is an attribute of the political class as a whole.
After all, a number of APC legislators who lost out in the party’s primaries also joined their PDP colleagues in heckling and insulting PMB. What informs the desperate quest across party boundaries to retain or win party tickets at all costs? Again, the answer is obvious: The opportunity that control of state power provides to access and illegally ‘privatize’ collective resources.
PMB is unquestionably the object of visceral anger on the part of large segments of the political elite because of his widely lauded aversion to mindless personal accumulation of wealth. True, he is not a Saint. But he may well be so described in contrast to many members of our notoriously rapacious political elite. The leadership he has offered in the last three and a half years has witnessed a sharp decline in the degree of venality by occupants of public office compared to the previous 16 years.
Thus, in the run up to the 2019 elections, the opposition is seemingly investing more time and energy in trying to impugn PMB’s character and integrity than in outlining their own plans and programmes for the people. Their strategy seems to be that of proving that ‘PMB’s corruption is bigger than mine’. But that will be a herculean task for them to achieve even if the democratic context in which PMB is fighting corruption today makes him vulnerable to a degree of credible criticism. Unlike when he was military Head of State between 1983 and 1985, the President’s party has no choice now than to collaborate with electorally valuable decampees from other parties indicted for corruption but who are seeking refuge within the APC from the prehensile claws of the ubiquitous Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Much more importantly, the unfortunate incident of last Wednesday in the National Assembly vividly illustrates the erosion of civility as a virtue not just among the political class but in virtually every sphere of our national life. In his Y2000 book, ‘Standing for Something’, the American church leader and theologian, Gordon B. Hinckley, writes: “Civility, I submit, is what gives savor to our lives. It is the salt that speaks of good taste, good manners, good breeding…Civility is the root of the word, civilization. It carries with it the essence of courtesy, politeness and consideration of others. How very much of it we have lost in our contemporary society! All of the education and accomplishment in the world will not count for much unless they are accompanied by marks of gentility, of respect for others, of going the extra mile, of serving as a good Samaritan, of being men and women who look beyond our own selfish interests to the good of others”.
Faced with heckling, insults and provocative taunting, PMB stood serene and unflappable only gently admonishing his traducers and appealing to their finer instincts and sense of patriotism if any. He stood tall among moral pygmies. The man of war became the embodiment of civility. What an irony!
