Bayo Olupohunda
I
do not know about other Nigerians, but I am getting irritated by what
have become former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s serial criticism of
President Goodluck Jonathan and his administration. And I hope, not in
the least, that ordinary Nigerians do not by any stretch of imagination
assume that the recent truce that was brokered by the so-called friends
of the President and his godfather has anything to do with ending the
crisis of leadership and misery their political alliance has imposed on
our nation in recent years. The point needs quickly be made that; the
professed “prayer session and lunch” fence-mending between the two men
will be a further prolongation of the crisis of leadership which began
in 2007. Let’s hope this does not extend beyond 2015.
Let me be clear about this that the
intention of this column today is not to shield the President against
upbraid by his overbearing political godfather. For one, I am not a fan
of Jonathan. I did not vote for him in 2011. I will not vote for him in
2015 if he decides to re-contest a presidency that has been so far
disappointing. Not that it matters though. My vote did not count in
2011, I doubt if my voting against him will determine his future in
2015- that is if he ever returns. But at worst, it will be my only
weapon to protest the presidency of a man that has not matched
expectations with performance.
In 2011, against all persuasion from
friends and the President’s campaign, I stuck to my guns not to vote for
Jonathan because I was discerning enough to know that he is not the
type of leader the country needs at this critical moment in our nation’s
history to harness our vast human and material resources. Having
studied his character and disposition in the early days of the crisis
period preceding his emergence as President, after the demise of the
late President Yar’dua, I simply switched off on any further assessment
of him as a potential president.
To me, he just did not possess the
qualities of a president angry enough to challenge the status quo and
begin an urgent transformation and restructuring of our country to
redress the imbalances that have driven millions of Nigerians into
poverty. I did not see him, for example, as having the vision of a Lee
Kuan Yew of Singapore who transformed an underdeveloped colonial outpost
with no natural resources into a “First World’ Asian Tiger. But
unfortunately, many gullible Nigerians misjudged Jonathan’s
submissiveness for humility. How wrong! Like I have always believed,
docility, disguised as humility, should be the last quality of a
potential Nigerian leader at all levels of governance. I have so far
been proved right. The President’s performance so far has justified my
decision.
The role of Obasanjo in presidential
politics since 2007 and the part he played in Jonathan’s emergence make
his current posturing curious and questionable. The first was driven by
the self-preservation agenda of Obasanjo’s imposition of the ailing
Yar’Adua as president. The second was informed by the gullibility of
Nigerians to be guided by their emotions for the “humble” Jonathan. Both
of course, had the backing of the former president at the height of his
imperial power as president and then later as the chairman of the
Peoples Democratic Party’s Board of Trustees.
It is not surprising that we are now
suffering the consequence of the machinations of the former president.
It is also for this reason that I am not impressed by his
holier-than-thou posturing of late; having played such ignominious role
in the country’s political life since his quitting power in 2007.
Frankly speaking, it is not in Obasanjo’s place to assess or criticise
this government. It is possible that Nigerians have forgotten so soon.
If anybody would criticise Jonathan, it should not be Obasanjo. This is
because the former president engineered this present conundrum from its
inception.
No matter what he now says or thinks, he
knew the two governments were designed to malfunction. The government
of Yardua and Jonathan are like houses built on quick sands. In the case
of the late Yar’Adua, his ill-health soon prevented him from carrying
out the rigorous demands of his office. Obasanjo had claimed not to
know of the late president’s health status. Yet, he had secret dossiers
to prevent other aspirants from contesting the job. Even when as
Katisna State governor, Yar’Adua was said to have absented himself for
months to attend to his worsening health condition. Obasanjo was too
blinded by his own agenda. He railroaded him to become the president.
In Jonathan, a man who had no history of
previous sterling performance, sadly few Nigerian politicians can be so
acknowledged, it appeared that Obasanjo had found a willing tool in his
self-preservation plans. Was Yar’Adua the best presidential material in
2007? Was Jonathan the best VP material to Yar’Adua and later
presidential material in 2011? My answer would be an emphatic NO. But
Obasanjo was not bothered enough. He was too self absorbed with
vengeance, it has now been revealed, after his failed Third Term agenda
to realise the harm being done to the country and our collective psyche
by his arbitrary use of presidential powers to impose the Yar’Adua
government on the nation.
The mistakes of 2007 would again be
repeated in 2011. This time, the emergence of Jonathan which though had
the backing of a majority of gullible Nigerians and a disappointing
opposition was massively engineered by Obasanjo. Do not get me wrong.
The two men had the constitutional right to aspire to any position
including that of the president. The question is if Yar’Adua and
Jonathan were the best presidential materials at the time. The question
is even more relevant when we consider Jonathan as the presidential
candidate in 2011 and the role of Obasanjo. Now that the chicken has
come home to roost, now that our country begins to face the consequences
of a non-performing Jonathan Presidency, what moral high grounds does
Obasanjo have to pass judgment on the failings of the government he
helped install? What, for example, did he base the choice of Jonathan as
a vice-president and president on? Was it on account of any previous
notable performance? My position again is this: Obasanjo’s criticism of
this administration is self-serving. An allusion of a disappointed
father whose ill-trained and wayward son has gone prodigal is too hard
to ignore here. Correct me if I’m wrong, it is hard to prove that
Obasanjo’s criticism is driven by the love of country or the politics of
2015 as many have alleged.
Given the immense presidential influence
at the disposal of the former president in 2007 for example, he had the
power to support the emergence of a competent, vibrant and visionary
presidential candidate and his running mate. If this had happened, the
country would have had almost a decade of good governance. If Obasanjo
had been less egoistic, the country would have been saved the harrowing
experience of Yar’Adua’s illness as president. We would have avoided
the antics of a cabal that held the nation hostage and made us a
laughing stock in the comity of nations. Obviously, there would not have
been any need for a Jonathan Presidency in 2011. And we would have been
saved from the shenanigans of the present government. But “Baba” failed
to deliberately see the big picture.
The Obasanjo dilemma reminds me of the
man who goes to bed while he sets fire on his roof. Now the former
president has “left his pot unwashed; and his food now burns”. Rather
than become a latter-day critic of the current administration, Obasanjo
should reflect on his stewardship since he quit power in 2007 — a reason
why we are in this pitiable mess. His closing years should call for a
deep reflection on his role in our current predicament. It is for this
reason that the former leader owes Nigerians an apology.
Punch
No comments:
Post a Comment