Best way to defend the presidency – Part 3

The Nigerian nation is full of such politicians. They exist and thrive in all parts of the country. They say what they want to say whenever they want to say it.

They talk about how bad the Nigerian economy has been; the “collapse” of the naira; how people have been suffering, with no employment and no income; how the rate of crimes has risen: armed robberies, communal, religious and ethnic/tribal clashes in all parts of the country; market fires, bomb blasts; and especially for the part of Nigeria where the writer lives, “the marginalisation of the north.”

All these ills and evils have been happening, according to them, because of the Federal Government—the government that came to power through a popular election in 1999 under the leadership of President Olusegun Obasanjo.

If these accusations have been properly analysed and found to be justified by unbiased and professionally competent minds, one could argue that the responsibility could be heaped on the Federal Government and its leader. That might be a legitimate leadership price to pay. The led have the privilege to blame their leaders for the wrongs of society.

However, the accusations have not been proved. Of course, the communal, religious, ethnic/tribal conflicts and large-scale killings and destruction of property took place in many parts of Nigeria during this period. But this is not the first time such atrocities took place in Nigeria.

Disregarding the periods of the military regimes (which can be explained away by those with the art or skill of the possible), one could trace, through sheer memory, the upheavals and calamities that took place between 1963 and January 1966 and between October 1979 and December 1983. None of the proponents of marginalisation could argue that those calamities took place because of the incumbent prime minister or president in the two periods respectively.

And if they even dare to do so, they could not say it was because of the incumbent’s “betrayal” or “marginalisation” of a section of the country. These are new forms of accusation invented by members of the newly formed elite group of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF).

The most favoured and used words from the lips of many members of the elite group in the part of the country of the writer are: “The North”, “betrayal” and “marginalisation” mostly expressed in Hausa.

One hears these words virtually every day, especially from the Hausa section of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Voice of America (VOA) whose correspondents in Nigeria interview these politicians of “marginalisation”, and what they tell them as if they were established truths. It is very common to hear from these broadcast organisations such things as: “To, ganin cewa mafi yawancin Yan Arewa suna ganin wannan Gwamnatin bata son su, ko bata yi musu kaza-da-kaza, ko ta yaudare su domin su suka zabe ta, amma ita kuma ta fi taimakawa ‘yan kabilar su da basu zabe su ba, yaya kaza da kaza?”

Meaning something like this: In view of the fact that most Northerners believe that this government is anti-north, or has betrayed the Northerners (who actually elected them) or has marginalised them, and so forth, what would you think about?”

These foreign Hausa broadcasting services do not even have the semblance of neutrality for which their English language broadcasts are known. They report, for instance, that “the North” has decided to do this or that or has decided not to support or vote for such and such candidate in the 2003 elections. Such sweeping conclusions from spurious and non-existent findings/decisions of imagined “Northerners” are not so common on the local radio stations. However, many a friend in “politics” would talk to one as a matter-of-factly as follows:
“Tun da yanzu mu Yan Arewa mun zama saniyar tatse- a tatse mu, a yar.” “As we Northerners have been exploited and discarded.”

In one’s own presence they talk about “we, Northerners”, which, of course, one identifies with tokenly, but then they complete those phrases with statements that one could agree or identify with.

This is embarrassing and one tries to immediately find an unobvious way to cover the embarrassment. This makes one to start to wonder about the meaning of “Northerners” and who they are. It gives one the feelings that perhaps one is no longer a “Northerner.” But they use the Hausa word “mu” which means the talker and the one being talked to.

So it means I am regarded as a “Northerner” and I am shown to share the same views. In that case what is being said is a misrepresentation of my views and the views of a great number of “Northerners.”

The ‘North’ is a generalised geographical location in Nigeria. However, this geographical location does not exist as a government unit, a political system, a religious denomination, a tribal unit, or, in fact as any unit of anything at all. It is the conceptualised idea of the elite special interest groups who must protect their influence and relevance and who must regain their lost glory. It was only after the coming to power of this new democratic government that the elite groups in the North started to come together to form their special interest groups as a countervailing force to the Afenifere in the South-West zone and to the Ohanaeze in the South-East. The Arewa Consultative (ACF) is the name of the elite groups that selected themselves to form what they see as the vanguard for the “North.”

Maybe groups of this nature had a function during the military administration. It is difficult to see what legitimate functions such groups could play in a democratic setting with multiple political parties. There are 19 states in the “North” and each is headed by an executive governor elected by a majority of the people in the state. These governors, despite their party political differences, meet regularly to discuss issues of common interest to the “North” and to decide on what line of uniform action to take.

This is a better and a more suitable democratic group of functionaries to discuss issues of common interest to the “the North” than a gathering of an extremely elitist group, of self-appointed people who carry no mandate whatsoever from the people of “the North.”

Only the (ex-) military elite, the traditional ruling elite and the monied/rich merchant/trading elite groups constitute the ACF, which has no representation from the generality of the people in the “North.”

They are friends and associates of one another and selected themselves to form the ACF. They do not relate in any practical way with the majority of the people of the “North.”

Yet these are the people who lead the campaign to portray all the actions and activities of the Federal Government under President Obasanjo as either ill motivated or against the interest of “the North.” They created the image of “marginalisation” to portray the present Federal Government as Government of the Yorubas.”

I must confess the same scenario is being played out in Nigeria of today. The picture Dr. Ayagi painted at that time is the same picture we are seeing today. But does the Presidency need a defence at all? Who remembers what Alhaji Wada Nas (1938-2005) said about the regime of General Sani Abacha GCFR or what Chief Michael Kaase Andooka SAN (61) said about President Umaru Musa Yar’adua GCFR.

In football what counts are the goals scored not the defence tactics, home support or corner kicks. At the end of the day, what will count is performance. The enduring legacy is nothing but performance.
Concluded.

Teniola is a former Director at the Presidency in Abuja.