THE last five months have thrown into sharp relief the  fact  that most people  who hover over  leaders  only do that on account of what  they hope to gain. They quickly forget all the privileges that their association with these leaders has conferred on them.  This is simply because of the fickleness of the memory of gratitude.

The fickleness of the memory of gratitude in politics is  amply demonstrated by  the case of  former President Goodluck Jonathan. While he was in office, there were many people who swore to die for him. Of course, these did not swear to die for the state. But they expected the rest of the citizens to  believe  that interwoven with  their avowed support for  the  then president was  their loyalty to the nation. With the exit of Jonathan from power, it is clear  that  most  of these people  neither  really  believed  in him nor had  loyalty  to the country.

Yes, a  robust demonstration of loyalty to Jonathan in the post-Aso Rock  era  has  come from Abubakar Suleiman , former Minister of National Planning,  who led  other former ministers in the erstwhile administration of Jonathan to defend him over the charges of corruption and  mismanagement.  But  nowadays, the number of Jonathan’s cronies who are disowning him is on the increase.  The denigration  of  Jonathan by a South South leader  as a weakling  who could not fight corruption as  the nation’s president is not as searing as the disavowal by  one of his former ministers. Unlike the South South leader’s  claim that  may sound nebulous, the former minister from the same South South  gave an instance  of  the former president’s tolerance of corruption. To this former minister, Jonathan nurtured an atmosphere of corruption.  According to him, even when Jonathan was told that a certain man was clearly corrupt, and there were credible people who were better qualified for  a  post of  the chairmanship of a board, he insisted on giving the job  to the corrupt person. Yet, most of these people were made instant billionaires by Jonathan and they had so much money to even set up their private universities.

But Jonathan should  have known that this  is  a  feature of  politics, especially in Nigeria. If Jonathan  is  pained  by  this  disavowal by his beneficiaries, he  has probably  believed too much  that  every other politician would  be like him. For as a loyal beneficiary of  Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, he remained  grateful  to him till death.  But  Jonathan  should  have considered  the political landscape  that  is strewn  with broken relationships  between political  godfathers and sons to envisage  the kind of treatment awaiting him. Whether as  presidents or  governors, politicians have always  been interested in their successors. They do everything possible, including manipulating the electoral system,  just to ensure that the people they have chosen to succeed them win their  elections. But after this victory, within a short time, there would be bickering between the successors and the predecessors. Some governors are known to have made their states too hostile for their predecessors  who put them in office to live. Some governors go to the extent of harassing  and threatening  their predecessors  while  others  have regaled the public with tales  of the corruption of their predecessors  in office. These incumbent leaders may be acting against  the background of their  appreciation of a certain  reciprocal  character of gratitude that exists  in politics. They feel  that their  predecessors  also owe  them  gratitude  because  they  expect  them to  cover their tracks.

Now that there are new leaders,  people  of different hues  of character  would  attempt  to put pressure on them to do what  is  wrong. They would put pressure on them to manipulate  the award of contracts  to them. As long as  this  objective  is before them, they would sing their  praises and tell them all kinds of lies  that they are the best things that have ever happened to Nigeria. But  leaders  need  to guard  themselves  against  being  used  by these people  as they have used others  and dumped  them. They must take cognisance  of the fact  that no  matter what  they as leaders  would do, their individual  beneficiaries  would  still desert  them when  they are out of office .  It is  true  that  a single  person cannot make himself or herself a leader. He or she  would need  the help of other people. But  this  should  not  make  the leader to be weighed  down by a sense of obligation to his or her  so-called benefactors at the expense of the pursuit of  national aspirations .

Leaders  need  to be  identified  with specific visions  that  they would implement . When  they are focused on these visions, it would  be clear  that  the people  who  do  not share these visions  are distractions  that must be guarded against. The  citizens  do not whimsically  forget  the services  that their leaders  have genuinely  rendered. Such services are hallmarked by  sacrifice and  altruistic  vision.  Nigerians  who benefited  from the free education policy of the defunct Western Region still  retain a memory  of gratitude  for the late Obafemi Awolowo who made this possible.  Certainly, the citizens  would not forget  a leader  who  has used his or  her office  to improve  their well-being. But  when the leaders dissipate their tenures on making  a few cronies  billionaires,  these beneficiaries of  the appropriated commonwealth are the first  who would render  asunder  any bond between them  and their benefactors when the latter  cease being in government. This may as well be a well-deserved comeuppance for such leaders  for  neglecting  to cultivate a broader vision of governance that is all citizens-centred.