Tinubu: A Democrat, Federalist

By

ozieni@yahoo.com

His unblinking political opponents are most likely to be his best attorneys, when passing judgement on his credentials as one of the foremost, consistent democrats of the Fourth Republic. They are most likely to admit that it was in recognition of his consistency and a sense of public service – two qualities that he imbibed from his mentor, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo that have stood Lagos State Governor – Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu-in good stead in the past seven years as a people-oriented leader. The same qualities, which, impliedly, entail sacrifice, in the interest of both voters and tax-payers, also account for Tinubu’s rare, historical position in the Fourth Republic: he was one of the warriors and champions of constitutionalism, respect for human rights and enthronement of the genuine process of fair play and social justice, which eventually led, in 1999, to the birth of the Fourth Republic. All these democratic qualities were piled up, in a genuine and transparent conviction that the survival of democracy – a must, if at all – for the unity and stability of Nigeria should be the responsibility of any democrat, especially in the face of such incipient tyranny as was the Abacha regime. Some writers have attempted to besmirch Tinubu’s democratic credentials by saying that he couldn’t have been so vocal a critic of the Abacha regime, so as to see democracy – one with a human face – enthroned in the country, were the offender a military man from the south – west zone of the country. In addition, the Tinubu’s critics may say that his unswerving commitment to the cause of democracy, which, gladly, led to the demise of military rule in 1999, was not of national character, but what is not incontestable in that were the history of the struggle for human rights and democracy, which culminated in the birth of the Fourth Republic to be written now, one of the most readable chapters of that work would – and, quite defensibly, be devoted to Tinubu’s role. One of his predecessors once likened his pro-democracy struggle to “guerrilla warfare, which had an element of the Fabian strategy deftly tacked to it.” To that extent, it is, arguably, correct from empirical evidence and raw fact of his political leadership in the past seven years, that Tinubu, a former senator, is a well-deserving gainer from the democratic struggle of the last decade of the 20th Century. Unlike most other politicians, Tinubu has striven, very consciously, never to alienate both those who rolled him to office – and almost every resident of Lagos state, by running an open door policy. Rather than picking holes, where none exists, in his democratic credentials, Tinubu’s critics should be honest enough to thank him for his pre-eminent role in the termination of military rule, which has made possible the return of the country to the league of democratic countries; not a pariah that it was, during the Abacha years. Indeed, as Information and Strategy Commissioner, Mr. Oladele Alake, put it the other day, “there’s no amount that can be placed or paid for the sacrifice made by Asiwaju (Bola Ahmed Tinubu). There’s no sure way of evaluating the monumental resources – including his life –, which he committed to the struggle for democracy and human rights in this country. He was selfless when he joined the democrats to campaign, within the limits of decency, for an end to military rule. That is about the legacy he’ll leave, whenever the quits office.” Some commentators have argued that Tinubu’s critics – a majority of them non-democrats and parasites, who were complacently idle when the flame of the democratic struggle was implacably aglow – are the ones, who, on the eve of the end of his second-term in office, are angling to exploit the gains of democracy, which they never worked for. Given the choice – the constitutional choice-most Lagosians would vote, again, for Tinubu. It was in recognition of his people-oriented administration and his leadership qualities as a champion of ethnic tolerance and co-existence Lagosian returned him to office in 2003. Never were his victories contested in 1999 and 2003. Tinubu’s commitment to the Awoist political philosophy has paid him well: in all the vast area of the South-west zone, his the only governor of the Alliance for Democracy (A.D.) still in office. His admirers say “the only man standing”. It would be fraudulent and malicious to confine Tinubu’s refulgent democratic and people-oriented profile to the South-west. Which one of the governors, outside the South-west zone, can rightfully claim an equal status – a democrat of national standing – shall we conduct of plebiscite? – as Tinubu. Perhaps, this may explain why Alake once said that: “in the interest of democracy, Tinubu and the A.D. are the best candidates fit to rule this country; not those, who are opposed to resource control, or those who have impoverished Nigerian workers and voters, even though their God-given resources are almost limitless to cater for their immediate needs.” Besides, Alake also argued out that the sloughing of the cloak of pariah-hood, the return of the country of to the club democratic states and the payment the country’s foreign debt owed the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), though under a non-A.D. administration at the national level, “eloquently bore a ringing streak of Tinubu’s selfless sacrifice in the struggle for democracy. You cannot vitiate Tinubu’s position – and his well-deserved applause for this democratic feat. If Olympian democrats, like Tinubu, had not fought for the birth of the fourth Republic, there, probably, would, still, have been corrupt stratocracy of the Abacha regime – and an endless payment of an over ballooning national debt and an unending servicing of the same fraudulent debt with sorely public fund.” The Tinubu factor in the democratic struggle and the emergency of the Fourth Republic points to the cause of the sustainability of Nigeria as a modern-nation state, whose ultimate survival, as a peaceful and progressive country, has, as a matter of course, to embrace true federalism – as advocated by the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954. How best to ensure socio-economic and political justice in making Nigeria a truly federalist state, where there is a fair share and control of national resources by the producing states, to put it differently, is the unanswered query posed by the Tinubu maze in the Nigerian democratic and federalist trip. The Supreme Counts’ verdict on the historical challenge to what Tinubu regarded as a monumentally indefensible fraud may have been less favourable, but truth is that history would be fair to him for championing the cause of real fiscal federalism – as one of the chief indexes of democracy.