Umar Yar

Umar Yar’ Adua and the Nigerian Political Labyrinth

Jideofor Adibe

There appears to be certain impatience in the land that President Umaru Shehu Yaradua is moving rather sluggishly. There is a feeling that over thirty days into the life of the regime, what the President stands for in terms of actions, not speeches or platitudes remains unclear. While he has remained extremely conciliatory, courteous and urbane, saying the right things at the right places, there appears to be a certain lack of stamina for action. Again while the sluggish paces at which things have moved – or more correctly not moved since his ascendancy – may have admittedly helped to lower the political temperature, it is important the president does not give impression of being a man who procrastinates, or unsure of which foot to put forward first. For one, there are many Nigerians today who believe that the country is in a state of emergency and needs urgent, but thoughtful actions, to help bring her out of the wood as quickly as possible. There is also a certain feeling that a president who knows exactly what he wants for the country, could have accomplished far more than the speeches and gestures we have seen in the past 30 days.

Walking the Nigerian political labyrinth

While it may admittedly be easy to chastise the president for his “go slow” style, it must also be conceded that governing a complex behemoth like Nigeria is a far more challenging undertaking than presiding over a relatively homogenous, simple state such as Katsina, which the president was used to. Could it then be that the president is deliberately taking his time to understand Nigeria and Nigerians, not previously known to have been much of a social mixer with other Nigerians? Could the slow pace be because he never really hungered for the lofty position, and needed time to develop the appetite for the job? Could it be that he is overwhelmed by the complexity of the Nigerian political condition, where every decision, no matter how trivial, will be closely scrutinised by the various contending primordial forces, with support and opposition to the regime mobilised accordingly? Is the President a captive of the ‘Obasanjo mob’ – as suspected in some quarters, not knowing how to balance his allegiance to the man believed to have plucked him out of obscurity and made him president, and stamping his political imprimatur firmly on his regime? Or are we in for a re-enactment of the Shagari era, where a basically simple, polite and relatively honest president, was content to wear the crown while ceding the real powers of governance to the likes of Uba Ahmed and Umaru Dikko?

Whatever the reasons for the relatively lack of substantive governance so far, the regime needs to move urgently, especially in some areas that have made his current conciliatory postures seem suspect. For instance, I find it rather contradictory that while the President remains conciliatory and charming and his speech writers continue to do a good job in appropriately contextualising their speeches to fit into the public mood, the President has continued to accord visibility to the trio of Olusegun Obasanjo, Maurice Iwu and Nuhu Ribadu. It is believed in many quarters that for as long as these three men are around, and associated very closely with the regime, for so long will Nigerians be reminded of the ignoble roles they were believed to have played in the shame that was the last general elections.

I have included Mallam Nuhu Ribadu in this “axis of shame”, not unmindful of the fact that he is lionised in some quarters for his supposed boldness in talking the game on corruption, and taking tough actions. Despite his obvious courage, I believe that Mallam Ribadu’s role in the illegal impeachment of some state governors, including Joshua Darriye of Plateau state, his unguarded utterances, disregard for the law and due process, and intimidating swoop on candidates for elective offices in the run-up to the elections, played no less ignoble roles than ‘Professor’ Iwu’s gross incompetence in scuttling the last election exercise. Like ‘Professor’ Iwu, Ribadu was too loquacious and combative and lacked the tact, poise and subtlety demanded by the position he held (and unfortunately still holds). Though news report today (July 2, 2007) that the president had directed that the EFCC under him should henceforth concentrate only on fighting terrorism and money laundering while the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission takes over the work of dealing with the political class, appears to be a good palliative measure, it is important, in my opinion, that a way is found to completely ease him out of the scene. Contrary to some perceptions, I do not see Mallam Ribadu as being particularly efficient in his job – unless of course one will convince me that corruption by the political class reduced under his watch. I neither equate bravado for bravery, nor do I mistake a love for drama and razzmatazz to mean a sense of urgency. Silent waters, they say, often run very deep.

What applies to Mallam Ribadu also applies to ‘Professor’ Maurice Iwu, who may rightly be one of the most hated figures in Nigeria today. His incompetence and complete lack of social grace and maturity have raised many fundamental questions about him, including about the title he bears. That he continues to hug the limelight to defend the conduct of the last election and heap insults on those who condemned the elections, is like pissing on the faces of Nigerians. I think that the president must find a way of removing him from public visibility, at least for a while, despite the fact he may not have exhausted his constitutionally guaranteed tenure. Nigerians, I believe, will be more accepting of using an innocuous political position abroad to ease him out than allowing him to keep marauding around, spoiling for a fight, and showing no contrition whatsoever.

Dealing with Obasanjo will not be easy

Though I believe that the regime’s closeness with the former President, Obasanjo, accentuates its legitimacy crisis, I also believe that dealing with the former head of state, who is much cleverer than he appears, or is given credit for, may be much trickier, and far more complex than it seems. It may well prove to be one of Umar Yar’Adua’s greatest challenges – because for his own good, and at least to assuage the mood of the moment, the former president should be kept at the bay. While the mood of the moment is for President Umaru Shehu to publicly humiliate him and show that he is his own man, such a posture, I strongly feel, will boomerang, with most of those calling for his humiliation sooner than later singing a different song. For one, Obasanjo is a former Head of State, and any direct humiliation will garner sympathy for him – at least for the dignity of the office he held (the same reason most of us condemned Obasanjo’s ill-advised efforts to humiliate the former Vice President). Besides, in Nigeria today, the notion of being “Nigerian” remains in a state of flux, and it takes very little perception of humiliation for an ethnic group to come fighting, utilising whatever means at its disposal, or for people to withdraw into their primordial identities, a comfort zone from which they will consequently evaluate the regime’s future actions.

A radical humiliation of Obasanjo could also make the grand old fox position himself as a victim of his ethnic and regional identities (as he tried to do when he sponsored the Southern Governors’ conference at Enugu, and when the House of Representatives tried to impeach him), turning him into an ethnic/regional hero of sorts, and compounding the regime’s legitimacy crisis. Also if Umar Yar’Adua fails to deliver quickly and shore up his legitimacy base, a humiliated Obasanjo will be quickly rehabilitated, and his regime now seen as a better era than the present one. Unless this changes with Umar Yar’Adua, previous regimes in the country are adept in squandering the goodwill with which they are welcome to power (even the Murtala regime had begun to experience a declining sense of legitimacy by the time he was murdered), making current regimes in the country to be unfavourably compared with the one before it - one or two years into its life. If this happens, Obasanjo’s image will loom larger than reality, and some will start nursing nostalgia for his era – as some people do today with Abacha’s regime.

The way Obasanjo is dealt with by Umar Yar’Adua will also have implications for the future perception of the North (or Hausa/Fulani) in Nigerian politics. It is generally believed – rightly or wrongly – that one of the reasons the North (or the Hausa/Fulanis) have remained the beautiful brides of Nigerian politics is because, unlike their Southern counterparts, they do not have a history of political treachery and ingratitude. So put a dagger on Obasanjo’s back, and the dagger will be actually be on the mythical image of the North (Hausa/Fulani) as people who show gratitude and do not betray promises. That dagger may also be seen as an ethnic/regional insult, which could elicit responses that will compound the regime’s legitimacy crisis.

A good lesson on how a radical action against Obasanjo could boomerang could be gleaned from Buhari’s experience when he came to power in December 1983. His coup tapped into the general disenchantment with the political class, with some, including a popular editor of a famous magazine, calling on the new regime to give the arrested politicians the ‘Rawlings treatment’ –without trial. That was the mood of the moment. However less than a few months after this, the mood swung sharply the other way round. Some people began an ethnic arithmetic of the politicians arrested, and the number of years of imprisonment handed out to them, and concluded that the southern politicians came off worse than their Northern counterparts. Buhari never recovered from the ensuing legitimacy crisis, forcing his regime to become more repressive, and giving Babangida, the ammunition to strike. It was also a similar story with the Nzeogwu coup, which was initially enthusiastically welcomed, including in newspaper editorials, before some began the arithmetic of the ethnic winners and losers in the coup. In both instances, widely despised politicians were quickly rehabilitated and became ethnic heroes, with nothing more said of their malfeasance while in office.

What then?

The above is not to suggest that Obasanjo and the governors who are being suspected of looting the treasury of the country, or conniving in aiding and abetting the charade that was the last general election should go free. Far from it. The above point is to acknowledge the complexity of interests to be balanced in a country like Nigeria, especially when justice has to be meted to prominent political figures. It is understandable that Umar Yar’Adua has to take his time to master the political labyrinth and avoid the banana peels on the political landscape. But to paraphrase his statement, the time to move is now, before the people’s impatience turns into disrespect, and he gets a label that he will struggle for the rest of his tenure to remove. The president has to be nimble in balancing the variously interests at the same time as showing that he is bold, courageous and his own man. A starting point may well be the way he deals with Obasanjo. So far the impression is that he is struggling to find the way out of this quagmire and there are groups who already feel dissatisfied by his indecisions and appointments made so far. Admirers of General Babangida believe that his “genius” lies in this terrain, in his uncanny ability to balance the various competing interests without making himself a captive of any special interest. While I believe that “settlement” was part of Babangida’s strategy, I believe that his skills in this regard go far beyond co-optation and using “settlement” to buy quiescence (as his critics argue), and that his political skills are not accorded the appropriate recognition they deserve.

I do not think the problem of balancing the complex interests in the polity can be solved by the mooted idea of “unity government” – a synonym for what Nigerian politicians call “carrying everyone along” (read: ensuring there is “something” for everyone or at least for the vocal or frontline members of the opposition). The logic is that through this the quiescence of the rabble rousers could be secured and uncomfortable “political noise” reduced. I have my doubts on the efficacy of this strategy, especially in this era of the internet and the ambush journalism it spurned. If the proposed unity government succeeds in “carrying along” the opposition politicians and editors of leading newspapers and magazines (or their owners), will it succeed in carrying along the likes of Omoyele Sowore of Sahara Reporters? Or Okey Ndibe? Again I have my doubts. However President Umar Yar’Adua does it, this is his regime (unless upturned by the tribunals) and the buck stops with him. He must increase his pace, because the rest of the world, is marching fast, and people need urgent action, to bring back hope. It is also important that in doing it his own way, he is mindful of the mosaic of interests that must be delicately balanced, if he is to have any peace of mind on that position. The time to act is truly now.

__________________________________________________

Jideofor Adibe is the editor of the journal, African Renaissance, and

Publisher, Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd