|
Obasanjo: Beyond the Demonisation By Patrick Pad
It is now common to see Obasanjo’s eight year-rule as representing everything that was evil in Nigerian political history. There is usually an assumption that things were Ok or were about to be OK when Obasanjo came, and in the Nigerian political speak, ‘messed things up”. For some, Obasanjo epitomised a betrayal of hope, what with the enormous revenues earned from oil under his watch and the paradoxical increase in destitution, unemployment and insecurity of life and property.
It is possible to identify at least four main flanks of the critics: The remnants of the Nigerian left criticise him for his wholesale embrace of market economics, typified in his privatisation programmes and other policies couched in the brand of economics that are usually espoused by the Bretton Woods institutions. Those who consider themselves urbane or moralists pick quarrels with his style, his undeniable garrulity (‘roforofo’ – al Reuben Abati), his obvious issues with manners, his apparent hypocrisy in a number of issues such as fighting corruption and his grand-father-knows it-all stance on many issues. There are also those who criticise Obasanjo from ethno perspective. For these people, Obasanjo was out to “undo” or “marginalise” their “people”, and each group can reel out many instances of this, or deliberate denial of “federal presence” under him. Obasanjo is equally criticised by the religious right: the Christians criticise him for lacking the balls to stop the introduction of Sharia in some Northern starts while some Muslims accuse him of deliberate policies to undermine their religion such as the building of a Chapel at Aso Rock and the removal of the Islamic inscriptions on the Naira. In many ways therefore, there is room for any one to take a swipe at Obasanjo, which should not be surprising because this often goes with virtually every political office. This is perhaps why some say that politics is the “art of the possible” and those who cannot take the heat are counselled to stay away from the kitchen.
But I feel that criticisms of Obasanjo are grossly overdone. While Obasanjo is definitely not without faults and known weaknesses, few critics give him his due. Certainly in the annals of our political history, Obasanjo seems to be the only leader that has recorded irrepressible achievements in two sectors - banking reforms and in the uptake of mobile phones and internet penetration. Curiously while the numerous failures of the regime are attributed directly to Obasanjo, his obvious successes are attributed to Professor Charles Soludo (banking reforms) and inevitable invisible hand o the globalisation process (internet and mobile phones). There is no doubt that his regime failed in the provision of infrastructure, power, and poverty alleviation. If the regime of Umaru Yar Adua can record just one irreversible change in any sector (energy, transport, education etc) the nation will have moved forward. Development is a continuous process. Many people see the regime of Tony Blair in the UK as a success. Yet, that success was mostly in the area of economy, which supporters of Gordon Brown put down to the then Chancellor. The NHS, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, education reforms etc remain dark sports on his regime. Yet no one regards him as a failure as a Prime Minister. It is unfair to judge a weather only by its sunny or inclement side.
|