Atiku

Atiku’s Undeserved Popularity

Hamaseyo Njoboliyo

Our former vice-president Atiku Abubakar is certainly a popular political figure who has a very committed followership in all parts of the country. From my discussions with some of his followers, and from what is regularly written and spoken in the press, the reasons for his popularity are his opposition to President Obasanjo’s third term bid, his much talked about association with late General Shehu Musa Yar Adu’a, and his reputation as an astute politician. Other less talked-about reasons are his legendary ability to dole out cash to his supporters during campaigns and the perception in certain quarters that he is a champion of minority ethnic groups, and a ‘detribalized’ Nigerian. I want to examine these reasons against his own political antecedents and the role expected of political leaders in a developing country like Nigeria, in order to determine if his popularity is legitimate and well-deserved or not.

Let me begin with the most prominent source of Atiku’s popularity: his unsavory relationship with President Obasanjo and his opposition to the latter’s third term bid. Most people I have come across view this matter through one or more of the following simplistic assumptions: “Atiku is fighting the unpopular Obasanjo and his evil third term agenda and therefore he (Atiku) must be a good person”, “Atiku (a northerner) is fighting a devious southerner and so he is a northern hero”, and “Atiku is a democrat because he is fighting the undemocratic third term bid”. The main flaw in these assumptions is that they focus solely on Obasanjo and ignore Atiku’s own antecedents and what is actually expected of someone in his position. This makes people to erroneously ascribe altruistic reasons to Atiku’s actions, when a more considered look will reveal issues like inordinate ambition, disloyalty, avarice, opportunism and even cowardice on Atiku’s part.

It is difficult to prove that Atiku had altruistic reasons for opposing the third term bid because of the fact that he stood to benefit directly from a failure of the bid. Therefore, what we can use to determine Atiku’s actual motives are his antecedents and his actions during the third term controversy. Here is a man who worked closely with Obasanjo for seven of the eight years that they were in power, took part in all the unpopular decisions made by that government, and participated actively in rigging the 2003 presidential elections, as well as some governorship and legislative elections. It is strange that the only time Atiku would admit that something was wrong with the government was when his own personal ambition of becoming president was threatened by Obasanjo’s third term bid. And even after proclaiming publicly that the same government in which he served for the previous seven years did not achieve much for the country and was undemocratic, he didn’t have the courage to resign. He couldn’t resign because he couldn’t let go of the perks of high office and was scared of what would happen to him if he loses his vice-presidential immunity. What Nigerians expect from the occupant of such a high office are the following: to work closely with the president in the spirit of loyalty and commitment in the service of the country, or to resign honorably whenever he thinks the government has strayed from the path of upholding democracy and improving the lives of Nigerians. Atiku, however, did neither. He colluded in misruling this country when his relationship with the president was good and could not resign honorably even after proclaiming that they have parted ways.

Atiku achieved popularity with many people based on what he opposed rather than what he initiated. And there is no hard evidence that even the opposition to the third term bid was for altruistic reasons. I would like to ask those who are falling over themselves to praise Atiku because of his anti-third term stand the following questions: will he still be their hero if Obasanjo didn’t make the blunder of seeking for a third term? Most of Atiku’s admirers, particularly in the north, admire him only because of their intense dislike for Obasanjo, nothing else. Wouldn’t it be better if Atiku achieves popularity by initiating something that made a difference to the lives of Nigerians? How many such things has he initiated?

A few months before the 2007 elections, Atiku went to the courts to fight Obasanjo and his many victories endeared him to many who viewed him as a believer in the rule of law and a democrat. He might have been legally right on a lot of issues but he was morally wrong on many fronts. There are many things in this world that are legally right but morally wrong. I think Atiku was morally wrong in fighting the president without first resigning from office, he was morally wrong in decamping to another political party while he still remained in government, and he was morally wrong in publicly criticizing a government that he still remained a part of. During the final six to eight months of his vice-presidency, when his relationship with Obasanjo was at its lowest point, Atiku was not performing any duties as vice-president. He did not participate in government meetings or events. Yet he continued to collect all financial benefits attached to his office without any qualms. This free ride that he enjoyed is, to the say the least, unethical and dishonorable. He gave the impression of someone who wanted to eat his cake and have it, and that is not one of the qualities of a hero. Can we as a nation be comfortable with a leader who is bereft of any scruples even if he is legally right? Even Atiku’s much-avowed respect for the judiciary becomes suspect when we remember the time he hurled abuses at Justice Kashim Zanna for cancelling the election of his protégé Boni Haruna in 2003. Is Atiku’s respect for the judiciary only shown when it agrees with him?

Atiku’s association with the late General Shehu Musa Yar Adua has boosted his popularity particularly in the north western part of Nigeria. A lot of people I have spoken to refer to his discipleship under Yar Adua as a source of his political astuteness and invincibility. I usually remind such people that Yar Adua’s organization, the PDM has really never been tested in a general election and any claims of its popularity remains speculative. Atiku’s first national outing was at the Jos SDP convention and he ‘stepped down’ (lost) the primaries to Chief M.K.O. Abiola. In addition, I also remind my friends that the only election Atiku has ever won on his own accord was the governorship election of 1999 in Adamawa state. So how did he get this image of a much-feared, all-conquering, astute, national political bulldozer? In any case, has Atiku really been loyal to General Yar Adua or to his memory? When General Abacha moved against General Yar Adua and his associates, Atiku fled into exile! He left his mentor to suffer and eventually die in detention. How many times did Atiku visit the Abakaliki prisons where Yar Adua was held? Did he attend Yar Adua’s funeral? How can Atiku fail to remain in the country and stand up to Abacha and for his mentor, only to surface later when there is relative political freedom in the country and then claim to be a brave defender of democracy? And has he been loyal to the memory of Yar Adua when he contested against his younger brother in 2007? May be I’m naïve, but my philosophy is if I have a mentor who I hold so dear, and to whom I owe my political career, and I happen to be close to most of his family members, I will decline to run against his brother in any election. Of course, Atiku’s inordinate ambition took the better part of him and he couldn’t consider this aspect of the matter.

A popular appellation that a lot of Nigerians use to describe Atiku is that of an ‘astute politician’. A dictionary I have defines ‘astute’ as ‘shrewd and discerning, especially where personal benefit is to be derived’. After reading this meaning, I wondered if ‘astute’ is even a virtue at all. So, how astute is Atiku? His biggest life time project is certainly his desire to become president of Nigeria. If he was astute, I would expect him to have employed all the tricks in the books to achieve that aim, including pretending to be loyal to Obasanjo if necessary, since in a developing country like ours, the incumbent usually determines who succeeds him. But Atiku, filled with blind ambition, made a grave miscalculation by picking a public fight with Obasanjo, who in turn blocked his chances of becoming Nigerian president. I am not defending Obasanjo here, and I am not a fan of his at all, but I just assume that since the presidency project is so important to Atiku, and, as I showed earlier, he is not necessarily someone who is imbued with patriotism or political morality, he should have shown some shrewdness in dealing with Obasanjo, so as not to jeopardize his chances. I cannot call Atiku an astute politician when his biggest political project has ended in abject failure.

Another important reason for Atiku’s popularity is, of course, his generosity. I am referring here not to philanthropy but to bribing of voters. He seems to have a lot of faith in his ability to buy political support and he has employed it to good effect at every stage of his political career. The question is: is the popularity that is achieved by giving out cash to poor, illiterate and hapless Nigerians legitimate? According to the popular adage, shouldn’t Atiku teach people to catch fish instead of handing it to them? What is his record in helping people to help themselves? The fact that Atiku can come to Adamawa state in 2008 to campaign for his party in the planned re-run of the governorship election, after he and his associates have subjected the state to severe developmental stagnation for eight years, is the best testimony to his reliance on the bribing of voters.

Finally, let me comment about Atiku’s peculiar brand of politics. To him, politics is just a game. He plays it, wins and then savors the victory and the financial benefits that come with it. Atiku’s political role model is said to be Bill Clinton, and he was quoted to have said the following about the former American President: “Clinton is just a fantastic politician. You could tell that he loves politics and I just love politics”. The quote can be found in Atiku’s profile on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6292141.stm). Politics for him has never being about development. That is why Adamawa state did not see any in the past eight years. I’m linking the fate of Adamawa state to Atiku because of the obviously immense influence he had on the governor, Boni Haruna. One of the major roads in Yola, which ironically was named Atiku Abubakar Road remained dusty for the 8 years that his protégé was governor. Same goes for township roads in Mubi where the governor holds a traditional title. Public water supply was grounded throughout the past eight years and so were hospitals. Construction of township roads in Yola was symbolically started but remained uncompleted for eight years. So was the Jimeta main market and a 150 unit housing project. Is eight years not enough to complete these projects? A state university has been started on the site of an old school in Mubi and it is still in its infancy. The only project initiated and successfully completed in the past eight years was the construction of Muhammed Mustapha way in Jimeta, which incidentally was built with donor funds. The access road into Adamawa’s premier secondary school (which Atiku attended) remained in serious disrepair for the eight years that his protégé ruled and so did the road that leads to the state house of assembly. Adamawa state indigenes are usually filled with envy when they visit neighboring states and see what has been achieved by their governors. Atiku’s philosophy of politics just for the fun of it, is a luxury that we cannot afford in this part of the world.

In a developing country like Nigeria, politics must be tied to development and any politician who does not prioritize development automatically loses his legitimacy to lead. I have spoken to many Atiku die-hards and none of them has ever said he supported him because he helped to bring about a certain developmental project to his locality. They point to mostly sentimental reasons for supporting him. Atiku promotes democracy as an abstract concept that is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end (development). In a country like ours, where people go hungry, children and mothers die from lack of health care, youth roam the streets because of a dysfunctional educational system and industries are moribund because of a weak infrastructure, we cannot afford the luxury of supporting a politician for his eloquence, looks, ethnic group or because he is gifted in theatrics. It is time we begin to look at the substance in each of our politicians and award popularity only to those who truly deserve it.

Hamaseyo Mohammed,

Yola, Adamawa State.