|
What is Mrs. Clinton’s Offense By Tochukwu Ezukanma
The founding fathers of the United States of America held that it is “self evident that all men are created equal”. That was a revolutionary declaration by the standards of the 18th Century when the USA was established. It must have been the inexorable commitment to this creed, over the years, by series of American governments and public servants that made the country what it is: the most affluent, most powerful and most politically dynamic in the history of the world. Also, it must be the unyielding repudiation of this saintly credo by Nigerian governments and politicians that placed Nigeria where she is: the most lawless, most corrupt, and probably, the most unlivable place on earth.
Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the United States of America’s Secretary of State was recently in Nigeria. She was bearing a message from the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, for the Nigerian ruling elite. Obama, a Black man, the son of an African immigrant who was elected the president of the USA, a predominantly White country, epitomizes the American creed of the equality of all men. And it is the same statement of belief that provided the philosophical foundation of Obama’s message delivered through Mrs. Clinton.
The message was simple. In my own understanding of Mrs. Clinton’s speech, she was essentially saying that, as all men are created equal, all should be equal before the law. And as such, the wealth of the nation should be used for the benefit of all. It is wrong for a privileged and extravagant few to expropriate it, concentrate it in few hands and squandered it, while the rest of the people wallow in hardship and poverty. Therefore, Nigerian rulers should stop stealing and wasting the common wealth, and instead use it for the betterment of all.
No one man or group of men has the moral authority to impose themselves on the people through fraudulent elections. So, elections should be made free and fair. Those elected to public office are not a special group that can do as they please, but are elected to serve the people, and therefore, should be accountable to the people and responsive to their needs and aspirations. That thus far, the Nigerian politicians have failed at all levels, national, state and local government, both in their service and accountability to the people. Politics should not be solely driven by personal ambitions, personal interests and party loyalty, but by the good of the country. Personal ambition, personal and party interests should all be subordinated to the public good.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in Mrs. Clinton’s message. What then, is her offense? Why would any one take offense at what was essentially a well–intended advice from the president of a friendly nation. Incidentally, her message bruised the sensitivity of those who had designed to remain in power for 60 years through fraudulent elections. It hurt the susceptibilities of those who are consumed by greed, giddy with power and flush with wealth, and are contemptuously indifferent to the increasing economic plight of the generality of Nigerians. It offended the sensibility of those politicians whose involvement in politics is not motivated by ideological belief and/or political conviction, but just selfish interests. Also, the political thugs, mountebanks, racketeers, freebooters and bumbling nincompoops that muscled their way into power through fraudulent elections resent her message. For most of them will automatically be weeded out of the political system once there can be free and fair elections and the standards of political morality elevated in Nigeria.
David Mark, in his riposte to Mrs. Clinton’s speech, said “the US and anyone else cannot dictate for the government how it should govern the people.” His statement is most groundless because there are universally accepted standards of behavior. And those whose activities fall unbearably below these standards are odious, and, as a result, are subject to universal reproach. His remark is as unfounded as that of an irresponsible and extravagant man who is saying, in justification to his starving his children, denying them the basic necessities of life, and refusing to pay for their education, “this is my house and nobody should tell me what to do in my own house”.
Although this man will be operating in his supposed purview, his house, his behavior will definitely elicit the revilement of his neighbors. Nigeria joined the global rally against Apartheid in South African. Was Apartheid not the internal affairs of the South Africans? Of course it was. But the social injustice and atrocities inherent in that systematic degradation of a Black majority by a White minority were ineffable; it aroused the conscience of the world. The problems of Nigeria: the brazen thievery, abuse of power, waste and mismanagement; the emasculation of a resourceful, gifted and able populace; and the running aground of a stupendously endowed country by a morally bankrupt political class are stirring the conscience of the other countries of the world. Quite naturally, it is beginning to educe their censure. And as such, Mrs. Clinton advice to the Nigerian power elite to change their evil ways is pertinent.
The Yar’Adua’s administration, and by extension, his political party, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) promised to restore the rule of law, curb official corruption and reform the electoral process. If they, in any way, intend to make good on their promise, what then is their problem with Mrs. Clinton. After all, all she has done is to ask them to do as they have already promised. If they are genuinely committed to their promises, what then is her offence?
|