By Douglas Anele
The celebrated playwright declared, “In the process of our inquiries, we solicited the help of a foreign embassy whose government, we learnt, was actually on the same trail; thanks to its independent investigation into some money laundering that involved the Central Bank. That name, we confidently learnt, has also been passed on to President Jonathan. When he is ready to abandon his accommodating policy towards the implicated, even the criminalised…we shall gladly supply that name.”
Now, my questions are, if the name of a top official of the CBN sponsoring Boko Haram has already been forwarded to Mr. President, what is the point in Soyinka saying that if Jonathan does so-and-so or refrains from this-and-that “we shall gladly supply that name”? Why is the otherwise bold Soyinka suddenly pusillanimous in naming publicly the top CBN official?
If indeed some Boko Haram members revealed the identities of the sect’s sponsors to Davis, as he claimed, did Prof. Soyinka crosscheck the information to ascertain its veracity, especially in the case of Lt. Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika, who actually fought very hard to subdue the sect while he was Chief of Army Staff? Within Boko Haram proper, what is the status of those members that purportedly spoke with Davis, and could they have had access to the kind of information he allegedly received from them? Is it not possible that Davis’ informants actually sold dummies or half-truths to him as a strategy to deflect attention from other real sponsors of Boko Haram?
Meanwhile, inasmuch as I agree with Prof. Soyinka that President Goodluck Jonathan’s government has failed to confront decisively the security challenges facing the country right now, for someone who despises Boko Haram and would want it destroyed the practice of stipulating amphibolous conditions before giving vital information to Mr. President in that regard is, to put it mildly, disingenuous.
Anyway if, as Soyinka stated, names of the sponsors of Boko Haram have been communicated to Jonathan, the renowned playwright can go further by mobilising his considerable national and international clout to pressurise Mr. President who, in turn, could galvanise relevant security agencies to investigate the matter thoroughly and prosecute the alleged sponsors in case there is good evidence linking them to the sect.
Prof. Soyinka’s description of President Jonathan’s supporters who put up banners exhorting Nigerians to Bring Back Jonathan as a bunch of self-seeking morons and sycophants spurred by electoral desperation ignores the fact that human beings, even in their loftiest acts of charity, are ultimately self-seeking, although there are qualitative differences in ends and the means used in achieving those ends.
There are excellent reasons for condemning the crude Machiavellism that motivated those behind the banners in question; but they are not moronic at all. On the contrary, the people involved were hedging their bets in case President Jonathan decides to go for a second term next year and gets re-elected. Certainly, this type of ingratiating survivalist calculus is not new. After all, some “highly respected” Nigerians, for selfish reasons, supported bloody coup d’états, brutal military dictators, and the callous annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential elections.
Again, Soyinka’s claim concerning feeble-minded sycophants who “chose to plumb the abyss of self-degradation and drag the nation to their level” is inaccurate: it presumes, wrongly, that the country is somehow on an elevated moral pedestal and Jonathan’s overzealous supporters are dragging it down. The truth is that Nigeria, presently, is in a moral quagmire from top to bottom: she is experiencing a serious crisis of values, to the extent that religion and universities in the country, two institutions which ordinarily should serve as beacon of hope in a decadent society, have been severely compromised.
In fact, every aspect of our national life is highly contaminated with moral leprosy. Therefore, in terms of self-degradation and ethical degeneration that Prof. Soyinka talked about, the country is in the abyss already. What we are witnessing now and would continue to experience in the near future unless something drastic happens to wake us from profound moral and spiritual slumber are worsening manifestations of a society in an existential ethical cliffhanger.
Of course, not all Nigerians are depraved; there are morally cultivated Nigerians in different areas of human endeavour doing their best and contributing quietly to national development. The problem is that the dominant moral atmosphere in the country is polluted, especially because parents, guardians, teachers and almost everyone in positions of authority and influence do not lead by good example.
As a result, indiscipline, dishonesty, get-rich-quick mentality, violence and other symptoms of arrested psychosocial development have reached unprecedented levels. In our view, only a moral-spiritual revolution can bring about positive behavioural transformation the country sorely needs. But the billion-naira question is: who or what will ignite the revolution?
President Goodluck Jonathan’s 2014 Independence Day anniversary broadcast provides an opportunity for harvesting shibboleths, since such speeches in the past were full of hot air. Surprisingly, there were few shibboleths this time around, probably because the address was brief and his speechwriters have improved their skills. The major lacuna in the President’s speech is the ringing lack of commitment to personal sacrifice by the leaders for positive national transformation, beginning with himself.
It is good that the President praised our soldiers for their gallant efforts against rampaging terrorists; it is appropriate that he used the occasion to appreciate contributions of the medical personnel who helped prevent the spread of Ebola virus disease. Yet, I did not read one sentence where President Jonathan stated unambiguously the sacrifice he would make as an example for Nigerians to emulate.
True leadership is not about fine speeches or living a life of bulimic materialism and revolting opulence rooted in corruption. It is about service, humility, contentment, and indefatigable determination to cater for all citizens, especially the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. Take the example of Jose Mujica, President of Uruguay in Latin America. Like Jonathan, Mujica came from a poor background. However, given the unpredictable nature of human existence, both men are at the pinnacle of political power in their respective countries. The Uruguayan President does not have a doctorate degree like our President.
Still, there is a lot President Jonathan and other Nigerian political leaders can learn from the Uruguayan leader. The first one is modest lifestyle and disdain for materialism. Unlike Jonathan who lives in a fortified mansion and travels in presidential jets, President Mujica lives contentedly in a small one-bedroom farmhouse with his wife, and donates 90% of his salary to charity.
Moreover, the Uruguayan leader is categorical in his condemnation of materialism, consumerism and unjust distribution of wealth in the society. Second, his philosophy of leadership is consistent with the thinking of some of the world’s greatest leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. President Mujica is not afraid to criticise the irrational pomposity associated with leadership. For example, he believes that as soon as politicians start climbing up the ladder, they suddenly become kings. The pomp of office is a relic from the feudal past. Therefore, he says, “You need a palace, a red carpet, a lot of people behind you saying ‘Yes sir.’ I think all that is awful.”
As already adumbrated, President Jonathan did not in his independence address promise to make personal sacrifice as a symbol of paradigm-shift in leadership style. He did not even say a word about the unnecessarily exorbitant cost of governance and measures to reduce it. That is in keeping with the reality that for members of the ruling elite Nigeria is George Orwell’s Animal Farm writ large! Concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment