|
The Politics Of Personality
By
Reuben Abati
culled from GUARDIAN, April 14,
2006
The reduction of Nigerian
politics to the whims and caprices of individuals as well as personality
differences at various moments in history, has proven to be one of the major
stumbling blocks to the progress and development of Nigeria. It is the
reason why personality clashes in the public arena ought to be carefully
managed and contained with a sense of responsibility by those who are
committed to the common good and by all persons who believe in the idea of
Nigeria. The substance of personality clashes in Nigerian politics is linked
to the desperation for power, greed, ego and an unconscionable discounting
of moral values. Those who get involved in such fights are driven by a sense
of superiority - of their own position, logic and worldview.
We have had since 1960, quite
a few of such conflicts which could have produced different results, if
the right emphasis had been placed on reason rather than passion, and if
the supporters of the principal gladiators had demonstrated less
opportunism. The role of partisan cheer-leaders, occupying the ringside
and fuelling the fire of political differences has proven critical, for
in due course, a minor disagreement is blown out of proportion, myths
are circulated across the battle line, the principal persons are held
hostage to passion by their so-called supporters and so much damage is
done.
These supporters who are
never in short supply in our environment are almost always agents
and defenders of their own ambitions, with a sharp eye on possible
gains. The more refined supporters who are usually in the minority,
enter the battle for reasons of principle and idealism. But in
Nigerian politics, the complex factors of ethnicity and religion
have also further complicated the crisis of leadership competition.
Whatever may be the complexion of the confrontation, what is
projected is not the inevitability of conflict as a given fact of
human existence, but the failure of Nigerian politicians to manage
and resolve conflicts and their "fight-to-finish" mentality. What is
seen is not the place of conflict in a democracy but the violent
temper of Nigerian affairs.
It should perhaps not
be surprising therefore, that the politics of the coming
elections of 2007 has been reduced to that of leadership
competition. The struggle for power is the strongest, and
meanest impulse for human action. It can result in growth; it
can produce tension and stasis as well. The fear that gnaws at
the heart of the nation at the moment is the long-term effect of
the polarisation of political groups along private lines, with
the personal factor dominating and alienating larger ideological
interests, with the result that the political landscape is now
being dominated by persons who are beginning to look and sound
like warlords. The language of political figures has become
shrill, if not yet completely violent; what we see is the
politics of personality.
Differences
between General Yakubu Gowon and Lt. Col Odimegwu Ojukwu (as
he then was) helped to accelerate the disembowelling of the
Nigerian state in the 1967-70 civil war. Both men had tried
the option of dialogue; an agreement was reached in Aburi,
which was peremptorily abandoned by the Nigerian Government
but throughout individual egos blocked the communication
line across the battle lines that had been drawn. Ojukwu
treated Gowon condescendingly. He never hid the fact that he
considered him socially and intellectually inferior. Could
Gowon and Ojukwu have saved the situation? Before then, the
now legendary carpet crossing incident in the Western House
of Assembly in 1952, is yet another instructive example of
how two persons unable to resolve their differences can
throw a large community into difficult circumstances. This
incident deepened the existing rivalry between the leader of
the Yoruba, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe,
differences that were easily absorbed by their followers,
and which till date remain part of the sub-text of the
subtle intricacies of Igbo-Yoruba relations in Nigerian
politics. The rivalry between Awo and Zik could be traced
even farther back to the factional and ethnic wrangling in
the Nigerian Youth Movement between 1937 and 1941.
For the rest
of their lives, Awo and Zik treated each other with
great courtesy but they were never friends. Awo's
followers treated Zik and his supporters with suspicion,
and for the opposite group, the contempt was mutual. The
educated Yoruba elite who felt uncomfortable with Awo's
politics found an easy way of asserting themselves and
advertised their difference by joining Zik's political
group. It is safe to conclude that if Awo and Zik had
worked together, the course of Nigerian history could
have been different. The same can be said of Chief
Obafemi Awolowo and Chief S.L.A. Akintola. For more than
40 years, the feud between these two great Yoruba sons
determined the colour of Yoruba politics. And yet both
men had extra-ordinary talents. While they worked
together, Western Nigeria reaped enormous benefits.
The
quarrel between them not only marred Yoruba
politics, it facilitated the crisis that brought the
First Republic to a sad end. At the personal level,
it divided their individual families and associates
into camps of passion. The two families may have
moved on with their individual lives but two key
issues inherited from the Awo/Akintola crisis remain
eternally relevant in Nigerian politics: should a
Yoruba party insist on ethnic and ideological
homogeneity as a basis for political affiliation or
should Yoruba politics be determined by expediency,
and the need to share power at the centre by all
means? In the Second Republic, the feud between
Chief Adekunle Ajasin and his Deputy and later
political opponent, Akin Omoboriowo resulted in such
conflagration that brought the Second Republic to a
sudden halt. Dare Babarinsa has already described
how that singular event turned not just Ondo State
but the entire country into a House of War, with
fatal consequences. In 1993, one of the reasons
proffered for the annulment of the Presidential
election won by the late Chief MKO Abiola, was that
certain military officers, apart from General
Ibrahim Babangida, did not like MKO's face. Because
some officers did not want Abiola as President, the
entire country was in turmoil for close to seven
years. If Abiola had been allowed to claim his
mandate, the course of recent Nigerian history will
certainly have been different.
Today, in Anambra and Oyo States, this politics
of personality has also proven to be costly.
Nigerian leaders owe themselves a duty to learn
from history. The history of Nigerian politics
and its pitfalls is fairly recent. No man who is
without a sense of history should be allowed to
hold a position of authority in the public
space. Such men are dangerous both to history
and to society. They will provide the wrong
example for their followers; they will inspire a
devaluation of politics. Nigerian politics ought
to be driven by higher moral codes, the absence
of which is responsible for the elevation of the
politics of personality into the central
ingredient of the public policy process.
These thoughts bear special resonance in the
light of the present feud between President
Olusegun Obasanjo and his Deputy, Atiku
Abubakar. The President has not uttered a
word, in response to the public attack on
his person, and his government by his own
Vice-President. But his associates have more
than spoken for him. And they are doing so,
with so much venom and spite. When the Vice
President visited Lagos last weekend, a
rented crowd of party supporters laid siege
on his Ikoyi house. They booed him, called
him names and asked him to resign his
position as Vice President. They also
accosted him at the Presidential wing of the
Murtala Mohammed Airport where they repeated
the offensive.
The protesters breached national
security, violated airport regulations
and generally conducted themselves in a
riotous manner in the open. Neither the
SSS nor the Police deemed it necessary
to disperse them for posing a threat to
public order. Their leader and
spokesman, Muyiwa Collins has been
boasting that whenever Atiku shows up in
Lagos again, he will receive the same
treatment. He has not been invited by
the SSS for issuing such a threat, and
for leading an illegal march on the
airport. The security agents who a week
earlier, had stopped a meeting of
anti-Third Term politicians in Abuja on
the ground that no police permit had
been given for the meeting found no
cause to ask the pro-Obasanjo group that
abused Atiku, and took over the airport,
for a police permit. Should a pro-Atiku
group decide to treat the President in a
similar fashion now, or in the future,
where would that leave us? Already, a
pro-Atiku group has described the
incident as "an attack on the North". It
has given hints of "possible
retaliation."
The President and his Deputy
owe us the responsibility of
managing their personal differences
as statesmen. We recommend to them,
these immortal words penned by Chief
Obafemi Awolowo in his Thoughts on
Nigerian Constitution (1966):
"...good leadership involves
self-conquest, and self-conquest
is attainable only by
cultivating as a first step,
what some applied psychologists
have termed the regime of mental
magnitude."
Obasanjo/Atiku rivalry should
not become the main issue in
Nigerian politics. Both men
are distracting our
attention with endless noise
emanating from the
Presidency and the PDP,
conveying the impression of
a breakdown of order at the
top. Atiku may not realise
his ambition of succeeding
his boss. And his boss may
not get the Third Term that
is causing so much tension.
But whatever the future
holds for both men, they owe
Nigerians a debt of
gratitude for the
opportunities that they have
enjoyed in the past seven
years. With both parties
having made their positions
clear, can we now have some
decorum on all sides,
please?
|
