Nigeria’s undertaker: opportunities Jonathan refused to seize by Segun Balogun There is much more to President Goodluck Jonathan than meets the prying eye. I believe he is deeply connected with Nigeria’s fate, maybe in more ways than he realises or is prepared to acknowledge. I make this statement cautiously, knowing that we have different philosophical leanings. There may be more, but I have three items on my list of opportunities Jonathan refused to seize. Number one: Let me begin by saying that Jonathan has no reason to be the most vilified president in the world as he claimed sometime ago. His political profile embodies the typical “grass to grace” story every Nigerian loves. The manner he became the Acting President in 2010 – by way of groundswell revolution – was the perfect moment that etched him on the masses’ hearts, despite lacking in charisma required for such feat. To put it mildly, he got, with a certain dignifying grace, what many others, despite their socio-economic and political qualification, intense scheming, lobbying, and grooming did not get. But for me, the most striking thing about President Jonathan is the semblance his story has with June 1993 presidential election. That election was a people’s movement. It was the people versus the military oligarchy. The only other time we have had such movement was in 2010 when the people demanded that the then Vice President Jonathan be made Acting President. That time, it was the people versus the “cabal.” The semblance is even deeper. Not many knew that the much maligned zoning principle started in the build up to 1993 election. There were no signatories to the principle as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had, but after other elective positions had been zoned to other regions, presidency was reserved for the North. But late Moshood Abiola conquered it in Jos, venue of the Social Democratic Party’s primary election, to emerge the party’s candidate. In a similar stride, President Jonathan defeated the humongous PDP and its zoning principle. That is where the semblance stopped. There is however a significant difference between them. People ought to be leaders before they become candidates. As the case should normally be, Abiola was already a leader before becoming a candidate; but the same cannot be said of Jonathan. Therefore, it is this connection with Abiola that he needed most to define his political career and ideology – he really did not have a better choice since fate brought it his way. Doing that could have birthed his leadership quest, something he may now never get. Some may argue that President Jonathan does not need this connection, but some politicians in the southwest who always wanted to seize every moment to be associated with the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and their counterparts in the southeast, who always displayed the picture of the late Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, beside theirs, are no fools. Today, it is a herculean task trying to define Jonathan’s political philosophy, even though he has been a politician for more than a decade now. It is no surprise that the nation’s ship has been drifting aimlessly on the sea of time and he is finding it hard to steer it on a steady course. You need a philosophy to do that because succeeding as a politician goes beyond delivering dividends of democracy.A classic example is that of former Lagos State Governor, Lateef Jakande, who lost political leadership and relevance despite his unparalleled achievement in office. Apart from failing to seize the opportunity to define his political philosophy, Jonathan also failed to consolidate the people’s movement that brought him into power. We were literally waiting for him to lead; he literally refused to. His people, since the days of Isaac Boro, have been on the quest for resource control. I thought they would get it once he became the president. Some may argue it would be difficult for him to do it but if it took him only six months to destroy PDP and align every of the party’s apparatchiks to a remote control in his pocket, why not resource control? Secondly, immediately he became president, many northern politicians became activists and started complaining of bad governance. One northern senator even said the country will break because the roads are bad. I chuckled when I read it and wondered whether the distinguished senator just arrived from Mars. But their sudden activism presented an opportunity that would have limited discordant tunes, had President Jonathan decided to pursue restructuring reform by negotiating according to regional interests. No doubt, it would not have been an easy task but it would have been an honourable task to embrace, seeing it is one we must have to do someday. Now the third missed opportunity. President Jonathan is the only president in the Third Republic to enjoy speedy passage of budget. The 2013 Appropriation Act was passed by the National Assembly in 2012. There are people who believe a section of the country is out to make the country “ungovernable” for him but while this is still debatable, I found it laughable. It is a propaganda that will not fly at all anywhere that good reason prevails. The only way to make the country ungovernable in its strictest sense is to deny the government the budget. First quarter of 2010 was a period Governor Fashola will never forget. His administration hit its lowest ebb in terms of performance. Despite his versatility, he had no solution to late passage of budget and the state became ungovernable. But Jonathan had the best budget. Implementing it has been the problem and yet some people claim his poor performance so far is due to sabotage. Something tells me the president knows what he is doing; he is cleverly pursuing his intention. But for the remainder of his tenure, let me assume that he means well for the country and hope he stops subscribing to wrong counsel; else, he will shoulder all the blame in the end as he risks being the most vilified political office holder, even after leaving office. For failing to define a political philosophy, consolidate on the people’s movement, and implement a thorough budget, Jonathan failed to berth a new nation and therefore must be blamed for everything untoward in Nigeria. I am under no illusion that my conclusion will not be disparaged by Jonathan’s watchdogs. They will come out to say that Nigeria’s problem did not start with him. So, I have three points for them. First, Jonathan cannot be compared with previous presidents who came in through the back door. We did not expect much from them; in fact we saw them as anti-people. Secondly, the fact that Lucifer, an archangel decided to become the devil does not mean Archangel Michael should do same. So, if previous leaders did not help us; shouldn’t Jonathan? Thirdly, there is a safety rule that states: “if you see someone’s error and do not take action to correct it, the error from then on becomes yours”.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:42:51 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015