History is replete with tales of political figures who viewed their reign as a mere extension of their egos and idiosyncrasies. In Nigeria, the aggressive pursuit of a clannish agenda by successive military dictators in particular and the approximation of the latter with the state and its symbols have meant a profound diminishing of the constructive role of vital national institutions. Over the years, paranoia and intolerance toward dissent have been the hallmarks of almost every national government, but nowhere has the laager mindset of a leader and his fellow clique members been more acutely on display than under the current imperial dynasty in Abuja. “L’État, c’est moi”, the 17th century French monarch, Louis X1V (1638-1715), is alleged to have said in reaction to those who wanted to maintain a separation of powers with its guarantees for the respect of representative national institutions. “I am the state”! The finality of those words, conceivably enunciated with a note of casual self-assurance, did speak to the king’s determination to have his way. In the final analysis, it is immaterial whether or not the French monarch did actually pronounce the offensive line seeking to equate his autocratic impositions with the moral authority of the French state. What is important is the fact that, as an absolute monarch, Loius X1V saw himself as personifying the state and thereby proceeded to project, through his deeds, an impetuous disregard for representative government as an expression of the sovereign will of the people. Although realising that he had the obligation to govern on behalf of his people, he believed that “his power was derived from God and that he was responsible to God alone”. But if the practices of a 17th century absolute ruler were considered by the French Fronde or opposition as draconian and as such needed to be fought, the various attempts by the current occupant of Aso Rock to cast the Nigerian democratic project in his own image must be seen as reprehensible and very worrying indeed.Of course, President Obasanjo’s autocratic disposition to governance is nothing new. We have seen it enacted with numbing regularity since 1999. The brazen attempts to transform the National Assembly into an essentially redundant gathering would seem to have succeeded with the 419 elections of 2003. Today, we have a legislative body whose conduct, as can be gauged from the actions of its leadership, has led Nigerians to conclude that our country is under a one-man rule which is increasingly relying on the instruments of coercion at its disposal to maintain its stranglehold on the society and its resources. The recourse to coercion has been both subtle and blatant. Apart from religion and ethnicity, violence and emotional blackmail have been some of the potent weapons employed by the Obasanjo regime to divide the opposition and rally the unsuspecting to the president’s side. Recently, the police were unleashed on citizens protesting against the last fuel price hike. Scores of Nigerians were killed in the police intervention. The president was unrepentant. Typically, he railed against the leadership of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), accusing them of subversion and wanting to overthrow his government! Yet, the irony of this laughable accusation was not lost on Nigerians. At one level, as is now common knowledge, it is the PDP-led Obasanjo administration which is doing everything to subvert Nigerian democracy and not imaginary or perceived enemies of democracy elsewhere. At another level, Nigerians remember that it is the same NLC leadership which has in the not too distant past, played ignominious roles as a pro-regime outfit ready to hound those who did not see eye to eye with the president on matters of leadership and governance. To criticise Obasanjo and his ways was seen by an NLC leader like Oshiomhole as an attack against democracy and the Nigerian state. So, in a sense, the likes of Oshiomhole have contributed to the deterioration of our condition – the attempt by one man to equate his fantasies (and probably those of his allies) to the will of the Nigerian people. At any rate, the Obasanjo regime’s intolerance toward dissent would seem to have engendered an official discourse which at first glance looks innocuous. It is the “patriotic” discourse which considers opposition views and criticisms of the regime and its ways as anti-democratic, if not as the ultimate betrayal of the Nigerian ideal. That this smacks of intellectual quackery and intolerance does not seem to bother the president and his acolytes. Only a few days ago, at a convention of the Nigerian Guild of Editors in Abuja , President Obasanjo reportedly berated the non-complacent segments of the local media, accusing its practitioners of harbouring what he termed an “undemocratic” posture. These “...sections of the media have failed to appreciate the value of our democracy. Indeed, they, at times, appear dedicated to undermining our democratic enterprise”, he stated. It is funny to hear Mr. President talk this way. A case of the pot calling the kettle black? The non-conformist national media is even invited by the President – with a touch of subtle emotional blackmail, I must say - to do some self-criticism in order to purge itself of a perceived “undemocratic” bias! “They seem to have forgotten so soon, where we were just a few years ago...”, we are reminded. The problem with this type of self-serving admonition is that those doing the preaching seem to have conveniently developed amnesia as to their “capital sins” against democracy and the Nigerian people. They appear more concerned with placing the blame elsewhere than with the critical engagement of all the strategic sections of our society. As a man who was himself a victim of a repressive government, Obasanjo should also think of the Christian entreaty which enjoins all to first remove the log in their eyes before seeking to remove the speck in those of their neighbours. As for the non-complacent segments of the national media, they should not feel any obligation to change course and toe the government line, no matter what. While the lessons of our recent past should not be ignored, that cannot be used as a scarecrow to extract deference toward President Obasanjo and his regime. Obasanjo, like any other leader, must be judged according to his record. Period. It is puzzling, to say the least, for the President to accuse some sections of the Nigerian media of “undermining our democratic enterprise”. I hope his position is not partly based on what a commentator has aptly described as the “illiterate” readings in some local newspapers of the editorial stance or views expressed in the non-complacent sections of the national print media. It is most likely that what we are dealing with here is a mindset which is increasingly blurring the lines between the position or even the person of the president and the Nigerian state in all its ramifications. It is, as has been noted above, the type of laager mindset which in its schizophrenic temper seems to be saying “I, Obasanjo, am the state, any uncomplimentary appreciation of my ways and actions is necessarily an attack on the Nigerian project and what it represents”. This is scary. When a leader starts to perceive reality from the point of view of simplistic certainties, it is only a matter of time before the nation is embarked on the perilous journey of manichean postulations. Enemies begin to lurk in all nooks and corners. You are either with us or against us. This chilling thinking, sooner or later, starts to inform the practice of governance as is apparently the case under the current dispensation. The people are suffering – politically and economically – largely because of the paranoid mindset of the Obasanjo government. A few days to the last Commonwealth jamboree in Abuja, pro-democracy activists in Lagos became the latest victims to receive physical punishment at the hands of the police. And what was their crime? Daring to tell the world that Nigerians are fed up with the excesses of the Obasanjo dictatorship! The editors of the non-complacent sections of the national media should count themselves lucky. So far, they would seem to have been subjected to the president’verbal admonitions only. A lot of journalists have not been that lucky. Many of them have had unpleasant encounters with the regime’s henchmen. Early this month, the human rights advocacy group, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report on the dismal human rights record of the Obasanjo administration.It is safe to say that our attempts in the last four-odd years to nurture democracy in Nigeria have yielded very little positive results, thanks to the failure of leadership at all levels of governance and especially at that of the presidency. The Nigerian democratic space has shrunk to a point where the shadow of one man and his schemes looms large, in effect giving a local flavour to the concept of absolute imperial rule. With much of the NLC leadership kowtowing to him as well as large segments of the media adopting a deferent stance, the president has proceeded to wage a war of attrition against some of the remaining symbols of hope in the likes of ASUU, the non-complacent segments of the media and the few credible civil society groups. With the PDP virtually in his pocket, there is the genuine fear that if Nigerians don’t heed these alarm signals, three years from now, they may be helpless in preventing the emergence of a political leadership which, in many significant ways, will be a replica of what we have today.Aonduna Tondu.New York
|
RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Posted by Robot| 13.11.2005 14:27