14 Jan 2006 |
|
|
The drama this past week involving the son of the president, Dr Gbenga Obasanjo, is indicative of the peculiar quixotic/pragmatic paradox of this country. On the one hand (please note this as ‘hand one’ and subsequent points in the appropriate ‘hand’), there is the relative non-issue of a man engaging in, among other things, one of the nation’s favourite pastimes--armchair criticism--supposedly within the confines of a ‘private discussion’. And then there is the significant matter of the personages--from a newsman’s point of view--involved therein, beginning from the lead discussant to some others mentioned in the discussion. Like an Indian goddess, this matter has many hands Imbuing this subject with the likeness of that Indian goddess that has more arms than the usual two would see another hand holding the important points raised by the controversial conversation. Yet an additional hand would clutch on to the sleazier elements, the details of which, having been thoroughly digested by all, need not concern us here. Having identified four different aspects to the discussion under review, we may begin the process of elimination. There can be little doubt that ‘hand one’ is of little consequence. As it is well known, in living rooms, restaurants, motor parks, airports, indeed virtually everywhere, armchair critics abound, holding forth on everything from the perennial corruption to spousal abuse among serving public officers. ‘Hand two’ is trickier to deal with. Should the words of a person be considered important because he happens to have the blood of a very senior public servant running in his veins? Does combining that with ‘name-slaying’ (instead of name-dropping) up the ante? Your correspondent takes the position that, although every time someone screams ‘thief!’ doesn’t necessarily mean there’s one about, it may be risky to become nonchalant. Some ‘hands’ are worth more than others ‘Hand three’ is a darling. A failed bank’s funds used to fight the 2003 elections? Americans passing messages that contrast with their public utterances through the man? Hmm. “A lot of intelligent and smart corrupt people,†possibly among them governors such and such? Few things bring the sort of conviction that flows from having widespread suspicions supported however transiently. As such, without doubt, ‘hand three’ on its own has enough warmth to heat things up if not burn a few people for good. The final ‘hand’ though has probably too much heat for its own good. Besides the obvious mud slinging, there is an incredible display of concern with how the lead discussant is perceived that raises more than eyebrows. Protesting that one is not stupid and asking if one doesn’t sound intelligent enough are pointers to a deeper malaise that this writer would rather not speculate on. Moreover, the ludicrous idea--formed from one episode in one part of the country--that “press boys are a hungry bunch,†certainly cannot endear the purveyor of that thought to those in this corner. Neither does a vainglorious ill-feeling towards dead and living relatives make an ‘intelligent’ man more agreeable. Yet one believes the business of public commentary, while stemming from the personal, requires a separation of the private from the more important purpose of pursuing the common good. As such, regardless of its unpleasantness, ‘hand four’ cannot be ignored for it is in the sordid details that some interesting revelations are to be found. Whether these are matters that can be forwarded with adequate evidence to Mallam Nuhu Ribadu’s EFCC for possible prosecutions remain to be seen. Now though denials, as would be expected, have poured forth, your correspondent, having reached Omoyele Sowore--the other party in the ‘private discussion’--via email, has no reason at this time to question the major points of the chat. This drama is good for Nigeria Whatever the case may be, of greater importance, there is a sense in which this entire drama has worked positively for Nigeria and Nigerians. It is in this light that some usefulness in the commotion caused by the ‘private discussion’ can be seen. At least on one level, there has been an ‘insider’ depiction of some of the murkier aspects to the conduct of the nation’s business. And the younger Obasanjo’s seemingly unshakeable if mistaken belief in his father’s readiness to give up power in 2007 is a point to his credit, even if some may choose to see that as a red herring to be dismissed out of hand. Yet, the son’s reasoning on this matter is more convincing--even if wretchedly so--than the parent’s clever-by-half “I’ll uphold the Constitution†promise, when Nigerians know changing the Constitution can’t be harder than rigging an election, especially with the agent-provocateurs around him. How, you may wonder, can your correspondent find faith in the younger Obasanjo over the elder? The answer is embedded in the quixotic/pragmatic paradox of this country that perennially defies logic.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.