(Published in the Public Agenda newspaper of 19 May 2006, p. 8)
HERE is a theory why I wouldn’t want to be in Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s shoes or sit in his chair at this material point in time: most Nigerians would rejoice if something awfully negative should suddenly happen to the President. By ‘negative,’ I mean grievous watershed occurrences of shattering magnitude, such as a military or civilian coup against his government, a debilitating heart attack, or even death. Of course, I am not praying for any of these to happen to the number one citizen; that would be not only immoral but, by our laws, probably criminal. But judging by the avalanche of dissent and teeth-gritting assailing our polity today, it is easy to surmise that there are many who would dance if such things could occur to the grand old man.
How times change! Way back in 2003 after Obasanjo had won the election and made that historical come-back as Nigeria’s leader, a rumour had broken out that the yet to be inaugurated President had died. A tantalising side to the wicked rumour added that he was killed, and all the accusing fingers pointed northwards. Even otherwise intelligent persons from the south-west—such as academicians, journalists and human rights activists—found themselves embroiled in the crazy fist-shaking. Suddenly northerners living in the south became unsafe. It had to take a presidential announcement from Baba himself before nerves cooled. “I dey kampe!” he cracked in a humour reminiscent of the Abiola days.
The north had found the accusation of being responsible for Baba’s murder not only funny but also indecent. Was it not the north which stood firm and ensured that Obasanjo was released from prison, ‘dashed’ him money to contest the election, ran with him even against the mainstream view in his own village (where he was unelectable) and did everything necessary to make him president?
The amount of universal sympathy Obasanjo enjoyed in those days has gradually evaporated. Today, the country is divided on whether, in the event of the man falling into a ditch and breaking his ribs, citizens should laugh or cry. One can risk a bet that majority would be on the cheering and back-slapping side.
Anger is palpable in the land; you can see it on the faces of the famished multitudes, sniff it within those cloying smokes in the Niger Delta, read it on tired visages of men and women ‘who had seen it all before,’ and lean against it like a brick wall in the hearts of the youth, most of whose dreams have turned out to be horrid nightmares.
It is said that a good man gives listening ear to his peers. Our President’s peers have on a number of occasions spoken to him, some say in private while we get to know what some others tell him publicly. I hear that some of those that went public with their admonition were first of all frustrated with seeing no result of the confidential advice they gave him. Generals IMB Haruna and TY Danjuma must have fallen into this category. Their timely advice against his perceived commitment to cling to power beyond 2007, given to the President publicly this week, was a weighty addition to what he has been receiving this past one year, openly or privately.
Now it’s not even guaranteed that Nelson could agree to eat in the same bowl with Baba without asking him to go and wash his hands first.
Your guess is as good as mine: Obasanjo will not use their advice. IBM’s letter must have by now been used as a toilet tissue and his wiseman’s words cast aside. Baba’s thought might have been, “IBM, na you sabi-oo.” The consolation for the two gentlemen is that the nation has been reassured, by no less heavyweights than such peers of the President, that its position against tenure extension and its opposition is justified after all. Na OBJ sabi if he cleans his mouth with the letter or not.
The fact remains that the path on which the nation is being forced is, as IBM wrote, “a path of anarchy.” Indeed, anybody with the faintest ability to see beyond his nose can espy the quagmire into which the nation is heading.
And this prospect makes the President’s job all the more unenviable. Who would want to take this kind of job where a wide spectrum of the civil society would want to have you drop dead any day? It may be said by the President’s supporters, especially those in the pro-third term couch, that only a coward would fear to rule just because he is disliked. But it’s also a truism that a leader who inspires fear among his people would always attract loathing for himself. The result is that he will have to force himself upon an unwilling populace, thus ruling with iron hand in what is popularly known as dictatorship. It happened in pre-war Germany and in the USSR, among other places. And it is happening in Nigeria.
The lesson from those places where the people yearned for the overthrow or sudden demise of their rulers is that at the end of all the hue and cry, the latter came to grief, ending in a huge ignominy the like of which had not been seen in the crystal ball of their apothecaries.
But disliked leaders have the opportunity to save their image—by crushing their ego and making an abrupt U-turn before hurtling off the cliff at the end of the bumpy road. If I were Obasanjo, I would make an unequivocal announcement to the effect that I have no intention of altering the constitution to favour me or seeking a self-serving tenure extension and I would order all those leading the unpopular campaign to beat it. Even though the President has betrayed his lust (through a variegated ploys) for succeeding himself in the 2007 Election—if ever that election will hold—he can exploit the opportunity of his annoying silence on the matter and claim he never made a clear statement on the third term project.
Of course, I lack the craft by which the politics game is played. I also do not keep marabouts and all-knowing do-gooders who choose for rulers what to do with the overwhelming power of incumbency. But my sense of history teaches me, for instance, that Nelson Mandela was able to preserve his integrity by simply quitting the stage when the ovation was loudest. He had the chance to serve two terms as provided by the South African constitution and was enjoying global acclaim, yet he refused and handed the reins to his deputy. The country is the better for it.
In retrospect, our own President used to compare favourably with South Africa’s grand old man, at least before the 2003 polls. He was an eminent person, well liked by his country men and touted by world bodies as a symbol of humanness. He was the toast of world leaders. Now it’s not even guaranteed that Nelson could agree to eat in the same bowl with Baba without asking him to go and wash his hands first. That’s another strong reason one would not want to touch that chair on which Obasanjo sits today.
