FEATURE ARTICLE

Frisky LarrThursday, January 4, 2007
advertisement
[email protected]
Germany

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS


POOR OBASANJO:
A HELPLESS PUNCHING BAG FOR WANNABE PHILOSOPHERS


n my days as a student I remember going through a course in "Political Thoughts and Philosophy". My lecturer, was a popular Turkish Professor who later became a government functionary and was subsequently killed in a car bomb by Islamic fundamentalists. Prof. Ahmet Taner Kislali started off that semester by calling on students to visualize themselves sitting in a circle with a huge lamp at the center of the floor. Sitting in one segment of the circle, the Prof. continued, students were to imagine him (the Prof.) calling out to the student sitting opposite him to identify the color of the lamp. From his vantage point, the student opposite would clearly identify the color as "red". At the side of the Prof. though, everyone including the Prof. himself, is identifying the color as "black".


Murmurs begin to make the round. Students begin to accuse themselves and the Prof. of having faulty eyesight. Some recommend that the Prof. and the student opposite him should consult an eye doctor as a matter of priority because other students were seeing the "yellow" and "green" colors respectively from two other vantage positions. Ringing the bell and signaling "order" the Prof. brings an end to the murmurs and grumbles. He orders the students to swap their sitting positions and take the respective places of their counterparts. Only thereafter, did a sigh of relief make the round.

The student who identified a red color can now see that the lamp was truly painted black at the Prof.'s vantage position. Others that saw yellow and green are now able to see that the lamp was indeed, painted red at the vantage position of the other student.

The lesson from this illustrative exercise according to Prof. Kislali was to be on our guard as aspiring intellectuals. Never reach any conclusion on any issue, without swapping positions with your opponent and viewing issues from his vantage point.

In the past, holders of academic degrees were highly valued and adored in Nigeria of the seventies and early eighties. The reason was simple. Intellectuals were made out of academic drills. There was hardly any degree holder of those years that did not command respect, at least, through the quality of their utterances. There was a sense of awe and myth about them if one did not have the academic qualification to cope with them in discussions.

At that time, academic training seemed to be boosting the intellectual potentials of individuals. It forged analytical reasoning and the empirically undisputable presentation of facts.

Methodology in research teaches every student only two ways of achieving these objectives: Qualitative and/or Quantitative reasoning and analysis. Personal comments serve to interpret facts and figures not obscure them.

advertisement
At undergraduate level, one is just being introduced into the world of empiricism like the Neophyte of Rosicrucian fame. At the graduate level of pursuing a masters degree, on should have passed through series of exercises in scientific and analytical reasoning through semester papers, individual research topics etc.. This is then concluded by the ultimate post-graduate aspiration of acquiring a doctorate degree. It is at this stage, that a candidate is expected to be routinely perfected in objective reasoning, scientific analysis and the empirical dissection of facts. The path may then be towed at the individual's discretion, to become an actively researching scientist and end up as a professor or stop at the doctorate level and impart knowledge on others around him.

Qualifications in each of these categories were indeed, defining moments for the Nigerian intellectual of the seventies and early eighties.

Today though, many Nigerian holders of high academic qualification excel by being at best, mere embarrassment to the qualification they hold. Many Internet forums for the dissemination of information are being flooded these days, by highly paper-qualified individuals who cherish just one subject: Obasanjo and the Presidency. They focus exceedingly on Obasanjo-bashing.

The alarming rate at which Obasanjo has these days, become a helpless punch-bag for every aspiring verbal pugilist, is indeed, throwing the direction of the Nigerian democratic development into serious question. Particularly at the sight of Doctorate titles as displayed by some of the OBJ-bashing authors, I am always excited and in high expectation of a taste of qualitative or quantitative analysis. Much too often, I end up in disappointment at the overwhelming dose of personal caprices and hate-filled subjective manifestations.

Before identifying the ethnic divide along which most of many meaningless attacks seem to play out, I will first like to observe that a large part of these hate preachers with high academic qualifications lives in the USA.

Outside the USA, where I am personally, not exposed to many of the domestic American news media, I am content with the CNN, Newsweek and TIME to give a glimpse of what American journalism may look like. In none of these media have I ever seen such blatant echo of insults and abuses on political office holders like Nigerians choose to pour on Obasanjo through the news media. Indeed, the present administration of George Bush would find his ways of settling scores with anyone who chooses to rain aimless abuses on him by straying too far away from facts. Even a fellow President who insulted George Bush (no matter how justified he was) at the podium of the UNO general assembly knows what he went through in the aftermath thereof. Never have I seen Larry King insult his guests in the name of boldness and courage.

Tai Solarin rose to fame for constructive criticisms based on facts and figures. Air Iyare of the old Mid-West State was well known for intellectual attacks that left his targets looking for explanations. None of these men excelled with insults and abuses. The only prominent Nigerian critic that was known for abusive and insulting criticisms was the veteran Fela Anikulapo Kuti. But he was not a journalist and never pretended to be one. He even symbolically sang in Pidgin English to shed off any semblance of intellectualism (even though intelligent he was).

When some over-ambitious and no doubt, intelligent but hate-filled young and elderly men of Nigerian origin then pick their pen or PC keyboard to write and address the President of their own country as a "Serpent head", a "Village tyrant", "demon", "madness ruling the land" etc. no intellectual postulant of substance would react to such superficial Tarzans of the intellectual jungle. But when exalted and clearly identified degree holders come up with extremely imbalanced and overtly flawed products of empiricism, one wonders why the degrees they hold deserve such a huge embarrassment.

Most often, a large and vocal section of the Yorubas, who seem to be well acquainted with the man Obasanjo from his hometown (or wherever) are mostly in the forefront of raining insults on him and demonizing him in the most despicable fashion. I have often heard the saying that a Prophet is never accepted in his own home. But that too, should not give consolation because the rejection of a single prophet should not be tantamount to the rejection of objectivity and fairness.

On the opposite spectrum of the unholy divide stands a huge number of the Ibos (definitely not all Ibos) who traditionally abhor anything Yoruba.

What these two parties have in common is the absolute rejection of anything factual, objective or fair about the man Obasanjo. In private conversations, articles, public forums of all kinds, they will pick on any given opportunity to rain hell and damnation on the poor fellow. Sometimes, I ask myself if the keyboard of the computer on which the articles are written do not feel the pains of the written insults?

There has been such an extreme turn of events that anyone who dares to experiment on objectivity in connection with Obasanjo ends up being branded a paid Obasanjo-supporter.

People feel bold and courageous, get the feeling of 'making noise' to be heard by picking on Obasanjo with the most weird of expressions. I have however, asked myself on countless occasions, where these people were at the time Abacha raged uncontrolled.

I ask myself if anyone would be true to himself to assert that Obasanjo has brought nothing but destruction to Nigeria. In counting the failures if not blunders of Obasanjo (seeking a third term through the ill-advised project of constitutional amendment, presiding over incessant price hikes on fuel and commodity products, not doing much to fix countless numbers of bad roads, helplessly watching the surge in crime rate that is killing dozens of innocent Nigerians, failing to account for the death of Bola Ige [in which fingers are also pointed at him], failing to resolve the long-standing issue of power supply, social chaos and indiscipline now leaving Nigeria even rated far behind Ghana, wanton corruption as alleged and apparently being proved by Atiku, etc.), has Obasanjo - in spite of all that - done nothing at all to account for his eight years in office? Just nothing?

People are always cautioned to look back at where the Obasanjo started from. What Abacha inherited from IBB, further destroyed and left behind for onward transmission to Obasanjo. Has Obasanjo really achieved nothing and absolutely nothing?

Check the issue of Atiku Abubakar. Is anyone out there that can give me an example of an insubordinate Vice President in the history of any democracy worldwide? We have a constitution that asks a President to handpick his running mate but failed to address the issue of dealing with him when he becomes insubordinate, a liability and even a threat and an opponent to the President. I bet no one involved in the drafting of this constitution ever dreamt of such issue occurring. I know of no single precedent. Nowhere in the world. Now, rather than seeking to address this loophole in the constitution in a fair and equitable manner to forestall a future repeat of such ugly situations, voices are busy blaming the President as if it was so impossible to swap positions to figure out how it feels to have an insubordinate and threatening deputy hanging on one's heels. Rather than friends of Atiku cautioning the Vice President in the loudest term possible and drawing his attention to the truth that a Vice President is on no account, meant to be an opposition force against his own President, they are busy applauding him through his own political suicide. Rather than making him realize that a Vice President is supposed to rise and fall with his President, they are accusing the President of breaching the constitution.

The truth though, is that the constitution has not been breached. A process of seeking an interpretation of the constitution has only been set in motion. For this purpose, the semblance of breach had to be created as one of several options. The removal of the Vice President, who adamantly refuses to resign in disagreement with the President, is meant to trigger a constitutional debate at the doorstep of the Supreme Court. If the Vice President fails to challenge the President's decision in court, the decision automatically becomes an unwritten part of the constitution and will be emulated by future Presidents of the country. This too, is a process that is not strange to normal democratic practices. The constitution in Great Britain today, is a product of trial and error, not mandatory drafting. That is how democracies can also function. By challenging Obasanjo's decision in court, the loophole in the constitution will be mended by a decision of the Supreme Court.

Rather than focusing on the intellectual aspect of bridging this glaring constitutional gap, many Ph.D holders are doing what they cherish most: Obasanjo-bashing. They fail to ask themselves, if it pays more for the democracy of the country to encourage an attitude like Atiku Abubakar's or to focus on bridging the constitutional gap to prevent such a universally unprecedented act of intra-governmental indiscipline in the name of democracy.

No one for once (not even the Ph.D holders), seeks to swap position to view the issue from the other side of the fence. All that matters most seems to be Obasanjo-bashing. Poor old Obasanjo.