Power, Politics & Irrational Logic
By Sam Onimisi
Following the mammoth crowd which attended the formal declaration of President Goodluck Jonathan’s intention to context next year’s Presidential Election, some groups and certain individuals have faulted him on moral grounds. The kernel of their arguments are as follows. They accused him of disobeying the PDP’s rule of power rotation or zoning as they interpret it to mean that a Northerner must be in power for eight years, i.e. From 2007 to 2015. They also accused him of trying to be a judge in his own case; that is that he should not be a candidate in an election which his government is the conductor. There are other points of accusation which I consider too childish to discuss. Now let’s examine the two main issues dispassionately.
It is a well known truism that power rotation or zoning is a new or recent development in the political lexicon of the country; occasioned by the denial of late Chief M.K.O Abiola of his mandate validly and massively given to him by Nigerian voters in 1993. The winner of the Presidential Election was a Southerner and the annular was a Northerner. A serious crisis of confidence ensued which threatened the corporate existence of Nigeria in a way only the Civil War of 1969-1990 surpassed. Again, the contraption put together to assuage the South- the Shonekan led Interim National Government was overthrown within two months of its existence – also by a Northerner, General Sani Abacha. And he ruled for about five years during which he brutalized Nigerians of Southern origin. This was the background and underlying situation which forced the Northern political class to allow for power-shift to the South in 1999. Power rotation was inserted into the PDP Constitution in fear of the possibility that Southerners could behave in kind by holding onto power indefinitely.
Now, is President Goodluck Jonathan guilty as charged? The answer is an emphatic No! Why? All laws and enactment of the National Assembly are inferior to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including the constitution or gentleman’s agreement of the PDP. The Country’s fundamental law granted every Nigerian the right to vie for any elective position of his/her choice. I suppose all law-abiding citizens should adhere to this constitutional position. It is my position that it is unlawful and undemocratic to assume that because a person was elected for a term of four years that it is automatic that he remains in office for eight years just because it was supposedly zone to him or his zone. How would anyone foresee that the party that presented him will win the next election? Do we know if he will die before his tenure expires? Must be it conceded to his zone at his demise as if it were a lineal monarchy? The only reason why anyone would assume this position is that only one particular is ordained to win all future elections. But is this the case, and if so, is it democratic?
As for the accusation that by contesting the next election, President Jonathan will be a judge in his own case is too puerile to be canvassed by adults. In the first place, the election is a political contest and not a court case. Again, Prime Minister Alhaji Tafawa Balewa took part in the 1963 general election. Alhaji Shehu Shagari contested the 1983 presidential election as the incumbent president. They were both Northerners. Did anyone accuse them of being judges in their own case? General Murtala Muhammed took over from General Yakubu Gowon. General Muhammadu Buhari took over from Alhaji Shehu Shagari. General Babangida took over from Muhammadu Buhari – all of whom are Northerners. In all, and from Balewa to Yar’Adua, Northerners have ruled Nigeria whether by election or by military coup, for 38 years out of 50 years as an Independent Country. Based on the forgoing facts, where is the moral high ground of any Northerner to deny others the right of leadership of the country?
It would have been better if Northern leaders had canvassed a case that an incumbent President or Governor should either not be a contestant or if he must be, that a neutral authority should conduct future general elections than to accuse an innocent man of a non-existent offence. It only portrayed Northerners as power monopolists or as greedy power hustlers who is intent on holding onto power by all means regardless of their poor past performance records. What a gratuitous self-inflicted insult! Even if this claim to power is based on the North’s perceived majority, it is not to be assumed that Northerners did not and would never vote for candidates from the South. Or must it be taken for granted that Northerners has no ideological value and so would not vote on the basis of ideology. Or are we to believe that Party Manifestoes does not attract Northerners? These are the presumption that power hustler’s wave about to justify why they are opposed to power shift to other zones of the country.
By this attitude of clinging to power on the basis of baseless assumptions, Southerners are being forced to think or fear that Northerners cannot be trusted to relinquish power as at when due or that they have actually manipulated their long strangle-hold on power in order to deny other Nigerians of access or the right to power. Otherwise, this is the first time in history when a Southern minority has been in a pedestal to vie for the Presidency in a democratic setting; rather than for Northerners to merely canvass a free and fair election, their top contestants are ganging up to deny him the ticket using untenable excuses and irrational logic. If Nigeria is one country, let us have the rights of common citizenship, especially the right to leadership. What is good for the goose is equally good for the gander.
There is what they call the Bangladesh electoral formula which ensures that an incumbent government has no hand in the conduct of election. In other words, an interim government for the sole purpose of conducting election is put in place upon the end of the tenure of an elected government. Of course, until we all agree to this arrangement, there is no place for it now in our laws and cannot presently be applied. Let Nigerian voters decide the fate of all contestants in the next election. By so doing, elected leaders will have the true mandate of the people and succession crisis would be averted.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Of Cowards, Dokpesi & Politics
Of Cowards, Dokpesi & Politics
By Sam Onimisi
If the recent alarm raised by High Chief Raymond Dokpesi is anything to be taken seriously, he should by now be going about in disguise for fear of being kidnapped by his Niger-Delta brethren. But as the Director-General of General Ibrahim Babangida Campaign Organization, Dokpesi cannot hide, given his highly visible position both in his present role and as the Chairman and chief executive of the high profile African Independent Television, A.I.T. It is not to be assumed that the highly educated and ever mobile Marine Engineer do not know that heading a partisan campaign team is a risky job. If he does, then it may be assumed that he has calculated the cost before taking up the job. Or are you saying he did not?
If he did, then the alarm he raised could be a wolf – cry which should be expected to be repeated if it is to achieve the desired effect. Crying wolf where there is none is an old tactic often employed by weaklings so as to be left alone to their own devices or to attract an otherwise undeserved sympathy and attention. Sometimes it succeeds and at other times it fails. But just before we go further, let us examine the gist of the alarm. Some socio-cultural groups of Niger Delta were irked that one of their own took up the job of Babangida’s Campaign Manager; a job which entails railing against opponents of his boss – and President Goodluck Jonathan is one of them. Some former militants also threaten to declare him persona grata for the same reason. The issue here is not who is right or wrong, or what is good or bad.
In politics as in other competitive avocations, some elements of scare tactics is allowed if only to unsettle your opponent or competitor for a moment. Dr. Dopkesi had just taken up the job and has not demonstrated any eloquence on the campaign podium as to wrong anyone. I am not sure if he is of the grandiloquent hue, but as a media guru, you must grant him the right to premeditated or unsolicited grandstanding, if only in his new job. The game has just started and more serious tactics will be employed by the contestants to advance their interest and so, High Chief Dokpesi is better advised to brace up to the reality of the risk-contents of his job.
I do not know of anytime in the history of election campaign in Nigeria when the job was a rosy one, even if it will be cozy by the end of it. It is a job that is not cut out for lilly-livered people but one for those who can match or mix their brain and brawn for expected brawls. So why is Dr. Dokpesi complaining so early in the day? Is his fear real? If so, he deserves the listening ears of the security agencies that must provide security for him and others in similar situation. If not, then he needs to throw in the towel so his master can employ a more courageous Campaign Manager. The rough turf of election campaign is a terrain designed for lion-hearted souls and all cowards often advise themselves to give it a wide berth. That being so, I cannot pretend to be advising High Chief Dokpesi, he could do so without any prodding.
Campaign Strategy is a myriad of tactics which includes but not limited to scarecrow, wolf-cry, grandstanding and red-herring. They are meant to be a distraction or as a misleading clue against the opponent. It is safe at this moment to attribute Dr. Dokpesi’s alarm as a strategy of red-herring if he continues in the job. In which case, he will need some advice on what to expect as time goes on. Advising a High Chief, doctorate degree holder and Chief executive of a broad casting conglomerate? Yes, for we all need advice at one point or the other and for one reason or another, even if it is not solicited. And it is about his product.
General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida is a hard sell even if he is to be marketed by an experienced professional campaigner. Any Nigerian of 25 years of age and above knows that he was our military president for eight years. Many have not forgotten landmark disasters that happened during his tenure. Some remember him as Maradona, a name given to him by the Peoples’ Press for his dribbling acumen. Others remember him for his Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP which sapped life out of Nigerians and wiped out her middle-class. The Press still celebrates the anniversary of the death of their illustrious colleague in Dele Giwa who was parcel-bombed in his sitting room through the emissary of the ‘commander-in-chief’ in 1986. Many politicians in 1991/92 were banned, un-banned and re-banned almost at the same time, many of who were friends or colleague of IBB.
Most democrats acknowledge him as the annular-in-chief for conducting the freest election so far and for no rational reason, annul it to the consternation of Nigerians. Today the annulment is marked as ‘June 12’ which is made a democracy day in Lagos State. His closest friends, Gen. Mamman Vatsa and M.K.O. Abiola both of blessed memory would probably wish to resurrect if only to educate us on how ‘nice’ IBB was to them. Then Justice Oputa Panel had some sour story to tell us on or about Dr. Dokpesi’s boss. The Mbanefo Panel also sang about a 12 billion Gulf War oil money that was frittered away by Candidate Babangida. Some street urchins were even celebrating him as International Baban Barawo, you remember?
There is something in a name such that once it sticks; it becomes more real as an alias than the original name. Gen. Ibrahim Babangida once described himself as an evil genius, and ever since, many delight themselves in acknowledging him as such. This is the product High Chief Dokpesi has elected to sell or market. The qualities of his product are so much in public domain and human memory that highfalutin slogans and advertorials cannot whitewash. If Babangida’s shadows are properly documented, no credentials could be more intimidating, more excruciating and most difficult to sell than Dokpesi’s client or product. If this is the case – and I am eager to be contradicted – will High Chief Dr. Dokpesi spare the rest of us the pain of his wolf-cry and red-herring?
By Sam Onimisi
If the recent alarm raised by High Chief Raymond Dokpesi is anything to be taken seriously, he should by now be going about in disguise for fear of being kidnapped by his Niger-Delta brethren. But as the Director-General of General Ibrahim Babangida Campaign Organization, Dokpesi cannot hide, given his highly visible position both in his present role and as the Chairman and chief executive of the high profile African Independent Television, A.I.T. It is not to be assumed that the highly educated and ever mobile Marine Engineer do not know that heading a partisan campaign team is a risky job. If he does, then it may be assumed that he has calculated the cost before taking up the job. Or are you saying he did not?
If he did, then the alarm he raised could be a wolf – cry which should be expected to be repeated if it is to achieve the desired effect. Crying wolf where there is none is an old tactic often employed by weaklings so as to be left alone to their own devices or to attract an otherwise undeserved sympathy and attention. Sometimes it succeeds and at other times it fails. But just before we go further, let us examine the gist of the alarm. Some socio-cultural groups of Niger Delta were irked that one of their own took up the job of Babangida’s Campaign Manager; a job which entails railing against opponents of his boss – and President Goodluck Jonathan is one of them. Some former militants also threaten to declare him persona grata for the same reason. The issue here is not who is right or wrong, or what is good or bad.
In politics as in other competitive avocations, some elements of scare tactics is allowed if only to unsettle your opponent or competitor for a moment. Dr. Dopkesi had just taken up the job and has not demonstrated any eloquence on the campaign podium as to wrong anyone. I am not sure if he is of the grandiloquent hue, but as a media guru, you must grant him the right to premeditated or unsolicited grandstanding, if only in his new job. The game has just started and more serious tactics will be employed by the contestants to advance their interest and so, High Chief Dokpesi is better advised to brace up to the reality of the risk-contents of his job.
I do not know of anytime in the history of election campaign in Nigeria when the job was a rosy one, even if it will be cozy by the end of it. It is a job that is not cut out for lilly-livered people but one for those who can match or mix their brain and brawn for expected brawls. So why is Dr. Dokpesi complaining so early in the day? Is his fear real? If so, he deserves the listening ears of the security agencies that must provide security for him and others in similar situation. If not, then he needs to throw in the towel so his master can employ a more courageous Campaign Manager. The rough turf of election campaign is a terrain designed for lion-hearted souls and all cowards often advise themselves to give it a wide berth. That being so, I cannot pretend to be advising High Chief Dokpesi, he could do so without any prodding.
Campaign Strategy is a myriad of tactics which includes but not limited to scarecrow, wolf-cry, grandstanding and red-herring. They are meant to be a distraction or as a misleading clue against the opponent. It is safe at this moment to attribute Dr. Dokpesi’s alarm as a strategy of red-herring if he continues in the job. In which case, he will need some advice on what to expect as time goes on. Advising a High Chief, doctorate degree holder and Chief executive of a broad casting conglomerate? Yes, for we all need advice at one point or the other and for one reason or another, even if it is not solicited. And it is about his product.
General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida is a hard sell even if he is to be marketed by an experienced professional campaigner. Any Nigerian of 25 years of age and above knows that he was our military president for eight years. Many have not forgotten landmark disasters that happened during his tenure. Some remember him as Maradona, a name given to him by the Peoples’ Press for his dribbling acumen. Others remember him for his Structural Adjustment Programme, SAP which sapped life out of Nigerians and wiped out her middle-class. The Press still celebrates the anniversary of the death of their illustrious colleague in Dele Giwa who was parcel-bombed in his sitting room through the emissary of the ‘commander-in-chief’ in 1986. Many politicians in 1991/92 were banned, un-banned and re-banned almost at the same time, many of who were friends or colleague of IBB.
Most democrats acknowledge him as the annular-in-chief for conducting the freest election so far and for no rational reason, annul it to the consternation of Nigerians. Today the annulment is marked as ‘June 12’ which is made a democracy day in Lagos State. His closest friends, Gen. Mamman Vatsa and M.K.O. Abiola both of blessed memory would probably wish to resurrect if only to educate us on how ‘nice’ IBB was to them. Then Justice Oputa Panel had some sour story to tell us on or about Dr. Dokpesi’s boss. The Mbanefo Panel also sang about a 12 billion Gulf War oil money that was frittered away by Candidate Babangida. Some street urchins were even celebrating him as International Baban Barawo, you remember?
There is something in a name such that once it sticks; it becomes more real as an alias than the original name. Gen. Ibrahim Babangida once described himself as an evil genius, and ever since, many delight themselves in acknowledging him as such. This is the product High Chief Dokpesi has elected to sell or market. The qualities of his product are so much in public domain and human memory that highfalutin slogans and advertorials cannot whitewash. If Babangida’s shadows are properly documented, no credentials could be more intimidating, more excruciating and most difficult to sell than Dokpesi’s client or product. If this is the case – and I am eager to be contradicted – will High Chief Dr. Dokpesi spare the rest of us the pain of his wolf-cry and red-herring?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
The Politics of Adoption
The Politics of Adoption
By Sam Onimisi
Ahead of the 2011 general election, a battle is raging between leading contenders of the presidential race. Some two weeks back, a group of 22 political parties met under the aegis of coalition for New Nigeria (CNN) and signed an M.O.U. to work with the Congress for Progressive Change towards presenting a common Presidential candidate for 2011. There is no other interpretation beside the fact that they intend to adopt the presidential candidate of the C.P.C. So far, the only aspirant on the platform of the new party is General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd.). This was a development which elevated Buhari’s acceptability or popularity a notch higher than other parties’ aspirants.
Not to be outdone, the ruling Peoples Democratic Party reached out to other parties – a move which the cockish previous chairmen of the party felt demeaning to do. Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, a veteran politician who has tasted life in the ruling party as well as in opposition in this dispensation has proved wiser than his predecessors. He was clever enough not to attempt selling his party. He knows so much has gone wrong with the party as to make it ugly and undesirable. First, he sold his credentials as a principled democrat who could disagree to agree and who is prepared to yield to superior argument. He assured the opposition parties that his regime is prepared to turn a new leaf and work with other parties in the overall interest of the country. As an astute politician, the PDP Chairman know the advantage of incumbency in electoral contest, and so, believes that if President Jonathan obtains the ticket of his party, the race becomes easier to win.
Therefore, he also sold the candidacy of Goodluck Jonathan to the other parties. The result is that those parties who ordinarily would have dined with the PDP using a long spoon, found in Nwodo and Jonathan, gentlemen with whom they could do business. At the end, 46 political parties decided to work with the PDP to ensure that political practice is clothed in civilized garb and devoid of criminal violence of the past. The difficulty however is, how do you work with Nwodo and Jonathan without any advantage accruing to the PDP?
If this is a dilemma, there is a bigger dilemma the opposition parties have to contend with. One, in the recent amendments to the Constitution, certain opposition parties championed a two or five party system in the National Assembly. It was the PDP that saw merit in a multi-party system for a plural society such as ours. If the vote had been otherwise, most opposition parties would have been wiped off or de-registered. Two, elections into local government councils in non-PDP states were rigged just like those of PDP states. Meaning that, the AC, ANPP and APGA behaved the same way as the PDP in election management. So, if you can work with those opposition parties, why not the PDP? Three, as a ruling party, the fate of the entire country remains in the hands of the PDP. To continue to treat the PDP as a leper is to imperil the future of democracy in Nigeria; since the likelihood of unity of purpose in opposition parties appears remote.
In effect, the formation of the Grand Coalition of Political Parties (GCPP) is in the interest of the Parties as well as the entire country. Four, the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) has failed to carry out its responsibilities due to undemocratic tendencies in its leadership; led by Alh. Abubakar Balarabe Musa since 2002, the CNPP broke into pieces with Balarabe Musa, Olapade Agoro and Maxi Okwu leading one faction each. Balarabe Musa was accused of tenacity of Office, having been elected in 2002. He has rebuffed every attempt to hold a election convention and all efforts at reform. He is also accused of using his chairmanship of CNPP as a meal ticket, visiting states to inaugurate state chapters and paying courtesy call on governors for patronage, and who were alleged to have financed such inaugurations.
If the CNPP has not been a dismal failure, what could have made Alh. Balarabe Musa to have joined the CNN as one of its leading lights who also went ahead to adopt General Buhari as their candidate? If those expected to lead the opposition have become partisan, then others are free to find associates with whom they could work. The adoption of CPC/Gen. Buhari by the CNN and Alh. Balarabe Musa as a factional Chairman of CNPP is enough signal, if not an impetus for other political parties to find accommodation under the umbrella of the Grand Coalition of Political Parties, GCPP. In fact, Olapade Agoro is a leading member of GCPP even as a factional chairman of the CNPP. Barr. Maxi Okwu will not surprise anyone in CNPP or the GCPP if he announces tomorrow, a coalition of parties working for another presidential aspirant.
What lessons do we need to learn from all these, either as politicians, voters or mere political animals? First, as political practitioners, there is the need to keep faith with your mandate and its time frame. No matter how good you are, some others are equally good and could do the job, if not better. Tenacity of office or tenure elongation destroys credibility and honour and helps to give birth to rebellion and factionalization. Second, what subsists in politics is permanent interest, not permanent enmity or friendship. A foe today may become a friend tomorrow. Everyone or every party watches its interest and aligns with those who are likely to advance or promote such interests. Third, a time comes when one has to make a choice as a democrat. The choice here is between two or more contenders whose background are opposite of each other. As a democrat, you need to ask yourself a question. Who is likely to promote democratic ethos if he/she accedes to power; a civilian politician or a military politician? Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has given us an experience which is not palatable to repeat so soon. So, before you accuse a political party of selling their mandate to a candidate of another party, you have to consider the foregoing issues if you are to make sense in your assertion.
Political Parties exists to promote and advance democracy, to have access to power or be in position to influence public policy beneficial to its members. That being so, they are right, free and justified if and when they join forces in an alliance or coalition which promotes such objectives. If the alliance or coalition entails the adoption of the candidate of one of the coalition parties, provided each party in the coalition fulfils its obligation and adheres to the terms of the alliance, democracy is enhanced and the electorate is protected. The politics of adoption is a bi-partisan approach that encapsulates divergent interests and goals such that the violent contents of partisan competition are reduced to the barest minimum.
Examples from abroad: Gen. Collins Powel was a member of the Republican Party but he supported Barak Obama of the Democratic Party in 2008 election. Secretary of Defense Bill Gates was appointed by President Bush of the Republican Party but retained by his Democratic Party successor. Must we not learn to grow democracy for the benefit of all?
By Sam Onimisi
Ahead of the 2011 general election, a battle is raging between leading contenders of the presidential race. Some two weeks back, a group of 22 political parties met under the aegis of coalition for New Nigeria (CNN) and signed an M.O.U. to work with the Congress for Progressive Change towards presenting a common Presidential candidate for 2011. There is no other interpretation beside the fact that they intend to adopt the presidential candidate of the C.P.C. So far, the only aspirant on the platform of the new party is General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd.). This was a development which elevated Buhari’s acceptability or popularity a notch higher than other parties’ aspirants.
Not to be outdone, the ruling Peoples Democratic Party reached out to other parties – a move which the cockish previous chairmen of the party felt demeaning to do. Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo, a veteran politician who has tasted life in the ruling party as well as in opposition in this dispensation has proved wiser than his predecessors. He was clever enough not to attempt selling his party. He knows so much has gone wrong with the party as to make it ugly and undesirable. First, he sold his credentials as a principled democrat who could disagree to agree and who is prepared to yield to superior argument. He assured the opposition parties that his regime is prepared to turn a new leaf and work with other parties in the overall interest of the country. As an astute politician, the PDP Chairman know the advantage of incumbency in electoral contest, and so, believes that if President Jonathan obtains the ticket of his party, the race becomes easier to win.
Therefore, he also sold the candidacy of Goodluck Jonathan to the other parties. The result is that those parties who ordinarily would have dined with the PDP using a long spoon, found in Nwodo and Jonathan, gentlemen with whom they could do business. At the end, 46 political parties decided to work with the PDP to ensure that political practice is clothed in civilized garb and devoid of criminal violence of the past. The difficulty however is, how do you work with Nwodo and Jonathan without any advantage accruing to the PDP?
If this is a dilemma, there is a bigger dilemma the opposition parties have to contend with. One, in the recent amendments to the Constitution, certain opposition parties championed a two or five party system in the National Assembly. It was the PDP that saw merit in a multi-party system for a plural society such as ours. If the vote had been otherwise, most opposition parties would have been wiped off or de-registered. Two, elections into local government councils in non-PDP states were rigged just like those of PDP states. Meaning that, the AC, ANPP and APGA behaved the same way as the PDP in election management. So, if you can work with those opposition parties, why not the PDP? Three, as a ruling party, the fate of the entire country remains in the hands of the PDP. To continue to treat the PDP as a leper is to imperil the future of democracy in Nigeria; since the likelihood of unity of purpose in opposition parties appears remote.
In effect, the formation of the Grand Coalition of Political Parties (GCPP) is in the interest of the Parties as well as the entire country. Four, the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) has failed to carry out its responsibilities due to undemocratic tendencies in its leadership; led by Alh. Abubakar Balarabe Musa since 2002, the CNPP broke into pieces with Balarabe Musa, Olapade Agoro and Maxi Okwu leading one faction each. Balarabe Musa was accused of tenacity of Office, having been elected in 2002. He has rebuffed every attempt to hold a election convention and all efforts at reform. He is also accused of using his chairmanship of CNPP as a meal ticket, visiting states to inaugurate state chapters and paying courtesy call on governors for patronage, and who were alleged to have financed such inaugurations.
If the CNPP has not been a dismal failure, what could have made Alh. Balarabe Musa to have joined the CNN as one of its leading lights who also went ahead to adopt General Buhari as their candidate? If those expected to lead the opposition have become partisan, then others are free to find associates with whom they could work. The adoption of CPC/Gen. Buhari by the CNN and Alh. Balarabe Musa as a factional Chairman of CNPP is enough signal, if not an impetus for other political parties to find accommodation under the umbrella of the Grand Coalition of Political Parties, GCPP. In fact, Olapade Agoro is a leading member of GCPP even as a factional chairman of the CNPP. Barr. Maxi Okwu will not surprise anyone in CNPP or the GCPP if he announces tomorrow, a coalition of parties working for another presidential aspirant.
What lessons do we need to learn from all these, either as politicians, voters or mere political animals? First, as political practitioners, there is the need to keep faith with your mandate and its time frame. No matter how good you are, some others are equally good and could do the job, if not better. Tenacity of office or tenure elongation destroys credibility and honour and helps to give birth to rebellion and factionalization. Second, what subsists in politics is permanent interest, not permanent enmity or friendship. A foe today may become a friend tomorrow. Everyone or every party watches its interest and aligns with those who are likely to advance or promote such interests. Third, a time comes when one has to make a choice as a democrat. The choice here is between two or more contenders whose background are opposite of each other. As a democrat, you need to ask yourself a question. Who is likely to promote democratic ethos if he/she accedes to power; a civilian politician or a military politician? Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has given us an experience which is not palatable to repeat so soon. So, before you accuse a political party of selling their mandate to a candidate of another party, you have to consider the foregoing issues if you are to make sense in your assertion.
Political Parties exists to promote and advance democracy, to have access to power or be in position to influence public policy beneficial to its members. That being so, they are right, free and justified if and when they join forces in an alliance or coalition which promotes such objectives. If the alliance or coalition entails the adoption of the candidate of one of the coalition parties, provided each party in the coalition fulfils its obligation and adheres to the terms of the alliance, democracy is enhanced and the electorate is protected. The politics of adoption is a bi-partisan approach that encapsulates divergent interests and goals such that the violent contents of partisan competition are reduced to the barest minimum.
Examples from abroad: Gen. Collins Powel was a member of the Republican Party but he supported Barak Obama of the Democratic Party in 2008 election. Secretary of Defense Bill Gates was appointed by President Bush of the Republican Party but retained by his Democratic Party successor. Must we not learn to grow democracy for the benefit of all?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Of Service, Rewards and Swindlers
Of Service, Rewards and Swindlers
By Sam Onimisi
Serving others in whatever capacity, in the society, government and its institutions or corporate bodies is a service which is accompanied by some incentives and motives. Metabolism alone propels human to engage in one form of service or the other to keep self alive, physically, mentally and physiologically. Physical fitness, honour, knowledge gained by training and experience, status and roles, material gains and financial income are some of the incentives of service. Service is so called because others are benefitted by it, not only the incentive or motive of the servant. Any service that fails to be beneficial to others is not qualified to be called so. Therefore, both service and the servant exist to add value to the served which is the public.
Public Service connotes the services rendered by employees of government, its institutions and agencies. It includes the Civil Service, the armed Forces and Political Functionaries of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Employees of companies, Voluntary Organizations and Entrepreneurs are also engaged in services but classified as servants in the Private Sector. Both Public and private Sector Servants have one thing in common: they are motivated by the same needs and are rewarded by their employers. That some people are in public service and some others are in the private sector is a matter of choice, opportunity and necessity. Whatever happens and unless you choose self-employment, you are bound to choose a career either in the Public Service or in the Private sector, none of which is without rewards.
Rewards come in various forms, the basic ones being a fixed annual salary which is paid on monthly basis. It includes allowances for transportation, accommodation or housing and other facilities that make the job easier to perform. Promotion, courses, training and experience are parts of the rewards of employment. So long as you are not a slave, whatever service you render in the course of employment are paid for by your employer. And if you serve long enough to retire, you are also rewarded with gratuity, pensions and in some cases, severance benefits. Having earned all these, every employee ought to be satisfied and go home in contentment. Aside from patriotic and voluntary service rendered in times of national emergency, I know of no service without rewards. Even the National Youth Service Corps which is somehow compulsory for graduates of tertiary institutions earn rewards in form of stipends and the hope for possible employment by their place of primary assignments.
Beyond these, any public servant who goes about shouting of the services he/she had rendered to Nigeria repels me because it smacks of hypocrisy and conceit. No man goes home without his pay. Nigeria owes no one except in pensions, the administration of which is marred by corruption and ineptitude. Labour movements serves as checks on employers who fail to honour the terms and conditions of engagement. Even retired members of the armed forces have no reason to be conceited. They joined the army, navy, air force of the police by choice, voluntarily and for reward; they were very much aware of the risk-contents and except during the civil war, and no one was conscripted. And so, it is nauseating to hear remarks such as “I have served this country with the strength of my youth now see how they have treated me”. I submit that only very few ex-public servants may be justified or qualified to make such claims.
My reason for this submission is simple. And it is that if most public servants served conscientiously with patriotic zeal, the high level of corruption and inefficiency in the service today would not have happened. Instead of public service, they offered selfish service. Rather than being servants, they acted as masters. They turned civil service into ‘see evil service’ through unethical conducts and personal greed. Rather than serving the country or the state, they served themselves, their ethnic, regional, religious and group interests while purporting to serve the public. Their subversive services include awarding contracts to themselves, their agents and inflating contracts for selfish and private gains. They engaged in misappropriation, unearned income, evasion of tax, prepared bloated budgets in order to make gains etc. These are sabotage of public policy, public schemes and projects any of which is not remotely related to, but complete opposite of patriotic service.
You can imagine my pains even as I imagine your revulsion when such elements are not remorseful as to keep quiet and enjoy their loots in seclusion but stepped out bare-chested, crowing about their ‘services’ to the nation and why they ought to be celebrated or honoured. Many of them who are so conceited were also granted undeserved national honours, traditional titles and professional recognition. I am not unaware of some sweet souls with excellent minds whose patriotism, zeal for selfless service and sacrifice added value to public service in Nigeria. But this clan of public servants were largely frustrated out of service, are never adequately rewarded or honoured and have had their legacies rubbished by the greed and gluttony of their nefarious colleagues or successors. What else is responsible for the irredeemable rot in public service delivery?
Neither you nor I is averse to the expression of a genuine praise of selfless and patriotic service; a service with quality input and output, a service rendered in absolute good faith for the benefit of all. What is exasperating is the tribe of conceited thieves, who derived their comfort from the proceeds of loots, but who goes about with a false and unashamed air of self-importance and, an exaggerated claim of service never rendered. People, who in other advanced climes would have been cooling their heels in jail for their multifarious crimes against the nation; in China, many of our celebrities would have been tied to the stake and shot dead. In Japan, these swindlers would have committed hara kiri to avoid being tried in public. In India, these rogues would have been hanged and cremated. But here in Lucifer’s own Vineyard, they are honoured, revered and celebrated as inventors and heroes. Titles such as Chief, Dr, Alhaji, Engr. are not uncommon by and for an individual. The less we celebrate the mediocre and swindlers, the better for this country of ours.
By Sam Onimisi
Serving others in whatever capacity, in the society, government and its institutions or corporate bodies is a service which is accompanied by some incentives and motives. Metabolism alone propels human to engage in one form of service or the other to keep self alive, physically, mentally and physiologically. Physical fitness, honour, knowledge gained by training and experience, status and roles, material gains and financial income are some of the incentives of service. Service is so called because others are benefitted by it, not only the incentive or motive of the servant. Any service that fails to be beneficial to others is not qualified to be called so. Therefore, both service and the servant exist to add value to the served which is the public.
Public Service connotes the services rendered by employees of government, its institutions and agencies. It includes the Civil Service, the armed Forces and Political Functionaries of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Employees of companies, Voluntary Organizations and Entrepreneurs are also engaged in services but classified as servants in the Private Sector. Both Public and private Sector Servants have one thing in common: they are motivated by the same needs and are rewarded by their employers. That some people are in public service and some others are in the private sector is a matter of choice, opportunity and necessity. Whatever happens and unless you choose self-employment, you are bound to choose a career either in the Public Service or in the Private sector, none of which is without rewards.
Rewards come in various forms, the basic ones being a fixed annual salary which is paid on monthly basis. It includes allowances for transportation, accommodation or housing and other facilities that make the job easier to perform. Promotion, courses, training and experience are parts of the rewards of employment. So long as you are not a slave, whatever service you render in the course of employment are paid for by your employer. And if you serve long enough to retire, you are also rewarded with gratuity, pensions and in some cases, severance benefits. Having earned all these, every employee ought to be satisfied and go home in contentment. Aside from patriotic and voluntary service rendered in times of national emergency, I know of no service without rewards. Even the National Youth Service Corps which is somehow compulsory for graduates of tertiary institutions earn rewards in form of stipends and the hope for possible employment by their place of primary assignments.
Beyond these, any public servant who goes about shouting of the services he/she had rendered to Nigeria repels me because it smacks of hypocrisy and conceit. No man goes home without his pay. Nigeria owes no one except in pensions, the administration of which is marred by corruption and ineptitude. Labour movements serves as checks on employers who fail to honour the terms and conditions of engagement. Even retired members of the armed forces have no reason to be conceited. They joined the army, navy, air force of the police by choice, voluntarily and for reward; they were very much aware of the risk-contents and except during the civil war, and no one was conscripted. And so, it is nauseating to hear remarks such as “I have served this country with the strength of my youth now see how they have treated me”. I submit that only very few ex-public servants may be justified or qualified to make such claims.
My reason for this submission is simple. And it is that if most public servants served conscientiously with patriotic zeal, the high level of corruption and inefficiency in the service today would not have happened. Instead of public service, they offered selfish service. Rather than being servants, they acted as masters. They turned civil service into ‘see evil service’ through unethical conducts and personal greed. Rather than serving the country or the state, they served themselves, their ethnic, regional, religious and group interests while purporting to serve the public. Their subversive services include awarding contracts to themselves, their agents and inflating contracts for selfish and private gains. They engaged in misappropriation, unearned income, evasion of tax, prepared bloated budgets in order to make gains etc. These are sabotage of public policy, public schemes and projects any of which is not remotely related to, but complete opposite of patriotic service.
You can imagine my pains even as I imagine your revulsion when such elements are not remorseful as to keep quiet and enjoy their loots in seclusion but stepped out bare-chested, crowing about their ‘services’ to the nation and why they ought to be celebrated or honoured. Many of them who are so conceited were also granted undeserved national honours, traditional titles and professional recognition. I am not unaware of some sweet souls with excellent minds whose patriotism, zeal for selfless service and sacrifice added value to public service in Nigeria. But this clan of public servants were largely frustrated out of service, are never adequately rewarded or honoured and have had their legacies rubbished by the greed and gluttony of their nefarious colleagues or successors. What else is responsible for the irredeemable rot in public service delivery?
Neither you nor I is averse to the expression of a genuine praise of selfless and patriotic service; a service with quality input and output, a service rendered in absolute good faith for the benefit of all. What is exasperating is the tribe of conceited thieves, who derived their comfort from the proceeds of loots, but who goes about with a false and unashamed air of self-importance and, an exaggerated claim of service never rendered. People, who in other advanced climes would have been cooling their heels in jail for their multifarious crimes against the nation; in China, many of our celebrities would have been tied to the stake and shot dead. In Japan, these swindlers would have committed hara kiri to avoid being tried in public. In India, these rogues would have been hanged and cremated. But here in Lucifer’s own Vineyard, they are honoured, revered and celebrated as inventors and heroes. Titles such as Chief, Dr, Alhaji, Engr. are not uncommon by and for an individual. The less we celebrate the mediocre and swindlers, the better for this country of ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
