FLASHLIGHT ON PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS: GMB

FLASHLIGHT ON PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS: GMB
By Onesimus Enesi
When the last presidential race was run in 2007, Goodluck Jonathan was a running mate – a position later described as a spare tyre, although he turned out to be a new spare which is as good as the original. His chance in the race for 2011 has been x-rayed in previous articles through this media.
Enter General Muhammadu Buhari fondly known as GMB, never before a spare tyre, old or new. His foray into power came on the heels of the inept and corrupt regime and rotten performance of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) government of Alhaji Shehu Usman Shagari of 1979 – 1983. The overthrow of Shagari’s regime was seen as god-sent by most Nigerians and naturally, the arrowhead of the coup detat was seen an instant hero.
Buhari’s 20 months in power compared to no other regime in the history of Nigeria in terms of trust in government or public authority, focus on the economy and personal and corporate discipline enforced on individuals and institutions. He himself was physically an epitome of frugality, both in appearance and in words. His actions and decisions are the hallmarks of a hurricane. Even at his overthrow by a supposedly trusted friend, he remained frugally defiant and has remained so ever since.
However, Buhari suffered and is still suffering from the public’s perception of his deputy, the late General Tunde Idiagbon whose menacing mien carried the virtues of power and authority. And so, Buhari’s achievements in government were attributed more to Idiagbon than GMB himself. The perception remained till date, except that the performance of Buhari as chairman of PTF between 1994 and 1999 helped to show case the quintessence in the man. But again, the despotism of the regime of General Sani Abacha who appointed him into the PTF diminished the quality of his character and blurred his achievements.
Unknown to the public, Buhari is his own man and only seems a weakling when he operates with individuals or people with whom he enjoys synergy. For instance, General Buhari and Idiagbon were both Fulani even if from different states of the North. They both were also Muslims who shared the same worldview on most issues. Again, long before their tenure in government, they have had to serve as successors or predecessors in the same capacity in the military and public service, thus their perfect understanding of and mutual respect for each other. It was this factor more than any weakness in either of them that was responsible for the leeway Idiagbon enjoyed.
What the synergy meant was that both Buhari and Idiagbon ethnically were brothers, being Fulanis. The two were also Northerners, geo-politically speaking. And both were Muslims of the same sect. So in terms of views, values and preference, Generals Buhari and Idiagbon were a perfect jell. Arguably, no regime, whether military or civilian, enjoyed the synergy which Buhari’s regime enjoys between the two topmost men at the helm of government affairs. Their rapport also stemmed from the fact that they were of the army (as different from either the Navy or Airforce, together with the Army which are called the military). So much for Idiagbon’s influence on Buhari’s government.
Many people are of the opinion that the person of Muhammadu Buhari is not only good but is of the quality the country needs at the moment, i.e, his personal discipline and spartan lifestyle. They site as an example, the manner he dealt with his late ex-wife who was said to be flirting with the Babangida regime while Buhari was in detention. Which means that the man brooks no exception where discipline is the concern? Of course, there are other instances which space cannot accommodate here.
As with everyone, no one has a hundred percent rating acceptance. General Buhari is seen by many people as indecently strict and harsh when dealing with views or people opposed to his or him. They sited instances of his appointments into key positions which were religiously biased, never ethnic compliant and were geo-politically skewed in favour of his region when he was head of State. He was also accused of the same offences during his tenure as chairman of the PTF – when contracts and consultancies were generously awarded to people of his religious faith, ethnic group and regional origin – which prompted a half-hearted attempt to probe him by President Olusegun Obasanjo.
He is also seen as a Muslim extremist by many, especially when in his campaign in the 2003 presidential election, he urged Muslims to vote for a party or candidate who would protect their religious faith. Although, he made spirited attempt to publicly deny it, the allegation refused to go away and it helped Obasanjo to rig him out of that year’s election. As an experienced presidential candidate, Buhari would have learnt one or two lessons on how to handle emotive issues – as they substantially contributed to his failures in 2003 and 2007.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that he will be the flagbearer of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC – his new party. However, the manner of his emergence as candidate of the ANPP in 2007, when other contestants were reported to have been arm-twisted to step down for him lingers in the memory of many democrats. They are of the view that other aspirants will be shut out of contest in the CPC and so, there may never be internal democracy within the party. This point deserves attention and should not be wished away if we desire openness in electoral process.
Not a few of his erstwhile associates are of the view that Buhari is often held hostage by a clique who feeds on his goodwill and reputation for their own selfish ends. They claimed that Buhari lacks control over the clique who are accused of being responsible for his diminishing returns as a national figure. This group is reputed to have the final say – and not Buhari – on any agreement and alliance to which he consented. This trait is attributed to his military background that thrives on absolute loyalty of lieutenants – even if selfishly so. They contend that a national leader with such a fundamental defect in control or character risk having his government held hostage, by a selfish, sectarian or sectional mafia – a development or possibility that negates an all-inclusive democratic practice. If so, can the man change? The question needs a reassuring answer.