Hallmarks Of Character & Integrity

By Sam Onimisi
Adherence to promises made and known rules even if it hurts oneself are the hallmarks of integrity, or so I believe. There is no sphere of life where integrity or lack of it is easily manifested more than in public life and at the top echelon. The main difference between a man of honor and a villain is the balance between gross debasement of norms and the net application of rules. Perhaps we might go on excursion of contemporary history to buttress this point.
General Ibrahim Babangida had eight years to transit from military rule to democracy. He it was who promised to hand over in 1989 but failed. He shifted hand over date to 1990 and then to 1992 and eventually to 1993. He not only botched all his promises, it took the collective honor of the military top-brass to escort him out of power against the background of the how lings of pre-democracy activists who hounded his guts to the point of surrender. Although he had the privilege to claim that he “stepped aside” rather than being forced to go, his subsequent attempts to step-in to power met the roadblocks mounted by his perceived lack of integrity. On the other hand, General Abubakar Abdulsalam came to power after the mysterious demise of the despotic General Sani Abacha. He gave the nation an 11 months transition programme and handed over on the dot as promised. Abdulsalam has ever since become the toast of national and international conferences on peaceful transition of government and a highly respected statesman and a trusted arbiter. If the difference between the two former heads of state is not clear, then it would only be so to prejudiced minds.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was believed to have some integrity, especially when he served as military head of state at the end of which he returned the country to democracy. His eight year tenure as civilian president appears to have erased whatever was left of his integrity. His administration was characterized by unkept promises and much more, on promising one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Added to this are the various domestic and official scandals which dodged his person. His relevance today is mainly accounted for by the length of time of his rule, his age as well as the wealth he controls, not by the quality or strength of his integrity. Knowing that opinion is free and everyone has the right to his/her views; this evaluation is not an expression of judgment on these former heads of state. Rather, it is to serve as examples from which people in authority at whatever level should learn and make their choice.
The word of God in Psalms 51:1 asked a question thus: “Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill?” Mercifully, the answer contains nothing like anyone with deceitful toothy smile or a sarcastic sense of humour. The Lord is not amused by a man in Agbada strapped with a Sam Browne, (a leather belt for a dress supported by a light strap passing over the right shoulder, made popular by a British Army officer, Sir, Samuel James Browne). Even God is not impressed by he who is arrogantly humble or quiet. A wise saying in my language says that no one has his/her heart open for us to see what is contained therein; Enahinere! And so, the reliable yardstick with which the measure or evaluate integrity is, in the performance of what is promised. The answer, according to God’s word if found in verse 4 among other answers. It says that those who may abide in God’s holy hill or tabernacle is “he who swears to his own hurt and does not change”.
We have a new leader in President Goodluck Jonathan who, in the course of his campaign for the office, made various promises to individuals, group and the country as a whole. Since many of the promises were made public or to an audience, they may now be used to set an agenda for him and to evaluate the level and quality of his integrity at the end of his tenure. He has said, for example, that he would serve only one term in office. If it was not a joke then he is expected to leave office in 2015. However, the on-going speculation that the National Assembly is being pressured to amend the Constitution for a single tenure of six years for the president may tamper with his integrity – if the move sails through.
What should engage the mind of the President at this stage is to engage in dialogue with all shades of political opinion to cool the frayed nerves in the wake of the post election violence in parts of the country. For instance, he has done well to meet with opposition parties who won election at various levels. He should follow it swiftly with a parley with the rest 53 political parties and especially, with the 46 political parties that adopted or supported him for the election. Failure to do so will be a signal that he may not fulfill his promise and that those parties may have misplaced their trust. It is even dangerous to think of de-registering political parties just because the self-serving National Assembly amended the Electoral Act with a provision for de-registration. Political parties exist not only to contest and win elections, but also to contest and win the mind and support of the people, to champion their cause at critical moments; to criticize unpopular public policies and serve as opinion molders, among other responsibilities.
In Nigeria today, there exist over 2000 Christian and Islamic denominations of various sizes and spread across the country for the religious needs and desires of the people. What of the over 1000 civil society organizations, engaged in advocacy and championing civil or gender rights – and to which government and international agencies gives financial grants? For a country of 150 million people, even 100 political parties could be said to be too few, given the over 350 ethnic nationalities of the country. The Churches and Mosques, together with the CSOs exist in furtherance of the freedom of association and belief enshrined in our constitution. To short – circuit this fundamental human rights in the name of party de-registration, when new parties could still be registered without guarantee that they will win future election, to my mind, is a most myopic and futile venture. It is only a government intent on imposing a one party system that will embark on party deregistration, especially when they pay no grant to the parties.
Multi-party democracy is the only guarantee against the tyranny of the majority just as competition is against entrenched monopolies. No country makes progress with one party cultism, not even with an angel as President and a 5-party system may evolve, not by the fiat of an Act of the Legislature if democracy is the game. In effect, integrity is not just in fulfilling promises made voluntarily; it is also in doing things that are all inclusive and beneficial to the greater majority. Our concept and understanding of government must transcend partisan party loyalty because while a party is for a few, government is for all. Promises are known to be debts and persons of integrity go the extra mile to pay their debts.
Many of today’s lawmakers defected from one political party to the other in order to contest the election that put them in the National Assembly. Prof Dora Akunyili left the PDP just as Dr. Chris Ngige to join APGA and ACN to contest a senate seat. Chief Okorocha left PDP to form Action Alliance and yet, went to APGA to contest and won the governorship election in Imo State. There are numerous other examples where the multi-party system has helped to ease tension and reduce or minimize intra – party wrangling; as a result thuggery and violence did not feature so much in the general election just concluded. This is not because we no longer have thugs but because the candidates had options of party platforms from which to choose if and where dissatisfied with their original parties. It takes a small spark of fire to ignite a revolution and if that spark comes in form of party de-registration and deprivation of our freedom of association, then the reckless piece of legislation by our rudderless National Assembly will take the credit for it. Who doesn’t know that when the voice of a diverse heterogeneous people is muzzled, the first victim is always the muzzlers and the result is always in favour of freedom for the people? If the defunct Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Chekcoslovakia are not sufficient examples, the combustive revolution over turning the entire Arabian world is an eye-opener, even to the willfully blind!
President Goodluck Jonathan did not promise to compress the democratic space by party de-registration. There is no way nor have we been told how the multi-system has harmed the peace of the country to warrant the odious thought of deregistration of parties. Those who have ears let them hear.