As
history unfolds in Nigeria, it does appear that the more things change,
the more they remain the same. As a military dictator, 32 years ago,
Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) truncated Nigeria’s Second Republic which
was reputed for its scandalous corruption. That intervention lasted 20
months. Today, Buhari will be sworn in as the fourth elected president
of Nigeria since the country’s return to civil rule in 1999, replacing a
government that was associated with monumental corruption.
The
transition from Gen. Muhammadu Buhari to President Muhammadu Buhari has
taken 30 years from when he was overthrown in a palace coup in August
1985. The expectations are high for the new President considering how
corruption and years of ineffectual leadership have blighted a once
promising country. But will anything change? Of course, it depends on
the people you ask, where they come from and what interest they
represent.
Personally, I don’t think it will be
“business as usual”, at least on a private level, for Nigeria’s oldest
President. Beyond his foibles – alleged provincialism and antecedent as a
military dictator – Buhari is famed for his asceticism. President
Buhari, 73 in December, obviously is a man who has seen it all. I agree
completely that leadership is important and that Nigeria needs a strong
and purposeful leader. Chances are that Buhari will not toe the line of
malevolent accumulation which has been the hallmark of leadership in
Nigeria. He can bring this discipline to bear in the way Nigeria is
governed in the next four years.
Candidate Buhari campaigned on
the track record of integrity and anti-corruption. It is understandable,
therefore, if Nigerians expect, and indeed, demand from him an end to
the bleeding as far as corruption is concerned. Even though he has
promised to draw a line between past malfeasance and the new order, I
think there are a few politically exposed persons – both within the new
government and the opposition – who ought to stand trial for their
egregious financial crimes against the country whether as presidents,
governors, ministers, lawmakers or contractors.
Indeed, President
Buhari does not need to entangle himself in the debate about whether to
probe certain ministers and individuals or not which dominated the
political space preceding his inauguration. All he needs to do if he is
serious about fighting corruption is to empower and make truly
independent the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other state
agencies responsible for tackling corruption. That way, he extricates
himself from the “politics of fighting corruption”.
But looking
at the big picture, is this intervention enough to pull Nigeria back
from the brink? Nigeria, like many Facebook relationship updates, is
complicated. Buhari rode to power at the behest of some people for whom
what took place on Election Day, March 28, was nothing but state
capture. The fundamental concerns will be how he navigates the interest
of this group, his vision of a “new Nigeria”, the interest of millions
of disillusioned and deprived citizens, but more importantly the lack of
existential confidence in the nation Nigeria.
Nigeria is a
nightmare. Ours is a country of many internal antagonisms and seemingly
irreconcilable contradictions. These contradictions define our daily
existence and relationship with one another; the antagonisms manifest in
the mad quest for political power by individuals and power blocs within
the country and ultimately their attitude to the nation’s resources.
Reputed as one of the most corrupt nations in the world, Nigeria offers
very little hope for self-fulfilment and survival.
Many have
argued, and rightly so, that corruption remains perhaps Nigeria’s
biggest problem. The hope, therefore, is that President Buhari, “Mr.
Anti-corruption”, can deal with corruption and get the Nigerian state to
function. So, why has the Nigerian state been unable to tame corruption
and why has the state itself defied many attempts to make it
functional? The answer is simple: We can’t have a functional state
without a functional nation. Clearly, we can’t witness the rebirth of
this nation, and by extension the Nigerian state, without unmaking
Nigeria. In unmaking Nigeria, we have to deal with the fundamental fault
lines that throw our nation into episodic convulsions and define our
attitude to our common patrimony.
So, while we bask in the
euphoria of “change”, we necessarily have to rethink Nigeria. Nigerians
must have this conversation not minding the intimidation, blackmail and
threats routinely issued by those for whom this nation is a “perfect
union”. There is an undeniable link between national identity and
development. As Francis Fukuyama notes in his book, Political Order and
Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of
Democracy, “Critical to the success of state building is a parallel
process of nation building.” This is the missing puzzle in Nigeria’s
quest for development.
The deep-seated corruption in Nigeria is
fundamentally structural. Therefore, we have to dig a little further if
we really want to tame this canker. Here again, I refer to Fukuyama’s
seminal work and his assertion that, “Much of what passes for corruption
is not simply a matter of greed but rather the by-product of
legislators or public officials who feel more obligated to family,
tribe, religion or ethnic group than to the national community and
therefore divert money in that direction. They are not necessarily
immoral people, but their circle of moral obligation is smaller than
that of the polity for which they work.”
What I think Fukuyama is
saying in essence is that you can’t deal with entrenched corruption as
is the case in some parts of the world without first dealing with the
crisis of identity or nationhood. There is no better proof of this
notion than the nation Nigeria where the resource that ought to serve
our collective purpose and need is pillaged because in the end, nobody
really owns it.
It is for this reason that our rulers
gratuitously stash billions of dollars – money they may never have
access to – in foreign bank accounts; it explains why they would buy and
invest in choice property – property they many never live in – around
the world. It explains why the President of the Federal Republic can
conveniently make a distinction between “stealing and corruption”; why
when a governor or a minister is accused of corruption, for example, his
or her “people” will rise in defence. They seem to be saying, “We know
Minister A or Governor X is a thief, but he or she is our own thief.”
(This piece is extracted from an upcoming book: Unmaking Nigeria: The rebirth of a nation.)
No comments:
Post a Comment