Jonathan was never an option

Critics and notable columnists who scoff at the March 28 dethronement of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan have continued to belittle the coronation of President Muhaammadu Buhari. Before the presidential election, they had argued that while Dr Jonathan was not perfect, and could in fact be trusted to improve considerably in his second term should he get it, President Buhari’s democratic, suprapersonal and secularist credentials would remain fettered by his background and limited exposure. Recent political developments, especially the bitter and frenetic jostling for presidency positions and key federal appointments, have given more ammunition to the critics. It is, however, now no longer clear where genuine criticism begins and where rabid partisanship stops. More baffling, the said critics and columnists have turned round to accuse critics and columnists who denounced Dr Jonathan in favour of then candidate Buhari of embracing mindless propaganda and heedless partisanship.

Some of these notable columnists like Femi Aribisala and Yinka Odumakin of course have the right to pursue and prosecute private and public agenda. There is indeed no constitutional impediment to the bitter manifestation of their detestations, no hindrance at all to their sometimes bewildering characterisation of the political objects of their pet revulsion. As the columnists and critics indulge their craft and acidic views, it is, however, also urgent to explode some of the myths that underscore their opinions and conclusions. It will be helpful if they present their detestations in civil, logical and persuasive language. President Buhari, they have concluded, cannot change. Fine. All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders from the Southwest may have been mistaken in their support for the ossified president. Again, fine. But both viewpoints can in fact be rendered in persuasive arguments and reasoning without wrapping and encumbering them with private and bitter loathing.

But the first obstacle the critics will encounter is attempting to demolish President Buhari in terms of comparatively elevating Dr Jonathan. The two, even by the most liberal and empathetic arguments, are incomparable. In the March 2015 polls, Nigeria was presented with two difficult choices: candidate Buhari who, to the South, was insular, ethnocentric, intemperate, inflexible, and mildly Jihadist; and candidate Jonathan who, to the North, was inept, ethnocentric, unfeeling, distracted, facetiously evangelical, and irredeemable. It was not quite Hobson’s choice; but whatever choice was made had its manifold drawbacks. Almost like Kogi State, where a lethargic incumbent will be facing an abrasive builder-challenger in next month’s governorship poll, Nigeria had to choose last March between Dr Jonathan who was bringing the country to a frenzied ruin, and a disciplined leader of admittedly doubtful depth and suspect democratic credentials. Except in the opinion of the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists, there was absolutely no contest.

President Buhari doubtless has his weaknesses, some of them provocative. His appointments to presidency positions have remained skewed and indefensible, and his cabinet list, though technocratic and scholarly, is largely apolitical and mystifying in a country so compulsively political and querulously nitpicky. His appreciation of complex and modern issues, especially economic, is deeply unnerving. His conception of society has not gone beyond the strange dualism of his younger days as a military officer and northerner in which he sees society as we against them, and good against evil. Nor does he seem capable of the rapid and comprehensive regeneration the decaying Nigerian society urgently needs. Yes, he has all these unenviable weaknesses. But he has his strengths, largely his disciplined outlook, frugality and ethical soundness far beyond cavil.

Dr Jonathan brought little or nothing to the table before and during the 2015 polls. He was the simplistic product, if not culmination, of the crazy meddlesomeness and insufferable arrogance of past Nigerian presidents and military heads of state. Like most of his predecessors, he was neither equipped for the job of leadership nor capable of the grandness and nobility which the job calls for and the office yields to. He professed Christian ethics and baited southerners with ethnic crumbs, but on a grand scale he showed no discipline in managing the affairs of the country or its economy. On his watch, helped by government officials who had stolen the country blind, he was bringing the country to ruination and raising the prospect of a revolution. Until he lost the election and some of his ministers triggered the unpalatable disclosures of the past few months, few believed he was capable of superintending such appalling breakdown of law, order and common sense.

In a long line of unsuitable Nigerian leaders, Dr Jonathan sat on the acme. Ibrahim Babangida, army general and former head of state, began the craze. The heavens gifted him a great political transition programme, but he spurned it in favour of his own misconceived contraption, enthroning Ernest Shonekan by a strange and unearthly steeplechase succession, and undergirding it with a rapacious and power-hungry Sani Abacha, a general and late head of state. Abdulsalami Abubakar, another general and former head of state, followed hard on their heels and relinquished power after he and other generals similarly played God and in their supposed wisdom installed ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo. Abjuring the democratic practice of letting the people choose their own leaders, which he gleefully propounded in 1978 and 1979, Chief Obasanjo unilaterally and contemptuously foisted the late Umaru Yar’Adua on the country. The latter’s dramatic death in turn foisted Dr Jonathan on Nigeria, unprepared mentally and ideologically.

It is shocking that in their frustrations, the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists ignore the value of pluralism and continue to assail the political contributions of those who championed the amalgamation of APC and President Buhari’s victory. Defending Dr Jonathan and denouncing President Buhari is an irrational exercise. The president has his weaknesses, and is still committing many faux pas and egregious policy and appointment blunders. But rather than pine over Dr Jonathan’s loss, and assail those who triggered the country’s political rebirth through the peaceful change of power from one party to another, President Buhari should be criticised for his shortcomings. It is time to quit mourning APC’s victory, notwithstanding the party’s clumsiness in managing the legislature, the executive and the economy. So far, an awkward Buhari has proved far better than a sprightly Jonathan. Indeed, President Buhari is probably the single most important factor in arresting the country’s drift towards the precipice.

It is also time for critics, analysts and columnists to avoid the bitter and vexatious essays of the pre-election period and begin to focus on more germane national issues. President Buhari, his cabinet and his policies are the issues. These should be addressed. If, as seems apparent, the president is unable to impress the Southwest or the Southeast or even the South-South before the next elections, then these will become something to talk about, notwithstanding how well he pleases the North. The president announced with flourish at his inauguration that he belonged to everybody and to nobody. The next polls will determine whether that delicate phrase is worth its weight in gold. In a matter of months, the Buhari government will clock one year, even as the president has proceeded very slowly and very gingerly. If he does not gather speed, if he continues along the sanctimonious line and idealism of being his own man, and if he fails to recognise the political environment in which he operates, he will discover only too late that elections and the electorate can be very cruel indeed.

President Buhari will need to pay close attention to the alliances he built before the election if he is not to come to grief. And going by the crippling poverty assailing the country, and beyond the anti-corruption campaign and some desultory recovery of stolen public funds, it is even more urgent for him to quickly articulate and adopt a multidimensional approach to the country’s multifarious problems. The problems are huge and have developed into an octopus, and are determined to resist his panaceas. President Buhari may be regarded as part of the country’s problems on account of his inability to quickly and efficiently respond to the exigent issues of the day, however, Dr Jonathan was never an option. It is time to move on and focus on President Buhari. For, as it now seems, the country’s fate is intertwined with his.The nation online. com