Atiku on Buhari and restructuring
GIVEN the candour and trenchancy of former vice president Atiku
Abubakar’s views on the state of the nation last week in Abuja, federal
officials may spend more time analysing his motives than understanding
the import and relevance of his constructive ideas. Alhaji Atiku had at a
public presentation of Chido Onumah’s book, We Are All Biafrans, made
scathing and particular remarks on President Muhammadu Buhari’s
management of the economy and politics. The president, he said, must
find ways of leading the effort to restructure the federation,
decentralise it, and make it less suffocating. He was also uncomfortable
with the president’s economic management style, especially his approach
to the herdsmen crisis.
The former vice president caused many to wince when he suggested that Nigeria was saddled with “a leadership that is not prepared to learn from the past and a leadership that is also not prepared to lead.” A few days earlier, the president had told media interviewers he had no interest in revisiting past efforts, particularly those of his predecessor, ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, at restructuring the federation through a national conference. Whether Alhaji Atiku was responding to the president’s unwise view is not clear; but it is enough that the views are strong, relevant and weighty. The president himself had been roundly condemned for denouncing efforts to restructure the federation in the face of mounting national challenges to peace, stability and growth. So, when the former vice president weighed in on the same subject, and couched his view so trenchantly, he was likely to be accused of directly referring to and denouncing the president’s stance.
In some respects, the former VP had earlier made some of the remarks attributed to him, though with perhaps less severity than last week’s. His views are probably gaining traction because of the president’s disregard for the true change the electorate thought they had voted for. Of course, the electorate knew the president must grapple with a broken economy made anaemic by the Jonathan government. It was also clear by the time of the last polls that many other aspects of the nation were either broken or about to be broken. Once sworn in, the president had to prioritise the nation’s existential challenges and deal with them firmly and urgently. But almost immediately, it also became clear to the public that the president needed to expand his vista and multitask very quickly, for too many other ancillary challenges were beginning to crop up and complicate the problems, making them intractable.
But instead of responding to the widening gyre of crises gnawing at the country’s innards, the president stuck to his default mode, scorned the campaign to extend his areas of concern, isolated himself from both his party and other support bases elsewhere, and postured grandly as a lawgiver whose person, views and perspectives were sacrosanct and incorruptible. That standoffishness, combined with the deepening and metastasizing national crises, and a general unwillingness to explore new ideas and seek help from a wider political and ideological base, have unnerved the country and appeared to stultify the president’s efforts. This may explain why Alhaji Atiku’s seemingly harsh advice resonated so widely last week.
The Buhari presidency will be tempted to focus on Alhaji Atiku’s person. They should resist that temptation. Even if the former vice president was motivated by malicious reasons, his views are not. He was right on Niger Delta; he was right on the need to repair the country’s political structure; he was right to ask for new economic paradigms; and though it may grate on the president’s nerves, the former vice president appeared to be giving the problems of the country more thought and was even sounding presidential, not to talk of courageous, a commodity he had never lacked. It must be humbling to the presidency that Alhaji Atiku addressed these salient issues, and did it very well. Should the presidency join issues with him on his observations, they would embarrass themselves, for they would be forced to debunk arguments admired by the rest of the country, and put the lie unsuccessfully to frustrations sometimes unspoken but nonetheless felt. No matter what motives propelled Alhaji Atiku to give vent to his views on the nation’s crises, he has done the Buhari presidency a world of good to draw their attention to these problems in their first year in office.
It is also not unlikely that Alhaji Atiku, an unrepentantly ambitious politician, had other motives for publicising his succinct views. He has never hidden his ambition to be president, and inspired by the trajectory by which President Buhari assumed the presidency, the former VP would hold out hope for a glorious electoral future. In terms of courage, which he exemplified by his opposition to former president Olusegun Obasanjo between 2003 and 2007, he has shown himself to be a forthright and sensible politician and individual, one not afraid to gamble his future on a single throw of the dice. He has proved adept at synthesising public yearnings far better than President Buhari, and is more accessible, more gregarious, more gifted at discovering talents and mentoring them, and more nationally inclined, with friends everywhere. There is no doubt he would make a good president, probably a better president.
But he could not have defeated Dr Jonathan in 2015, for the epithets hurled at him by Chief Obasanjo in the years before 2007 stuck to him painfully and remorselessly. He was of course healthier and more endowed than the then Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, the late Umaru Yar’Adua, but Chief Obasanjo had told the country and the world that Alhaji Atiku could not be trusted with the country’s money. The former vice president did everything in his power to shrug off what he described as criminal defamation, but nobody was buying. He ran a good race on the ticket of the then Action Congress (AC) party, but it was a short and hopeless fight. His sojourn in the political wilderness has however not attenuated his vigour, his friendliness, or his presence of mind.
For a man so gifted, so thoughtful and so indomitable, it is a mystery that his virtues are not accompanied or reinforced by the principles and character that define and ennoble greatness and statesmanship. He generally does not flip-flop on ideas and philosophies, but he is unpredictable in party loyalties, jumping from one party to the other casually and almost insouciantly. Had he acquired the staying power and fortitude necessary to undergird his fidelity to ideas, and had he eschewed the lust for power which constantly triggers and dogs his nomadism and political peregrinations, it is not inconceivable he would today be leading the PDP and, in view of a faltering All Progressives Congress (APC) bent on self-destruction, be positioning himself for a powerful bid for the presidency in 2019. But notwithstanding his weaknesses, the nation is blessed to have him in politics, especially the courage and ideas he propagates so admirably.
The former vice president caused many to wince when he suggested that Nigeria was saddled with “a leadership that is not prepared to learn from the past and a leadership that is also not prepared to lead.” A few days earlier, the president had told media interviewers he had no interest in revisiting past efforts, particularly those of his predecessor, ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, at restructuring the federation through a national conference. Whether Alhaji Atiku was responding to the president’s unwise view is not clear; but it is enough that the views are strong, relevant and weighty. The president himself had been roundly condemned for denouncing efforts to restructure the federation in the face of mounting national challenges to peace, stability and growth. So, when the former vice president weighed in on the same subject, and couched his view so trenchantly, he was likely to be accused of directly referring to and denouncing the president’s stance.
In some respects, the former VP had earlier made some of the remarks attributed to him, though with perhaps less severity than last week’s. His views are probably gaining traction because of the president’s disregard for the true change the electorate thought they had voted for. Of course, the electorate knew the president must grapple with a broken economy made anaemic by the Jonathan government. It was also clear by the time of the last polls that many other aspects of the nation were either broken or about to be broken. Once sworn in, the president had to prioritise the nation’s existential challenges and deal with them firmly and urgently. But almost immediately, it also became clear to the public that the president needed to expand his vista and multitask very quickly, for too many other ancillary challenges were beginning to crop up and complicate the problems, making them intractable.
But instead of responding to the widening gyre of crises gnawing at the country’s innards, the president stuck to his default mode, scorned the campaign to extend his areas of concern, isolated himself from both his party and other support bases elsewhere, and postured grandly as a lawgiver whose person, views and perspectives were sacrosanct and incorruptible. That standoffishness, combined with the deepening and metastasizing national crises, and a general unwillingness to explore new ideas and seek help from a wider political and ideological base, have unnerved the country and appeared to stultify the president’s efforts. This may explain why Alhaji Atiku’s seemingly harsh advice resonated so widely last week.
The Buhari presidency will be tempted to focus on Alhaji Atiku’s person. They should resist that temptation. Even if the former vice president was motivated by malicious reasons, his views are not. He was right on Niger Delta; he was right on the need to repair the country’s political structure; he was right to ask for new economic paradigms; and though it may grate on the president’s nerves, the former vice president appeared to be giving the problems of the country more thought and was even sounding presidential, not to talk of courageous, a commodity he had never lacked. It must be humbling to the presidency that Alhaji Atiku addressed these salient issues, and did it very well. Should the presidency join issues with him on his observations, they would embarrass themselves, for they would be forced to debunk arguments admired by the rest of the country, and put the lie unsuccessfully to frustrations sometimes unspoken but nonetheless felt. No matter what motives propelled Alhaji Atiku to give vent to his views on the nation’s crises, he has done the Buhari presidency a world of good to draw their attention to these problems in their first year in office.
It is also not unlikely that Alhaji Atiku, an unrepentantly ambitious politician, had other motives for publicising his succinct views. He has never hidden his ambition to be president, and inspired by the trajectory by which President Buhari assumed the presidency, the former VP would hold out hope for a glorious electoral future. In terms of courage, which he exemplified by his opposition to former president Olusegun Obasanjo between 2003 and 2007, he has shown himself to be a forthright and sensible politician and individual, one not afraid to gamble his future on a single throw of the dice. He has proved adept at synthesising public yearnings far better than President Buhari, and is more accessible, more gregarious, more gifted at discovering talents and mentoring them, and more nationally inclined, with friends everywhere. There is no doubt he would make a good president, probably a better president.
But he could not have defeated Dr Jonathan in 2015, for the epithets hurled at him by Chief Obasanjo in the years before 2007 stuck to him painfully and remorselessly. He was of course healthier and more endowed than the then Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, the late Umaru Yar’Adua, but Chief Obasanjo had told the country and the world that Alhaji Atiku could not be trusted with the country’s money. The former vice president did everything in his power to shrug off what he described as criminal defamation, but nobody was buying. He ran a good race on the ticket of the then Action Congress (AC) party, but it was a short and hopeless fight. His sojourn in the political wilderness has however not attenuated his vigour, his friendliness, or his presence of mind.
For a man so gifted, so thoughtful and so indomitable, it is a mystery that his virtues are not accompanied or reinforced by the principles and character that define and ennoble greatness and statesmanship. He generally does not flip-flop on ideas and philosophies, but he is unpredictable in party loyalties, jumping from one party to the other casually and almost insouciantly. Had he acquired the staying power and fortitude necessary to undergird his fidelity to ideas, and had he eschewed the lust for power which constantly triggers and dogs his nomadism and political peregrinations, it is not inconceivable he would today be leading the PDP and, in view of a faltering All Progressives Congress (APC) bent on self-destruction, be positioning himself for a powerful bid for the presidency in 2019. But notwithstanding his weaknesses, the nation is blessed to have him in politics, especially the courage and ideas he propagates so admirably.
Post a Comment