General Muhammadu Buhari
Mohammed Adamu (08035892325 sms only) | dankande2@gmail.com
They say that President Buhari should respect the sensibilities of a heterogeneous society and subject every appointment to geo-ethnic balance. I say that he should remain numb and unfeeling to the retrogressive tendencies of old that have stunted our growth and arrested our development. It was why we voted for ‘change’. So that for the first time things should be done differently; -and which is what ‘change’ is all about: -substituting something for another.
Those days should be long gone when political appointees were like dogs of hunt scavenging on behalf of sectional enclaves in a virtual ‘State of Nature’ that PDP had turned Nigeria into, where only the fittest survived. Back then and especially leading up to Jonathan’s roguish, geo-ethnic government, it seemed justified for Nigerians to feel a sense of aloofness from
the ‘national cake’ if they did not have one of their own appointed to the ‘baking room’.
the ‘national cake’ if they did not have one of their own appointed to the ‘baking room’.
Ironically though, even that psychogenic foreboding was largely misplaced because in reality political appointees were not known to regurgitate food back home for communal sharing. The rule had always been: ‘to every dog its day, and to every dog its bone’! It is thus uncharitable to worry that under a Buhari government such claptrap could happen. Nor is the proof against that any far-fetched: we just saw that in spite of the much that was up for the looting under Jonathan, not a dime made it even to the cleaning up of his Niger Delta; yet it took barely weeks in office for Buhari, a Northerner to approve that.
And I thought that it was this kind of ‘every-dog -its bone’ mentality that we have voted to change; so that it should not matter at all who was at the hunt or who makes it to the dishing table, all should be entitled –if not to an equal potion- at least an ‘equitable’ share of the game. If ‘equality’ is not the hallmark even of nature, ‘equity’ thus becomes a more practicable measure of distributive justice.
And maybe it is the reason non-oil producing states accepted the principle of derivation which shares the resources of the land ‘equitably’, not ‘equally’. In fact it is the reason that the least recipient state from the South-South under this principle still tops even Kano which receives the most in the entire North. Yet in 2001 the Ghali Assembly even voted to help Obasanjo abrogate the ‘dichotomy law’ and by so doing conceded, inequitably, more derivative benefits to the South-South from crude extractable some 200 kilometers off of our shores. Meaning that ‘in-equitability’, (not ‘equity’ or even ‘equality’) has been the principle guiding the sharing of oil resources under derivation.
But now concerning appointments even of the personal Aides of a Northern President, ethnic champions are demanding ‘equal’ sharing; so to achieve geo-ethnic ‘spread’ and ‘balance’ they say. But truth is, we must choose whether to share every national resource –human and material- ‘equally’ or ‘equitably’. This sudden selective quest for so called geo-ethnic ‘spread’ and ‘balance’ even in appointive offices not regulated by the Constitution will only, inevitably, raises the questions: why must we share some things ‘equally’, others ‘equitably’ and yet some others ‘in-equitably? Why do we not share ‘everything’ ‘equally’?
By the way this geo-ethnic monster of ‘equality’ in appointments which we are trying desperately to create can take a life of its own and soon it may be justified to insist that even National Coaches, in selecting players to make national teams, must ensure geo-ethnic spread and balance. Why not? There are sports talents too in every part of the country, just as others argue there are competent hands for political appointments everywhere. I for one would rather you offer any one of the many footballing talents I see wasting in my locality a chance to make it to Europe than give my State five ministerial slots. And that is because I believe in trickle-down economics more than do those politicians who lie about fighting to bring political appointments to their people. Like Keyamo has said: it has always been about them; not us!
It is because we insist, selfishly, on getting to the Eldorado of ‘equality’ rather than striving to achieve practical ‘equity’ (to achieve fairness) that we end up with too much baggage! For example, because the Constitution decrees to every State at least a minister, we must have not less than thirty-six even if we may not need as much; because the Constitution provides for ‘Federal Character’, we must sacrifice administrative merit to achieve spread, and because the law provides for ‘quota system’, we must compromise academic quality in favor of parity.
I believe that the justice we must seek should be the ‘equitable’ distribution of the spoils of the hunt so that ‘to each’ as Justinian would say ‘according to his due’- and not necessarily appointing an ‘equal’ number of those who should go to the hunt. We must have a leadership we trust that can create and pass the ‘cake’ round without having to invite every ethnic group to the smoky baking room. It will be uncharitable –and mischievous- to doubt that Buhari is that kind of leader!
And you wonder whether to tap cynics on the shoulders or may be to kick them right in the groin and yell: ‘Hey folks, this is Buhari and not some bowler-hat-Jonathan who hadn’t a mind of his own and was thus cheaply blown about like a yoyo! We may pretend not to, but we know that Buhari is neither in it for the ‘money’ nor is he in it for vainglory. And we know that he’ll do it like the law says it ‘shall’ or it ‘may’ be done! I doubt that as he carries on, Buhari will give a damn that no one is clapping or lose sleep because some are grumbling!
By the way, I do not recollect Buhari promising to be polite in bringing about the radical changes we voted for! What he promised though was to do ‘all that is necessary’; and to do so within the bounds law. And so if he is not precluded by law to make certain appointments, why should he be hamstrung by sentiments not to exercise the prerogative powers available to him? By the way to what end is it that people are ‘equally’ represented in appointments but do not get an ‘equitable’ measure of resources? Or what does it matter that they are ‘un-equally’ represented but are ‘equitably’ provided for?
And if we are to distribute appointments ‘equally’ instead of simply sharing resources ‘equitably’, how do we go about it?: if you say by regions, I ask why not by zones?, -to achieve balance!; if you say by states, I ask why not by councils?, -to achieve spread!; and if you say by ethnic groups, I ask why not by tribes? -to create a sense of belonging! Hell why don’t we do it household by household? -to achieve the utopia of ‘EQUALITY’ we are asking for! And maybe soon, we’ll get to that higher state of nirvana when everyone will be their own representative as political appointees in government.
We are always proud to ape even in base imitation of America, but we do not have the patriotism to grow the courage of America and let all things political marinate on their own. When we want others to do right by us, we’ll make a show of how things are done in America; but when we do not want to do right by others, we’ll argue that it has taken America over 200 years to develop its democracy.
Epilogue
I saw a list of largely south-south, south-east appointees of Jonathan bandied around as grounds to justify retaliation, but I do not think that it is about trading a Rolland for an Oliver! Our grouse with Jonathan was not so much the geo-ethnic bias in making appointments as it was the gross nonperformance of most of his appointees and the brazen theft of our common patrimony which many made the raison deter for governance. If they had performed well and had brought our nation to the neplus ultra of development, it would have hardly mattered where they came from.
Like Adeshina said: a new Sherriff is in town –Buhari! We asked for it; we must be ready to deal with it! It’ll be patently hypocritical to vote for ‘change’ and to expect ‘continuity’! We voted Buhari because we trusted only him to work with the impassioned deportment of a ‘surgeon’ who knows too well that ‘sentiments and sensibilities’ have no place in the delicate cut-and-stitch task that lies immediately at hand.
Ref: http://www.peoplesdailyng.com/of-ethnic-champs-and-buharis-appointees/
No comments:
Post a Comment