 |
| President Muhammadu Buhari |
By Jideofor Adibe @pcjadibe@yahoo.com (07058078841 SMS only)
People
who believe that Nigerians asking questions about when Buhari should
come back to the country are ‘busy bodies’ who should leave the
President alone to recuperate and return to the country at his
convenience, do not get it. There is something called ‘suspense’ - one
of the hallmarks of a good story. An ‘exciting’ story is driven by
suspense: it leads us down a path of expectations and builds tensions as
the plot unwinds. Suspense helps to capture and sustain interest in a
story.
Buhari’s
medical vacation in the UK has been turned into a suspense-packed
story. The
competing narratives from the various centres of power around
the presidency have helped to deepen distrust of official versions
while strengthening the suspense. Like in any good story, ears are wide
open on how it will all end.
The
initial story was simple enough: the president was proceeding on a
ten-day holidays, during which time he would use the opportunity to
carry out a routine medical check-up. He duly notified the Senate and
Vice President Yemi Osinbajo became empowered as the Acting President.
As would be expected in a low-trust and polarized environment like ours,
conspiracy theories and grapevine talks took over, with some claiming
the President was dead. It was probably in a bid to debunk this that the
President’s media aides went into over drive: they claimed he was hale
and hearty but at the same time urged Nigerians to keep praying for him;
then there were several Nigerians that visited him in London for a
photo op. Buhari also reportedly called some Nigerians, including Femi
Adeshina, the President’s Senior Special Adviser on the media. Just a
few days ago, there were reports that the ‘cabal’ were trying to
hurriedly bring him back to the country before the official closure of
the Nnamdi Azikiwe airports for repairs on March 8. When Buhari did not
make it back before the closure of the airport, the social media became
agog with stories that his UK doctors refused to give him a clean bill
of health. Obviously the way Buhari’s medical vacation has been handled
infused much suspense into the story and no one should blame anyone for
being inquisitive (that is what suspense does in a story) or creating
their own stories to explain the situation - either out of mischief or
because they do not trust official explanations of the situation.
What
would have changed, if, from the beginning, Nigerians were told that
the President was feeling unwell and needed medical attention in the UK
(without specifying the number of days he would be away)? What would
have the President lost if he had addressed Nigerians through a video
conference from the United Kingdom instead of allegedly selectively
speaking to some people over the phone or having a photo opportunity
with a stream of visitors? Even if he looks unwell or his voice is
shaky and husky in such a video, Nigerians will understand that such
conditions come with illness, even with malaria. It can even galvanize
compassion for him. The suspected fear that such would trigger calls for
him to be declared incapacitated seems therefore misplaced especially
as there is no sense of vacuum in governance.
There are a number of issues around the politics of the President’s medical vacation in the UK:
One,
if the President stays for too long outside the country, the halo of
the office will gradually move from him to the Acting President. Right
now while the Acting President is only the President in law, Buhari
remains the President in fact, and the legitimacy of the office resides
with him. However, if Buhari remains outside the country for a prolonged
period of time, the Acting President will also over time be seen as the
President in fact and in law and the perception that Buhari is too sick
to govern will harden. If the Acting President is still enjoying a
political honeymoon by the time the President returns (every political
honey moon eventually ends), his return may be seen as a sort of forward
to the past. It is therefore imperative that the President reaches
understanding with his UK doctors for his treatment to continue in the
country. He can always shuttle to the UK to meet his doctors as the
occasion demands.
Two,
it is not written anywhere that a President who is ill, or even gravely
ill, cannot be in office and rule through existing institutions and
trusted aides. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the 32nd President of the
USA, served for 12 years while using leg braces, a cane in public, and a
modified wheelchair in private. Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of
the USA, served two terms as president, with the last three years of his
second term being spent in a wheelchair due to a massive stroke.
Similarly though John F Kennedy was only 43 years old when he became the
35th US President, he had Addison’s disease (which causes the adrenal
glands that produce adrenaline and other hormones to wither resulting in
symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss and difficulty standing up). In
the same vein Francois Mitterrand had cancer while serving as French
President just as Winston Churchill had depression, a heart attack and a
stroke while serving as British Prime Minister. Another British Prime
Minister Harold Wilson suffered from symptoms that were later diagnosed
as colon cancer during his second term in office and might also have
suffered from Alzheimer’s. Gordon Brown lost the sight in one eye after
a teenage rugby accident and has a retinal detachment in his other eye,
meaning he had serious issues with his eyes but it did not prevent him
from serving as Prime Minister of Britain. Konstantin Chernenko, the
fifth general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was
terminally ill when he took office in February 1984.
Following
from the above, the fear that political opponents will jump to declare
Buhari incapacitated and unfit to rule if it is admitted that he is
seriously ill is misplaced. Such can only arise if a vacuum is
perceived to be created in governance as a result of the President’s
illness. By empowering Osinbajo to create a sense of continuity in
governance, that option is already foreclosed.
Three,
given the dynamics of our politics and the fragility of our democracy
and polity, we are all better off for President Buhari to be ‘helped’ to
complete his tenure. It will be a legitimate aspiration for those who
feel he has underperformed to organize and vote him out in 2019. Even if
the President on his return decides that he is too ill to continue,
constitutional imperative will still need to interact with political
realities to create a political solution.
Four,
if President Buhari (or the ‘cabal’ around him) tries on his return to
cut Osinbajo to size to checkmate his rising profile, it will boomerang -
unless Osinbajo’s current political honeymoon with Nigerians has
already come to an abrupt end. In the same vein, Osinbajo’s ability to
resist any temptations of becoming used to the spotlight as Acting
President, and the ease with which he can quickly revert to his
constitutional role as a ‘spare tyre’, (if that is what the President
demands of him on his return), will go a long way in defining the future
relationship between a President and the Vice President.
Five,
in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria, where the fault lines are deep,
the politics of symbolism, has been shown to be effective in increasing
a leader’s national acceptance. We saw this during the 2015 campaigns
when photographs of Buhari in different ethnic costumes diluted
perceptions of him in much of the southern part of the country as a
provincial man with little knowledge and few friends from outside the
Northern part of the country. While Obasanjo, Babangida and Atiku could
be called the grandmasters of the politics of symbolism in Nigeria -
they have networks from across the country and could show up at any
local event in any part of the country feel at home - Ag President has
embraced this politics of symbolism and it seems to be working for him.
He has for instance ordered companies to relocate their headquarters to
the Niger Delta. While in practical terms this may not mean much (a
company can designate any building as its headquarters while the real
activities take place elsewhere), as a symbolic gesture, it means much.
It is for instance likely to touch a chord among militants in the Niger
Delta who feel that activities of the oil companies damaged their
environments.
While
Buhari may regard the politics of symbolism as “little lies” that are
beneath him, in politics optics can be even more important than
deliverables. And it is one of the areas that the President has not done
well at all.
Credit: dailytrust.com.ng
No comments:
Post a Comment