November 4, 2002
Electioneering campaigns have swung into full gear in Nigeria and all the things that make politics as ugly as people say it is, are manifesting themselves once again in a most odious manner.
Puppeteering
I recently talked to a former classmate of mine about the current political state of affairs on the ground in Nigeria; he just returned to the USA after a brief visit to Nigeria. Since we both hail from the same town, he briefed me on how the local government election campaign, in our town, was shaping up. When I asked him about a candidate we mutually know he simply said that he has no chance at all. I was hoping that there was a substantive reason why the candidate “had no chance at all,” so I probed further to understand what informed that conclusion. My friend simply said that moneybags were at their game again. They have handpicked their preferred candidates, pitched their tents with them and are now jointly mustering every financial resource to bludgeon and bulldoze their ways into office. Meanwhile, an unsuspecting electorate watches in awe as they flaunt their sometimes ill-gotten wealth as sunbathers would flaunt their God-given assets on the Riviera.
It would be understandable if the reason why our schoolmate/political candidate “has no chance” were because he does not have good ideas or lacks the necessary leadership skills. In this situation however, I suspect that as much as he may also have his failings, his major sin is that he probably has no moneybags sponsoring him. We are therefore back to the same old way of politicking where mediocres are enthroned with the attendant results of poor leadership, mismanagement, corruption and favouritism. No one should get this writer wrong on this issue; if the best candidates for the jobs are picked by moneybags, one would not have any problems, but this is not the case, they usually go for pushovers and airheads that they could manipulate. Inotherwords, they pick puppets who do their bidding.
The same can be said of Nigeria as a whole; candidates are being fielded by special interests whose claim to fame seem to be their money, not necessarily the soundness of their ideas, intellect or wisdom. They are not trying to install candidates because they have the interests of the masses at heart, but because they want to become kingmakers who would indirectly steer the ship of nation or state in whichever direction they wish as long as they reap financial windfall and power. That has been and will always remain the bane of our great country Nigeria.
The effect of this politics of puppeteering is manifest all over Nigeria today. Take the case of Obasanjo for example; this was a man who enjoyed the goodwill of many Nigerians and the international community when he first took office in 1999. Many wanted him to succeed and he could have made a very good president. However, because he was practically financed and installed by special interests including Nigeria’s Maradona, who hoped to control his activities while fronting him as a puppet, he found it difficult to untangle himself and bring his full ability to bear in the governance of Nigeria. He is afraid of upsetting those who put him in office so he allowed them to get away with the crimes of corruption, abuse of power and favouritism. In the process, he has soiled his hands and lost the moral authority to prosecute anyone else without looking hypocritical. One must state unequivocally that I still see Obasanjo as devoid of corruption (unless I see proof to the contrary), which is the reason why I disagree with the impeachment to this day. His problem is largely a case of ineptitude and dictatorial tendencies.
The revelation about the Agura Hotel accord is insightful; even though General Obasanjo may not have signed the accord, he has practically given the north everything they wanted, probably to express his gratitude for the fact that they sponsored and put him in office. This is a testament to the fact that he is a willing victim of the politics of puppeteering. This singular issue has diminished his image, squandered the goodwill he enjoyed amongst Nigerians and almost blurred the difference between him and those leaders who came before him. How could Obasanjo explain the appointment of General Danjuma as the minister of defense in the face of all the medical problems the man has? What tangible contribution has Danjuma made to the defense ministry since assumption of office? And what has Adamu Ciroma contributed to the finance sector except old and tired ideas of the past? What does he know about moving Nigeria forward in the age of cyber technology where ATM card is now almost in the lower rung of the technology ladder? It would have been a different case if Obasanjo’s sponsors allowed him free hand to appoint only those that are capable of doing the job, in which case he could chose from other capable northerners But they would not do so; instead, they want their illustrious sons like Ciroma and Danjuma, even though these men are no longer in tune with modernity. They tied his hands and so he ended up surrounding himself with never do wells who have completely lost touch with reality and have no clue what Nigeria needs in a changing military and financial world. This has inexorably affected his performance and is bringing to an anti-climactic end, what would have been an epoch-making presidency. I feel sorry for him.
In Anambra and Enugu states, the dismal performance of the Governors is classic examples of the dual-edged nature of the effect of being installed by special interests. They can never win, if they try to cater to the interests of the men who helped install them, the public would cry foul, if they try to distance themselves from them, their states would be rendered “ungovernable”. While the Governors have been largely inept, the latter scenario is what has helped dig the graves of their governorship tenures.
Moneybagism
I define moneybags in politics as people who try to influence political outcomes in a negative way, using their enormous financial resources. They are NOT concerned about the quality or calibre of the people they help install in office or how well they fare in providing leadership and satisfying the needs of the people. They just want to become kingmakers, wield power, get contracts and amass more money. They are not the same as citizen action groups that sponsor candidates and later go to ask for favours like good roads for the community, pipe borne water, electricity and the likes.
A sure way to reduce the influence of Moneybags in politics is by serious education of the electorate. I am not talking about the conventional education that is accomplished in classrooms or formal settings. It is the type of education that could only be provided by Nigeria’s mainstream press. These are journalists who have access to the candidates back in Nigeria and could interview them, ask tough questions, put them on the spot and publicize their responses on the dailies or TVs.
For over a week now, on an Internet forum I belong to, one of the members has actively been asking a political aspirant some very tough and specific questions about his candidacy. After a while, it seemed as though people were becoming uncomfortable with the questions but on my part, I found most of the questions very germane and specific to the entire process. For me, it is not good enough for a candidate to “sweepingly” say that he would provide electricity; he should specify how he would accomplish the feat and outline what he would do that has not already been done. Those are the types of clarifications that the mainstream press should be seeking from political aspirants; they should extract specific answers that would aid the electorate in making decisions. This is the type of education I am talking about and it must come from the press.
So far, the mainstream press has failed the masses; some of them seem to be in so much awe of the people they interview that they lose their ability to ask probing follow-up questions. Henry Kissinger had this to say in his memoir, “The journalist has comparably interested motives in his contacts with the official. He must woo and flatter the official because without his goodwill, he will be deprived of information. But he cannot let himself be seduced – the secret dream of most officials- or he will lose his objectivity. Our mainstream press should learn not to allow officials or politicians, they interview, to seduce them to a point where they lose their objectivity or fail to ask the tough questions. The absence of objectivity is the reason moneybags have practically become kingmakers. They use their money and polish up a candidate of their choosing, control the information that is released to the press about the candidate, craft ready-made answers for unavoidable questions and then prop up the candidate for the electorate to behold and vote for. They then unveil them to the press, but instead of asking tough questions, the press gives them free rides and in the end, the electorate fails to know what they really stand for.
Larry King of CNN has thought the world that you can be gentle to an interviewee but yet extract information from them that reveal their true position on important issues. The trick is simply to employ the age-old writing guideline of asking “WHY” and “HOW” to every thing your guest or interviewee says. He used this method to expose Dan Quayle’s hypocrisy on pro-life and pro-choice issues when he interviewed him. Dan Quayle had already given the standard answer of “I am pro-life” but Larry King pressed on with "hows" and "whys" and ended up asking what Quayle would do if his daughter is in a position where the decision about pro-life or pro-choice has to be made. Dan Quayle capitulated and stated that he would support his daughter in whatever decision she made. This exposed his double standard to America. If Larry had just accepted the standard answer, Quayle’s true position would not have become clear to the American people. In the same vein, when he interviewed the son of the actor, Marlon Brando, and casually asked him about his father, he again gave the standard answer of “I love my father”. Larry did not end there, he pressed on with probing but gentle questions of how, why and the likes. Again, the man capitulated and told King that he really “never knew” his father and went on to say other things. This is what is expected of the mainstream journalists in Nigeria. They should be gentle but probing; they should never accept standard answers that any moron could articulate, they must ask the how's, "why", "what" "when", "who's" and so on.
I have seen some Nigerian political manifestoes where a candidate declares unequivocally that he would bring foreign investors to Nigeria. One would think that the press would probe for more details, but they do not, yet this is a sweeping and hollow promise that serious journalists would pounce on and ask, “HOW, HOW and HOW” When an aspiring politician says he would bring in foreign investors to Nigeria, the first question a journalist should ask is how the politician would specifically accomplish that. The journalist should remind the politician that the President made the same promise but did not deliver. The politician should then be asked what he would do differently to succeed where Obasanjo has clearly failed. This line of questioning would tell these aspirants that running for an office, in Nigeria, is not just what you do because you have money but because you have ideas, analytic ability and can articulate issues on your feet. It would also force politicians to study issues properly, articulate reasonable solutions, and analyse the proposed solutions for efficacy before jumping to announce it. As these questions are asked, politicians would begin to expose the shallowness and intangible nature of their promises to the electorate.
In Anambra state, gubernatorial election is heating up and all kinds of promises are on the horizon coming from the incumbent and aspirants. They tell us that they would pay all teachers’ salaries if elected. That is wonderful; I would love that to happen because I have a teacher-sister there, who has not been paid in a long time. The questions for those making such promises including the incumbent are: specifically how would they do that? How would they generate revenue to accomplish the feat? What would the aspirants do differently form what the incumbent (who has failed in that respect) is doing? The aspirants should also demonstrate an understanding of the issues by explaining to the masses why the incumbent failed for four years.
Political Debates
The press should start organizing town hall debates that really put politicians on the spot and force them to answer specific questions about their promises and campaign manifestos. It is simply my opinion that some of these people seeking elected positions do not even have any clue what the issues are and yet they make outlandish promises to fix problems associated with the issues; now how could one proffer solution to a problem he does not understand? Only in Nigeria.
HERE I STAND!
Guides
