“Whatever you do, good or bad, people will always have something negative to say.” – W.H. Auden.
Wystan Hugh Auden, abbreviated as W.H. Auden, was a British-American poet who made a name with his stylistic writings and engagement with politics. The statement above is generic, but when viewed through the prism of Nigerian politics, it could be quite specific. In Nigerian politics, particularly concerning governance, there is always a debate between those in power and those being governed. Almost always, the debate is ludicrous. Logic is abandoned, common sense is sidelined, and patently absurd allegations are made without any sense of remorse. Whatever the leader does, good or bad, is viewed with suspicion by the people. That’s Nigeria for you.
Yesterday, it was Muhammadu Buhari who was on the firing line. As President, Buhari was the subject of criticism or blame by many, simply for being the Nigerian leader in politics. Hardly a day passed without unreasonable attacks directed at him, his appointees, or family members. Questions were raised about his health. His academic credentials were called into question. Some even alleged that he didn’t possess an ordinary school certificate, despite the fact that he remains the only Nigerian to have been a Governor, Minister, Head of State, and twice elected President. No one has been as fortunate, but despite that, he was accused of lacking a secondary school certificate. That reflects the personal perspective of some people when someone holds political office in Nigeria.
Before Buhari, former President Goodluck Jonathan was the victim. Goodluck Jonathan was a Governor of Bayelsa State. Before that, he was the Deputy Governor. He was also Vice President under President Umaru Musa Yar’adua. After that, he became the President of Nigeria. Goodluck Jonathan contested but lost the 2015 Presidential election to the opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari. Despite the power of incumbency and the mini-god mentality of African leaders, he conceded defeat and became the first in Nigerian history to surrender power peacefully. Yet, despite such a remarkable legacy, he was repeatedly labeled a clueless leader.
My dictionary defines “clueless” as a person having no knowledge, understanding, or ability. That was the personal perspective of some people when Jonathan held political office in Nigeria.
Before Jonathan, it was Obasanjo, who was railroaded to the Villa from prison. But that’s not to say he was in prison as an ordinary criminal; he was there due to the struggle for power. Obasanjo was the second-in-command to the late Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed. He became the Head of State after Murtala’s assassination. Obasanjo was a General in the Nigerian Army and a diplomat. He was the one who received the Biafran surrender during the Nigerian civil war. He was also the first military ruler in Africa to hand over power to a civilian government. But when he became President in 1999, countless criticisms rained down upon him.
Obasanjo’s tenure as an elected President was characterized as a chronicle of calamities. Even the Boko Haram insurgency, and to some extent the banditry we are witnessing today, are attributed to him. That reflects the personal perspective of some people when someone holds political office in Nigeria.
Today, the man at the center of the storm is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. His story is still being written under various titles. But I can tell you with certainty that it will not be any different from the stories of his predecessors. He cannot escape criticism, destructive criticism, because of the personal perspective of some people when someone holds political office in Nigeria.
For those of us trained as journalists, we were taught that social criticism is a form of academic or journalistic criticism that focuses on social issues in contemporary society, particularly with respect to perceived injustices and power relations. But in Nigeria, we often see the reverse. People criticize based on ignorance, political hatred, and sometimes personal prejudice against a person because of his or her tribe or political affiliation. That’s bad—too bad.
No matter the sincerity of purpose of a leader in Nigeria, some people constantly hold them with suspicion. There is a popular phrase that says, “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.” The idea behind this phrase is that individuals in positions of power or leadership should be held to a higher standard of conduct. It originates from the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, who is reported to have said this in reference to his wife, Pompeia. The phrase suggests that while the public should give leaders the benefit of the doubt, leaders must reciprocate by conducting themselves with integrity.
Those in prominent or influential roles need to be exceptionally careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or wrongdoing. This is because their actions carry great weight and consequences, and they have a heightened responsibility to maintain public trust. Leaders must be transparently ethical and beyond reproach so that there is no basis for suspicion or criticism of their character. Even the slightest hint of scandal can undermine their credibility and authority.
As things stand in Nigeria today, with the public crying over the intolerable price of petrol and widespread suffering, accusations are flying, and as usual, they are directed at the leader. But those making the accusations should remember: when one finger is pointed at someone, three fingers are pointed back at themselves.
And that’s the position of personal perspective in Nigerian politics.
