Adventurers and risk-takers

It is not unlikely that the limitations at the levels of governance in the nation are creating wider spaces for subversive non-state actors to push us closer to crises worse than we are already experiencing. How else does one comprehend the alarming signals emerging from many quarters, some motivated by genuine fear, others motivated by […]

It is not unlikely that the limitations at the levels of governance in the nation are creating wider spaces for subversive non-state actors to push us closer to crises worse than we are already experiencing. How else does one comprehend the alarming signals emerging from many quarters, some motivated by genuine fear, others motivated by the need to create fear? Perhaps these things are not meant for comprehension by simple, ordinary citizens, which may explain the reasons why we have leaders whose job it is to anticipate, manage and resolve conflicts.

When leaders fail to act when and in the manner that deal with threats and fears, those who see advantages in stoking the fires of fear and hatred dig deeper into mischief-making. We stand today at precisely that point where the combination of inaction, indifference, incompetence and ignorance at the levels of leadership leave the nation at the mercy of adventurers and risk-takers. It will take a lot more than a President who believes most problems are best  left to subordinates and minions to deal with to push the nation past its current challenges. If it fails to move beyond this point, history teaches that it could plunge into deeper crises. Certainly, all the signs are there: language and hysteria designed to trigger conflicts, chaotic and incoherent responses by leaders and the shrinking influence of the state over conflict prevention and management.

Starting from the latest and walking back, we now have the drama of the state chasing a handful of citizens whose fame was crafted entirely around social and other disreputable media and the exploitation of hate because they now call for a revolution. There are certainly provisions in the laws of the land for a whole array of incitements and insurrections such as coups, uprisings, sedition, subversion, rebellion, illegal assembly and as many other offenses as the state may want craft out of these to arrest and prosecute citizens for, but when you arrest and prosecute persons desperately seeking for attention because they call for revolution, you merely play into their hands. Someone must have forgotten to advise the administration that panicking in the face of provocations is a sign of weakness which adversaries exploit.

The decision to ban the Islamic Movement of Nigeria(IMN) is another major blunder the administration’s irritants are exploiting. Banning an organization because it breaches the legal and other requirements for existence is perfectly within  the ambit of responsibility, but the administration should know that it is not the solution to the clamour for the release of its leader, El Zakzaky which the courts and rational thought dictate. Nor does it even remotely touch the surface in terms of the size and belligerence of the man’s following. You cannot ban a faith, and you cannot wish away multitudes that believe the government is unjust. By the time you read this, the nation would know whether it has a reprieve if the government respects  the bail granted to El Zakzaky, or it will remain at the mercy of the perennial cat-and-mouse, and, in the long run a major threat from a movement that can go underground and take up an armed struggle. It is conceivable that the administration could police Abuja round the clock to stop congregations by some of his supporters, but this will merely push and scatter the frightening (and illegal) resort by his followers to march and intimidate the public in other towns and cities.

If it is not a significant evidence of the opportunism and hypocrisy of Buhari’s detractors, it be a source of humour to see people who accuse the administration in particular, as well as Fulani and northern Muslims  of implementing an Islamization agenda in Nigeria march around the country demanding the release of Al Zakzaky. People and communities who called for the expulsion of the Fulani and his cattle from their land were leading motley crowds chanting for release of El Zagzagy.The administration left itself open with poor advise and weak communication strategies, and people and interests who live on these types of weaknesses raised their game. The tally kept rising: the shrill rhetorics around Fulani herdsmen and widening perception of lethargy in decision-making brought out scum that should not be dignified by having their names mentioned here. Coalitions are springing up to challenge an administration that has not demonstrated a healthy capacity for engineering constituencies around its position on sensitive matters.

In the category of actors one should be fairly charitable to are two events that should be mentioned as initiatives that respond to vacuum created by the administration. The efforts of President Obasanjo to bring to the table his own version of key stakeholders, one of  the many  association  which speak for the Fulani, and a selection of Yoruba elites would have scored higher if the same convener had not gone to town a few weeks earlier with allegations of grand plans at ‘Fulaninization and Islamization’ as part of his repertoire in his regular tirades against President Buhari. Obasanjo may have missed the fact that his roundtable( which put out a wooly communique that broke no new grounds ) had in attendance some of the Yoruba elite that said it will not attend another event convened by former Head of State, Abdussalami  Abubakar if the same people they sat with at the Obasanjo event were invited. People with a penchant for reading ethnicity in Nigerian politics would say Afenifere leaders will sit with Fulani if another Yoruba summons them, but not a northerner. Obasanjo got what he needs: to attract attention to himself and portray the administration as lacking in bridge-building capacities. He says his roundtable will be a continuous process. This means he does not expect the problem to disappear any time soon.

General Abdussalami Abubakar also convened his own roundtable which was boycotted by socio-cultural groups from the southern part of the country because a Fulani association( yes, the very same one some of the groups met at Obasanjo’s meet) in Minna, although some prominent persons from the South( who may be uncomfortable with being associated with Ohaneze, Afenifere, PANDEP or the Middle Belt Forum) attended. This roundtable also suggests that the issues it looked at are complex and will require time and all-out efforts to solve, including a willingness on the part of the elite to engage with each other. There was not much applause for the President’s  meetings with Yoruba elites to calm their nerves and tamper rhetorics after the killing of the daughter of the Afenifere’s leader’s daughter, except perhaps in core Yoruba areas. Communities in Katsina, Kaduna, Sokoto Zamfara and Niger States have lowered their expectations of President Buhari’s sympathy  a long time ago.

The Buhari administration is in danger of being swamped by avoidable challenges and opportunists who feed fat on its weaknesses. You do not need to like or support the administration to hope that it will radically improve its thinking capacities and the management of conflicts. You should do this because the nation is facing major problems that will require a stronger and more enlightened leadership, and because every citizen will be a victim of its many limitations.