IBB, Jonathan and sycophancy

How then does that scenario apply to Jonathan and his populist game with FIFA? Simple! When at the peak of indignation over the national disgrace at South Africa he withdrew Nigeria from international football for two years, they hailed him. They even went albeit ludicrously, by equating international soccer administration with the political sovereignty of […]

How then does that scenario apply to Jonathan and his populist game with FIFA? Simple! When at the peak of indignation over the national disgrace at South Africa he withdrew Nigeria from international football for two years, they hailed him. They even went albeit ludicrously, by equating international soccer administration with the political sovereignty of a nation insisting that FIFA cannot dictate to Nigeria.

Fine! But when just an hour to the FIFA deadline on Nigeria our President acted accordingly they were quick to be on duty again now in the reverse. They were to command his statesmanship and love of the country by averting what could have been a global ignominy in the field of sports. Where then do they place the so-called sovereignty of the nation in the first instance? The question is should they have exposed our sovereignty to ridicule by taking it to battle theatre it was sure to lose?

Coming nearer home, and to the point, it is the same people who are using him to heat the polity by saying that he must contest the 2011 election that would turn round to say “how glorious would it have been for him in the annals of history if Jonathan had not overstretched his luck by contesting in 2011”. No wonder that at the moment the major development project at the Presidency is how Jonathan should be in office beyond 2011.

Every rough and dirty language is being used to describe the zoning arrangement that brought Jonathan himself up as Vice President in the first instance. They talk as if it’s not in the constitution, as if it is a party affair. Or are they trying to say that internal arrangements within each political party are also not allowed by the constitution? Do they need to be reminded that respect for rules and convention is equally a vital element of constitutionalism?

All the so-called seven-point agenda of Yar’adua had now been reduced to Jonathan perpetuation in office. It is therefore not a surprise that the state of insecurity had reached such a crescendo that militants from the President’s geopolitical zone had to march to Abuja to invade the seat of power. Who knows whether their mission was to attack the villa to kidnap the President or his wife for ransom?

The quality of service keeps on declining at the expense of the high rate of criminology. Nothing is being done at the moment to address the power issue which had remained in steady decline. In the same sense, kidnapping had virtually assumed legitimacy in our business options. Yet the concern of professional power worshippers is that Jonathan must remain in office at all cost.

Perhaps it is in the bid to make the coast clear and safe for Jonathan that Babangida had been subjected to all forms of attacks and invectives by hypocrites and sycophants in our political stable. They now style him a dictator. But even as military Head of State he remained the most affable, friendly and ever smiling military Head that ever ruled the country. It is the same people he released from two hundred and fifty years jail terms that now see him as dictator. When he threw out public debate on the desirability or otherwise of the IMF loan, and remained guided by the outcome of that public debate, he was not a dictator. When he returned the seized passport of the political legend Obafemi Awolowo, he was not a dictator. When he set up such agencies as National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND) based on zero interest loans to boost the economy, he was not a dictator. He also deregulated the economy from strict state control; he was not a dictator then.

On the much desired electoral reforms, the two issues which all progressive forces are pushing for enactment as panacea for credible elections are open secret system otherwise known as option A4 and the introduction of two party system. But we seem to forget that these are creation of IBB’s political ingenuity. They are fallout from the celebrated June 12 election.

Nobody had disputed the fact that Babangida organised the freest and fairest election in the history of the country. But they are ready to throw the baby away along with the water in the bucket. Granted the annulment was the greatest act of indiscretion on the part of the regime which he headed. But that the annulment was not personal to him can be buttressed by the fact that those who took over from him within the military did not restore the mandate to the acclaimed winner, MKO Abiola. Rather, they humiliated him to death. Some of them who served in the regime that humiliated Abiola to death are also in the Vanguard of verbal attack on IBB for the annulment. Some of them are holding sensitive positions in the current dispensation.

Some might have forgotten that it was the same Babangida that built the 3rd Mainland Bridge. This is against the backdrop of Obasanjo’s eight years not having anything to show to the people of Lagos. The only appellation they choose to remember IBB now is being dictator, whereas his dictatorship can only be explained within the context of a military regime which appropriates all arms of government to the executive.

In a nutshell therefore, it is high time we stop the politics of making June 12 a steady tool to malign and blackmail any individual. What politics demand is issues, not personalities.

Sanni writes from Ibadan