Skip to main content

A MORE DIVIDED NIGERIA, BY MAJEED DAHIRU

President Muhammadu Buhari has faced serious criticism following what a lot of people termed a lopsided method of appointment in his administration.
In this opinion by Majeed Dahiru, he points out that this method of appointment will likely stir corruption and make people perceive him as a sectional leader.
A more divided Nigeria
Nigeria has never been more divided than it is today. The various fault lines of our geo-political space have been deepened and become more manifest in the various agitations from different segments of our society. The collective hope and euphoria that greeted the change in leadership from Goodluck Jonathan of PDP to Muhammadu Buhari of APC may have given way to hopelessness and possibly, regret. The continuous existence of the Nigerian state has never been this threatened, as a result of deep feelings of mutual suspicion between the various groups that make up Nigeria. The leadership class appears never to learn much from history – even that of the recent past. One major reason for this unfortunate situation is the inability of our leaders at all levels to be statesmen rather than ordinary politicians.
Goodluck Jonathan lost the 2015 presidential election largely because of his political miseducation, despite his remarkably impressive economic performance. He never really understood Nigeria and Nigerians very well. He was learning on the job even as a president. However recent happenings in the polity have propped up some questions which need answers urgently. If Jonathan was sectional in key appointments in favour of his ethno-geographic zone, why Buhari? If Jonathan stubbornly defended and shielded his close allies on corruption charges, why Buhari? If Jonathan used anti-graft agencies to persecute his opponents, why Buhari? If Jonathan did not show much concern towards the Boko Haram insurgency in the North, why is Buhari seemingly showing less concern towards the Fulani herdsmen scourge in the South? The answer may not be far-fetched. Both men have some things in common. They are alike in different ways – as isotopes of the same element. This sad realisation has led to hopelessness and widespread dissatisfaction, with consequent agitations from different quarters. Nigerians rejected Jonathan and accepted Buhari because he promised change, but sadly nothing has really changed.
President Buhari has not shown enough sensitivity to Nigeria’s diversity. If Jonathan was sectional, Buhari has taken sectionalism to a scandalous level. A close look at both men’s trajectory to power will show why. Both men are the only individuals in the history of Nigeria to have come to the presidency with the massive support of their ethnicities, states, geo-political zones and members of their respective religious groups. Both were actually sectional candidates who got elected purely on the exigencies of the time. But the political miseducation of both men lay in the fact that they attribute their electoral successes on the support they received from their own sections of the country. What they fail to realise is that it equally takes so much from other sections to make the difference and guarantee victory. No section alone can guarantee victory for its own. The president’s failure in national integration is most manifest in the South-South and South-East regions. These regions have largely been treated like conquered territories. Their only sin being voting overwhelmingly against the president in the last election. The obvious marginalisation of these regions, has led to serious separatist agitations, which are threatening our corporate existence as a nation. It is expected of the president to take deliberate steps to warm himself into their hearts and embrace them with a fatherly arm.
Some of the president’s supporters have said that his appointments are based on loyalty, trust and merit. But this argument falls flat on logic and sound reasoning. It is an indictment on the president to claim to trust more people of his ethnic group, region or religious leaning. It simply shows a man who is not broad minded enough to accommodate people of diverse backgrounds. There are so many Nigerians of Southern origin who supported the president against their own and who deserve his trust and confidence. The issue of merit is also devoid of logic and common sense. A region which is classified as educationally disadvantaged, whose students are given admission into higher institutions by lowering national standards and not on merit, but quota system, so that they can catch up with their Southern counterparts, cannot also benefit most from key appointments based on merit. The president’s actions have substantially reversed the gains made in the last sixteen years at national integration and unity.
Interestingly the Northern region is not going to benefit from these skewed appointments, because it will only benefit the individuals concerned. The president should rather concentrate on policies and programmes that will develop the North and make it more self-sufficient economically and depend less on oil mineral revenues from the South. This will restore pride to the North and Northerners and forge mutual respect and love among Nigerians. The structure of Nigeria favours the Northern region more than the other three original regions of the Western, Midwestern and Eastern. The North has 19 states out of 36 and 419 local governments out of 774. With federal character and quota system, the North has a fair share of the national resources and positions. Any attempt to alienate other regions further is gross injustice, which is a worse form of corruption. I am a Northerner and Muslim. I love the North, I love my country, I love my president but I love the truth more.
This opinion first appeared in Premium Times.
This article expresses the authors’ opinion only.
READ MORE ON NAIJ.COM
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Sphere

Photograph by Elena Saavedra Buckley. Once when I was about twelve I was walking down the dead-end road in Albuquerque where I grew up, around twilight with a friend. Far beyond the end of the road was a mountain range, and at that time of evening it flattened into a matte indigo wash, like a mural. While kicking down the asphalt we saw a small bright light appear at the top of the peaks, near where we knew radio towers to occasionally emit flashes of red. But this glare, blinding and colorless, grew at an alarming rate. It looked like a single floodlight and then a tight swarm beginning to leak over the edge of the summit. My friend and I became frightened, and as the light poured from the crest, our murmurs turned into screams. We stood there, clutching our heads, screaming. I knew this was the thing that was going to come and get me. It was finally going to show me the horrifying wiring that lay just behind the visible universe and that was inside of me too. And then, a couple se
Post a Comment
Read more

The Rejection Plot

Print from Trouble , by Bruce Charlesworth, a portfolio which appeared in The Paris Review in the magazine’s Fall 1985 issue. Rejection may be universal, but as plots go, it’s second-rate—all buildup and no closure, an inherent letdown. Stories are usually defined by progress: the development of events toward their conclusions, characters toward their fates, questions toward understanding, themes toward fulfillment. But unlike marriage, murder, and war, rejection offers no obstacles to surmount, milestones to mark, rituals to observe. If a plot point is a shift in a state of affairs—the meeting of a long-lost twin, the fateful red stain on a handkerchief—rejection offers none; what was true before is true after. Nothing happens, no one is materially harmed, and the rejected party loses nothing but the cherished prospect of something they never had to begin with. If the romance plot sets up an enticing question—Will they or won’t they? — the rejection plot spoils everything upfront:
Post a Comment
Read more

On the Distinctiveness of Writing in China

Yan Lianke at the Salon du Livre, 2010. Photograph by Georges Seguin, via Wikimedia Commons . Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED . When I talk to non-Chinese readers like yourselves, I often find that you are interested in hearing about what distinguishes me as an author but also what distinguishes my country—and particularly details that go beyond what you see on the television, read about in newspapers, and hear about from tourists. I know that China’s international reputation is like that of a young upstart from the countryside who has money but lacks culture, education, and knowledge. Of course, in addition to money, this young upstart also has things like despotism and injustice, while lacking democracy and freedom. The result is like a wild man who is loaded with gold bullion but wears shabby clothing, behaves rudely, stinks of bad breath, and never plays by the rules. If an author must write under the oversight of this sort of individual, how should that author evaluate, discu
Post a Comment
Read more