When understanding collides with misunderstanding, the
collision needs to be understood. Is Senate President
Bukola Saraki misunderstood? In other words, is he a
victim of misunderstanding? Or is he the one who needs to
demonstrate understanding? Does he have the
understanding needed to avoid misunderstanding his
situation?
Where is this train of thought going? Or where is it coming
from? Well, Saraki prompted a contemplation of
understanding and misunderstanding by his word choice
on September 22 when he was docked by the Code of
Conduct Tribunal (CCT). In an unexpected and
unprocedural seizure of the moment, Saraki reportedly
said to Tribunal Chairman Justice Danladi Umar: “Mr.
Chairman, I just want to make this point for you to
understand that, as a layman, I am puzzled why I should
be before the tribunal.” Saraki continued: “We are all
before the world and not just before Nigeria and we ought
to be seen how we conform to due process.”
It is puzzling that Saraki claimed to be puzzled. Even more
puzzling was a statement signed by him after his
performance in the dock. He said: “I reiterate my belief
that the only reason why I am going through this is
because I am Senate President. If I were to be just a
Senator, I doubt if anybody will be interested in the assets
declaration form I filled over twelve years ago.”
It is not understandable: Saraki doesn’t understand that it
is precisely because of his status as Senate President that
he deserves whatever he is going through. The country
certainly doesn’t deserve a legislative commander that not
only emerged controversially, but whose emergence was
also coloured by a colourless subversion of his party’s
position.
Only a dysfunctional decoding of the concept of party
supremacy could have encouraged the circumstances that
brought him to the helm of affairs at the Senate, an
ascendancy he actualised through an unapologetic
defiance of his party’s desire and decision. It is noteworthy
that the same warped twist resulted in a queer
combination and cohabitation at the helm of the Senate:
Saraki of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), a party
elected to power on the premise of progressivism, and
Deputy Senate President Ike Enweremadu of the
unprogressive Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Saraki
made matters worse by subsequently rubbishing his
party’s list for Senate leadership posts.
It is understandable that a functional interpretation of
party supremacy must be informed by the logic of
supremacy. Supremacy is supreme. For the purpose of
clarification, supremacy doesn’t mean infallibility. So the
party can err. It does not guarantee fairness. So the party
can be unfair. The essence of party supremacy is its
conclusive collective voice.
Saraki is a figure that emerged without an understanding
of party supremacy, a development that has helped to fuel
a crisis of individualism in the APC. In his rise to the
preeminent legislative position, he demonstrated a
misunderstanding of the party’s “due process”, and he did
so without any care whether a watching world understood
his lack of understanding. It is not understandable: Saraki
now wants the public to understand so-called conformity
to due process only in the context of his ongoing troubles.
Obviously, he brought trouble upon himself and should
understand that it may be harvest time for him.
It should be understood that this political drama is taking
place on the stage of realpolitik. Saraki’s anti-party
manoeuvres that gave him the Senate crown were guided
by realpolitik. His defenders and supporters have
attributed his tribunal trial to the power and influence of
alleged political antagonists, without understanding that
Saraki doesn’t have a monopoly on realpolitik.
Perhaps unfortunately for Saraki, there may be evidence of
minuses exploitable by the opposing side. Considering the
internal logic of party supremacy, it is understandable that
internal politicking in a political party may give an
advantage to certain interests such that they enjoy
leadership influence. But this is no reason for the
disadvantaged to bellyache to the point of belligerence and
centrifugal conduct as manifested by Saraki in the pursuit
of his desperate ambition to lead the Senate.
Clearly, Saraki wants his party to accept his contentious
crowning as a fait accompli, which is not understandable.
In building scenarios following his untidy enthronement, it
would appear that Saraki didn’t understand that APC
supremos were likely to make moves to save party
supremacy, and that they were likely to find their own way
of doing so. He probably didn’t understand the
consequences of his rebellion and how far the party may
be prepared to go in exploring a plurality of possibilities to
checkmate him.
Saraki didn’t understand that the early sign of his
disruptive behaviour was likely to be seen as a danger to
party supremacy by party hierarchs particularly. He didn’t
understand that his party would not encourage him to
perform even more daring stunts to disgrace party
supremacy by allowing him to get away with his initial
misbehaviour. It is understandable if the party decides to
follow the path that leads to restoration and reinforcement
of party supremacy based on party discipline, party
cohesion and party integrity.
The conflict is nothing short of a domestic war of sorts. It is
not for the faint-hearted. On Saraki’s side in particular, he
will need a capacity to endure a war of attrition. Saraki
must understand that in attrition warfare, the fundamental
strategy is “to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the
point of collapse through continuous losses”. He should
understand what he is facing, or perhaps more aptly, the
force of the forces ranged against him: “one can be said to
pursue a strategy of attrition when one makes it the main
goal to cause gradual attrition to the opponent eventually
amounting to unacceptable or unsustainable levels for the
opponent while limiting one’s own gradual losses to
acceptable and sustainable levels.”
There is no doubt that Saraki has only himself to blame for
being on the receiving end of attritional methods, and not
without reasonable justification. When will Saraki
understand that he is fighting a losing battle?
Source:thenationonlineng.net/understanding-sarakis-misunderstandings/

So many critical articles on Saraki and his ordeal in today's papers. What's up? Is Saraki going down?

Ok

It is understandably misunderstood by Saraki himself
because the level of him having an understanding of misunderstanding himself is high!


On the contrary, why is Mr senate Puzzled
isn't he aware of his coming to the CCT Besides, if surely his assets declaration in the past
wasn't framed and he is confident, just defend yourself...that's all!

Now that, even kwara state has lost their respect for him, I await to see how this goes.
Some will say the action at the eid praying ground is from the other party, true or not,
just a simple thing would have saved him from much shame.... step aside for the mean
time or simply resign!

#JustMakingCommonSense