it was eschylus, the ancient Greek tragic
dramatist who said ‘in war, truth is the first
casualty’. To paraphrase the words in line with
the tragic drama playing out in Nigeria today,
one would say ‘in a flawed democracy,
objectivity is the first casualty’.
It is so bad that all voices of objectivity and
moderation have abandoned the public space
and their views suppressed. We therefore only
hear from the extremes of the political,
regional, religious and ethnic divides. This death
of objectivity is unfortunate and may destroy
what little we have left unless all of us rise up to
reverse it.
What happens when people cannot express their
views on the polity, no matter how well
thought-out, or when every attempt to engage
the public in debate about issues of vital national
importance are reduced to shocking levels of
banality? What happens when every sense of
objectivity is blurred by the murky ink of hatchet
writers or clouded by shades of religious and
ethnic prisms? What happens when voices
without conscience, and loath to accept facts
dominate our media and discourse?
The last nine months in Nigeria have witnessed a
growing intolerance in the country. Ordinarily,
divergence would be a wonderful thing – the
multiplicity of voices being one of our strengths
– except that the lines of disagreement are not
based on logic, facts and public interest, but
alarmingly along religious and regional schisms.
If we disagree on issues of policies and
economics or on philosophical or ideological
grounds; that would only to be expected in a
country brimming with intellectuals as Nigeria
and would be a welcome development to
thought and reason.
However, there is when the death of objectivity
in national discourse is allowed to grow, dangers
may lurk in the unspoken words and views;
there is growing anger and frustration in many
quarters.
When people who know the truth or who have a
view are not allowed to speak their minds
simply because they are from a different part of
the country or adhere to another religion, there
is a risk that they may begin to speak only to
others like themselves who share their views.
Regionalism may begin to rise amidst a growing
belief in many quarters that Nigeria’s disparate
groups can break out of the federation and go it
alone.
These views fuel the notion that some states in
Nigeria are parasites on the rest, add no value,
and question the carrying costs of our distorted
federation! These views require some
consideration in these very interesting times.
The ideal for many Nigerians is to have a
country ‘united in diversity’; a true federation
and real democracy. That ideal while achievable,
has eluded us since independence. Today, the
levels of social cohesion are so low that that
many ask whether being together makes sense.
'Every one of Nigeria's 36 states and Abuja is
bigger than many African countries, and they
survive', is one extreme view.
We may have our political differences, but
objective discourse must never be sacrificed on
the altar of political convenience. The scars on
our collective psyche by the reckless politicking
employed by politicians have to heal.
Governments must listen to the voices of all, no
matter how unpalatable. Societies make
progress building on a foundation of social
cohesion and trust.
Nothing is possible without this. Collaboration is
enhanced when there are clear rules and a
regime of rewards and sanctions that are
applied generally to everyone and everything.
The situation in Nigeria today is worrying.
"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient
Chinese curse. The Chinese should know.
Today's Nigeria is interesting along several
dimensions. The polity is fragmented as a result
of four years of sub-optimal governance.
Umaru Yar'Adua was ushered in high
expectations, but ran an administration that
largely reduced Nigeria to a fiefdom of people
from Katsina and Kano.
Jonathan, his then sidelined deputy watched,
learnt and waited. When some objective voices
complained of the lopsidedness in top-level
appointments, they were tagged losers in the
power game (if 'Northerners') or regional
irredentists (if "Southerners". Jonathan has
adopted the same approach to governance as
his predecessor, except that the roles are
reversed.
When what Segun Adeniyi calls 'the Yar'Adua
cabal' held Nigeria to ransom, many objective
voices from both sides of the Niger united to
speak and march on the streets of Abuja and
Lagos. Apart from murmurs in some quarters,
the voices of reason and constitutionalism
prevailed.
That was barely a year ago. Since then,
objectivity in public discourse has ebbed
considerably. Views and positions that project
national interest above regional, religious and
ethnic considerations have disappeared.
Moderates on both sides of any divide have
gone under cover. Only extremists have a voice,
and the nation is the worse for it.
Media reports now wear regional and religious
lenses. Stories that should enlighten our people
are buried under headlines and sound-bites that
entrench resentment. On social media
Nigerians, the division is palpable. Every post
and position is defined along regional and
religious lines, no matter how reasonable the
issue.
The tragedy of this is that most of those active
on these social networks are youths whose
levels of idealism, patriotism and objectivity are
supposed to be above the average of the
ordinary person, or the older, more cynical
citizen!
While conceding that this phenomenon is not
new, the intensity of the deployment of division
as a political tool increased rapidly only
recently. In many churches and mosques,
clerics preached in ways that encouraged ethnic
and religious hatred, while the authorities looked
on.
Exploiting our mutual suspicions for political
ends is not new, but now that the political
objectives have been met, the challenge is to
unite Nigeria and re-establish some level of trust
to solve our 'collective action problems'.
Poverty, hunger and disease do not discriminate
between Muslims and Christians and between
Northerners and Southerners.
Nigerians should be speaking about the need for
improved security, (a bomb just exploded in
Force Headquarters, Abuja), fiscal federalism –
to give more power and responsibility with
accountability to the states and to have more
independent local governments, so people in
my village will stop looking up to Abuja for
boreholes or primary healthcare. Government
must realize that criticism and opposition assist
democratic governance; that those that engage
government in this way are patriots, not
enemies.
Ultimately, the truth is that those who seek to
kill objective discourse today are the sycophants
and AGIPs on the corridors of power who will
discard and mock Jonathan in a few years, while
shamelessly singing their ways into any future
government.
Only those with political authority can set the
pace for the reconciliation and bridge-building
necessary to get the people to work together.
Nigeria needs every one. There is strength in
numbers and diversity. We are better off
together than as different nations. That is the
consensus we must seek to build by engaging in
objective debates about Nigeria and her many
problems.
And for those who believe that suppressing
views they do not like is what exercising power
is about, I will end with this - in a democratic
society no matter how flawed, appearing
voiceless does not make one powerless. Every
person has enough capacity for destruction and
mischief that can affect the commonwealth.
That is why rebuilding social cohesion and trust
should be the first priority of the authorities.
Happily no budgetary provision is needed to
achieve that.

Quot

"When what Segun Adeniyi calls 'the Yar'Adua cabal' held Nigeria to ransom, many objective voices from both sides of the Niger united to speak and march on the streets of Abuja and Lagos. Apart from murmurs in some quarters, the voices of reason and constitutionalism prevailed."


I"m sure the ungrateful Cretin called Rufai neva bothered to read Segun Adeniyis piece on the VERDICT before opening his foul mouth. Excerpts:

"While I never placed much premium on the “cabal” theory, a conversation on the day Architect Namadi Sambo was sworn-in as VP put the issue in its real perspective. As Governor of Kaduna State, anytime Sambo came to the villa, he always visited my office after seeing his childhood friend, then State Chief of Protocol (SCOP), Ambassador Ghali Umar and with that we became quite close. So when he was nominated to the position of VP, I decided to visit him the moment it was confirmed by the National Assembly. I met him at his new Akinola Aguda official residence but as I made to leave, he requested that I witness his inauguration. I joined the vehicle of Mr Isaiah Balat, (erstwhile Minister of State for Works and Housing under President Olusegun Obasanjo) where there were other important personalities. On the way to the villa, Balat asked: “Segun, this Cabal thing, were you really a member?” Before I could respond, Mr. Nasir el-Rufai (the big masquerade behind the Save Nigeria Group which played a prominent role in the media and civil society campaign that eventually culminated in the National Assembly making Jonathan the acting president) interjected: “There was no cabal, we created the myth to neutralise Turai”. While Balat and other people in the vehicle appeared shocked, I was not. The former FCT Minister explained how the idea of ‘cabal’ came into being as well as his understanding of the role played by former First Lady, Hajia Turai Yar’Adua and the different people whose names were frequently mentioned as being members. El-Rufai was right only to the extent that the myth of a ‘ cabal’ capturing power at a time Jonathan was effectively in charge was mere propaganda. , Complete article on thisday page.

While I believe both men have lost most of their credibility, it is sickening to read such display of hypocrisy from a mallam who only became a vocal social critic when the tide turned against his region.

@wesley80
I'm now sure there is a prize for idjut if you cannot comprehend the excerpts you posted.Reading from your excerpts shows there were cabals on both sides of the divide then.

Nice piece by Elrufai.

In every government, there should be room for constructive criticism. From constructive criticism, you get the best out of people and government. If the present administration cannot accommodate that; then we are not ready for democracy, hence no progress for the country.

We may have our political differences, but objective discourse must never be sacrificed on the altar of political convenience. The scars on our collective psyche by the reckless politicking employed by politicians have to heal. Governments must listen to the voices of all, no matter how unpalatable. Societies makeprogress building on a foundation of social cohesion and trust.

That is why rebuilding social cohesion and trust should be the first priority of the authorities. Happily no budgetary provision is needed to achieve that

If we can achieve this major hurdle, prevalent bombing in Maiduguri, Abuja, Plateau, and other states will be mitigated. Militants, Bokoharams fighting for just, unjust and lost cause will reduce. Then can our fight encouraging peace, general infrastructure building, local and foreign fixed capital investment, poverty eradication be won and sustained.

pokur:

@wesley80
I'm now sure there is a prize for idjut if you cannot comprehend the excerpts you posted.Reading from your excerpts shows there were cabals on both sides of the divide then.

My bad,so its my comprehensive ability thats the problem according to your ultra comprehensive brain right? So could u pls tell me what mallam Rufai was alluding to when he said and i quote:
“There was no cabal, we  created the myth to neutralise Turai”.

Since ultra comprehension is your forte, Pray tell, Why was it once a chest thumping exercise to deny the existence of the cabal only to now turn around and admit the existence of same for the benefit of some article obviously written in bad faith? At one point it was fly to call the "Cabal" a myth but all of a sudden it is fondly remembered as existing during our dark days, so what has changed? let me guess: convenience!. So why should a man whose words change according to convenience be taken seriously?

Our leaders should let us split the country NOW when we are at peace with each other before the country is plunge into very serious war.

Let split NOW!