₦airaland Forum

Critics and notable columnists who scoff at the March 28
dethronement of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan have
continued to belittle the coronation of President
Muhaammadu Buhari. Before the presidential election, they
had argued that while Dr Jonathan was not perfect, and
could in fact be trusted to improve considerably in his
second term should he get it, President Buhari’s democratic,
suprapersonal and secularist credentials would remain
fettered by his background and limited exposure. Recent
political developments, especially the bitter and frenetic
jostling for presidency positions and key federal
appointments, have given more ammunition to the critics. It
is, however, now no longer clear where genuine criticism
begins and where rabid partisanship stops. More baffling,
the said critics and columnists have turned round to accuse
critics and columnists who denounced Dr Jonathan in favour
of then candidate Buhari of embracing mindless
propaganda and heedless partisanship.
Some of these notable columnists like Femi Aribisala and
Yinka Odumakin of course have the right to pursue and
prosecute private and public agenda. There is indeed no
constitutional impediment to the bitter manifestation of
their detestations, no hindrance at all to their sometimes
bewildering characterisation of the political objects of their
pet revulsion. As the columnists and critics indulge their
craft and acidic views, it is, however, also urgent to explode
some of the myths that underscore their opinions and
conclusions. It will be helpful if they present their
detestations in civil, logical and persuasive language.
President Buhari, they have concluded, cannot change. Fine.
All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders from the Southwest
may have been mistaken in their support for the ossified
president. Again, fine. But both viewpoints can in fact be
rendered in persuasive arguments and reasoning without
wrapping and encumbering them with private and bitter
loathing.
But the first obstacle the critics will encounter is attempting
to demolish President Buhari in terms of comparatively
elevating Dr Jonathan. The two, even by the most liberal and
empathetic arguments, are incomparable. In the March 2015
polls, Nigeria was presented with two difficult choices:
candidate Buhari who, to the South, was insular,
ethnocentric, intemperate, inflexible, and mildly Jihadist;
and candidate Jonathan who, to the North, was inept,
ethnocentric, unfeeling, distracted, facetiously evangelical,
and irredeemable. It was not quite Hobson’s choice; but
whatever choice was made had its manifold drawbacks.
Almost like Kogi State, where a lethargic incumbent will be
facing an abrasive builder-challenger in next month’s
governorship poll, Nigeria had to choose last March
between Dr Jonathan who was bringing the country to a
frenzied ruin, and a disciplined leader of admittedly
doubtful depth and suspect democratic credentials. Except
in the opinion of the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists,
there was absolutely no contest.
President Buhari doubtless has his weaknesses, some of
them provocative. His appointments to presidency positions
have remained skewed and indefensible, and his cabinet
list, though technocratic and scholarly, is largely apolitical
and mystifying in a country so compulsively political and
querulously nitpicky. His appreciation of complex and
modern issues, especially economic, is deeply unnerving.
His conception of society has not gone beyond the strange
dualism of his younger days as a military officer and
northerner in which he sees society as we against them, and
good against evil. Nor does he seem capable of the rapid
and comprehensive regeneration the decaying Nigerian
society urgently needs. Yes, he has all these unenviable
weaknesses. But he has his strengths, largely his disciplined
outlook, frugality and ethical soundness far beyond cavil.
Dr Jonathan brought little or nothing to the table before and
during the 2015 polls. He was the simplistic product, if not
culmination, of the crazy meddlesomeness and insufferable
arrogance of past Nigerian presidents and military heads of
state. Like most of his predecessors, he was neither
equipped for the job of leadership nor capable of the
grandness and nobility which the job calls for and the office
yields to. He professed Christian ethics and baited
southerners with ethnic crumbs, but on a grand scale he
showed no discipline in managing the affairs of the country
or its economy. On his watch, helped by government
officials who had stolen the country blind, he was bringing
the country to ruination and raising the prospect of a
revolution. Until he lost the election and some of his
ministers triggered the unpalatable disclosures of the past
few months, few believed he was capable of superintending
such appalling breakdown of law, order and common sense.
In a long line of unsuitable Nigerian leaders, Dr Jonathan sat
on the acme. Ibrahim Babangida, army general and former
head of state, began the craze. The heavens gifted him a
great political transition programme, but he spurned it in
favour of his own misconceived contraption, enthroning
Ernest Shonekan by a strange and unearthly steeplechase
succession, and undergirding it with a rapacious and power-
hungry Sani Abacha, a general and late head of state.
Abdulsalami Abubakar, another general and former head of
state, followed hard on their heels and relinquished power
after he and other generals similarly played God and in their
supposed wisdom installed ex-President Olusegun
Obasanjo. Abjuring the democratic practice of letting the
people choose their own leaders, which he gleefully
propounded in 1978 and 1979, Chief Obasanjo unilaterally
and contemptuously foisted the late Umaru Yar’Adua on the
country. The latter’s dramatic death in turn foisted Dr
Jonathan on Nigeria, unprepared mentally and ideologically.
It is shocking that in their frustrations, the pro-Jonathan
critics and columnists ignore the value of pluralism and
continue to assail the political contributions of those who
championed the amalgamation of APC and President
Buhari’s victory. Defending Dr Jonathan and denouncing
President Buhari is an irrational exercise. The president has
his weaknesses, and is still committing many faux pas and
egregious policy and appointment blunders. But rather than
pine over Dr Jonathan’s loss, and assail those who triggered
the country’s political rebirth through the peaceful change of
power from one party to another, President Buhari should
be criticised for his shortcomings. It is time to quit mourning
APC’s victory, notwithstanding the party’s clumsiness in
managing the legislature, the executive and the economy. So
far, an awkward Buhari has proved far better than a
sprightly Jonathan. Indeed, President Buhari is probably the
single most important factor in arresting the country’s drift
towards the precipice.
It is also time for critics, analysts and columnists to avoid
the bitter and vexatious essays of the pre-election period
and begin to focus on more germane national issues.
President Buhari, his cabinet and his policies are the issues.
These should be addressed. If, as seems apparent, the
president is unable to impress the Southwest or the
Southeast or even the South-South before the next elections,
then these will become something to talk about,
notwithstanding how well he pleases the North. The
president announced with flourish at his inauguration that
he belonged to everybody and to nobody. The next polls will
determine whether that delicate phrase is worth its weight in
gold. In a matter of months, the Buhari government will
clock one year, even as the president has proceeded very
slowly and very gingerly. If he does not gather speed, if he
continues along the sanctimonious line and idealism of
being his own man, and if he fails to recognise the political
environment in which he operates, he will discover only too
late that elections and the electorate can be very cruel
indeed.
President Buhari will need to pay close attention to the
alliances he built before the election if he is not to come to
grief. And going by the crippling poverty assailing the
country, and beyond the anti-corruption campaign and
some desultory recovery of stolen public funds, it is even
more urgent for him to quickly articulate and adopt a
multidimensional approach to the country’s multifarious
problems. The problems are huge and have developed into
an octopus, and are determined to resist his panaceas.
President Buhari may be regarded as part of the country’s
problems on account of his inability to quickly and efficiently
respond to the exigent issues of the day, however, Dr
Jonathan was never an option. It is time to move on and
focus on President Buhari. For, as it now seems, the
country’s fate is intertwined with his.




SOURCE/SAUCE: thenationonlineng.net/jonathan-was-never-an-option/

Long story

U shld make it shorter op!

Ok

Story for the gods.

Summary pls

Too late to read, op summarize and send to 08022335599

Long story short. WAILING WAILERS SHOULD GO HANG DEM SELVES PMB'S GOT THE WHEELS NOW

A summary for the impatient ones[quote author=Episteme2 post=39298350]Critics and notable columnists who scoff at the March 28
dethronement of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan have
continued to belittle the coronation of President
Muhaammadu Buhari. Recent
political developments, especially the bitter and frenetic
jostling for presidency positions and key federal
appointments, have given more ammunition to the critics. It will be helpful if they present their
detestations in civil, logical and persuasive language.
President Buhari, they have concluded, cannot change. Fine.
All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders from the Southwest
may have been mistaken in their support for the ossified
president.
But the first obstacle the critics will encounter is attempting
to demolish President Buhari in terms of comparatively
elevating Dr Jonathan. The two, even by the most liberal and
empathetic arguments, are incomparable.
President Buhari doubtless has his weaknesses, some of
them provocative. His appointments to presidency positions
have remained skewed and indefensible, and his cabinet
list, though technocratic and scholarly, is largely apolitical
and mystifying in a country so compulsively political and
querulously nitpicky. His appreciation of complex and
modern issues, especially economic, is deeply unnerving.
His conception of society has not gone beyond the strange
dualism of his younger days as a military officer and
northerner in which he sees society as we against them, and
good against evil. Nor does he seem capable of the rapid
and comprehensive regeneration the decaying Nigerian
society urgently needs. Yes, he has all these unenviable
weaknesses. But he has his strengths, largely his disciplined
outlook, frugality and ethical soundness far beyond cavil.
Dr Jonathan brought little or nothing to the table before and
during the 2015 polls. He was the simplistic product, if not
culmination, of the crazy meddlesomeness and insufferable
arrogance of past Nigerian presidents and military heads of
state. Like most of his predecessors, he was neither
equipped for the job of leadership nor capable of the
grandness and nobility which the job calls for and the office
yields to. He professed Christian ethics and baited
southerners with ethnic crumbs, but on a grand scale he
showed no discipline in managing the affairs of the country
or its economy. On his watch, helped by government
officials who had stolen the country blind, he was bringing
the country to ruination and raising the prospect of a
revolution. Until he lost the election and some of his
ministers triggered the unpalatable disclosures of the past
few months, few believed he was capable of superintending
such appalling breakdown of law, order and common sense.
So
far, an awkward Buhari has proved far better than a
sprightly Jonathan.
President Buhari will need to pay close attention to the
alliances he built before the election if he is not to come to
grief. President Buhari may be regarded as part of the country’s
problems on account of his inability to quickly and efficiently
respond to the exigent issues of the day, however, Dr
Jonathan was never an option. It is time to move on and
focus on President Buhari. For, as it now seems, the
country’s fate is intertwined with his.

The day criticism stops marks the day humans stop developing. Infact, in academics, your ability to criticize makes you a good scholar. In leadership, ability to manage criticism makes one a great leader. Obama and every other world leader irrespective of their achievements still endured criticism. Lovers of PMB should be happy about every criticism because it keeps him on his toes and helps him perform better. Except blind followers, every other friend will criticize the govt at one point in the life of an administration. Enough of this name calling and undue bashing of the opposition.

Episteme2:
Critics and notable columnists who scoff at the March 28
dethronement of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan have
continued to belittle the coronation of President
Muhaammadu Buhari. Before the presidential election, they
had argued that while Dr Jonathan was not perfect, and
could in fact be trusted to improve considerably in his
second term should he get it, President Buhari’s democratic,
suprapersonal and secularist credentials would remain
fettered by his background and limited exposure. Recent
political developments, especially the bitter and frenetic
jostling for presidency positions and key federal
appointments, have given more ammunition to the critics. It
is, however, now no longer clear where genuine criticism
begins and where rabid partisanship stops. More baffling,
the said critics and columnists have turned round to accuse
critics and columnists who denounced Dr Jonathan in favour
of then candidate Buhari of embracing mindless
propaganda and heedless partisanship.
Some of these notable columnists like Femi Aribisala and
Yinka Odumakin of course have the right to pursue and
prosecute private and public agenda. There is indeed no
constitutional impediment to the bitter manifestation of
their detestations, no hindrance at all to their sometimes
bewildering characterisation of the political objects of their
pet revulsion. As the columnists and critics indulge their
craft and acidic views, it is, however, also urgent to explode
some of the myths that underscore their opinions and
conclusions. It will be helpful if they present their
detestations in civil, logical and persuasive language.
President Buhari, they have concluded, cannot change. Fine.
All Progressives Congress (APC) leaders from the Southwest
may have been mistaken in their support for the ossified
president. Again, fine. But both viewpoints can in fact be
rendered in persuasive arguments and reasoning without
wrapping and encumbering them with private and bitter
loathing.
But the first obstacle the critics will encounter is attempting
to demolish President Buhari in terms of comparatively
elevating Dr Jonathan. The two, even by the most liberal and
empathetic arguments, are incomparable. In the March 2015
polls, Nigeria was presented with two difficult choices:
candidate Buhari who, to the South, was insular,
ethnocentric, intemperate, inflexible, and mildly Jihadist;
and candidate Jonathan who, to the North, was inept,
ethnocentric, unfeeling, distracted, facetiously evangelical,
and irredeemable. It was not quite Hobson’s choice; but
whatever choice was made had its manifold drawbacks.
Almost like Kogi State, where a lethargic incumbent will be
facing an abrasive builder-challenger in next month’s
governorship poll, Nigeria had to choose last March
between Dr Jonathan who was bringing the country to a
frenzied ruin, and a disciplined leader of admittedly
doubtful depth and suspect democratic credentials. Except
in the opinion of the pro-Jonathan critics and columnists,
there was absolutely no contest.
President Buhari doubtless has his weaknesses, some of
them provocative. His appointments to presidency positions
have remained skewed and indefensible, and his cabinet
list, though technocratic and scholarly, is largely apolitical
and mystifying in a country so compulsively political and
querulously nitpicky. His appreciation of complex and
modern issues, especially economic, is deeply unnerving.
His conception of society has not gone beyond the strange
dualism of his younger days as a military officer and
northerner in which he sees society as we against them, and
good against evil. Nor does he seem capable of the rapid
and comprehensive regeneration the decaying Nigerian
society urgently needs. Yes, he has all these unenviable
weaknesses. But he has his strengths, largely his disciplined
outlook, frugality and ethical soundness far beyond cavil.
Dr Jonathan brought little or nothing to the table before and
during the 2015 polls. He was the simplistic product, if not
culmination, of the crazy meddlesomeness and insufferable
arrogance of past Nigerian presidents and military heads of
state. Like most of his predecessors, he was neither
equipped for the job of leadership nor capable of the
grandness and nobility which the job calls for and the office
yields to. He professed Christian ethics and baited
southerners with ethnic crumbs, but on a grand scale he
showed no discipline in managing the affairs of the country
or its economy. On his watch, helped by government
officials who had stolen the country blind, he was bringing
the country to ruination and raising the prospect of a
revolution. Until he lost the election and some of his
ministers triggered the unpalatable disclosures of the past
few months, few believed he was capable of superintending
such appalling breakdown of law, order and common sense.
In a long line of unsuitable Nigerian leaders, Dr Jonathan sat
on the acme. Ibrahim Babangida, army general and former
head of state, began the craze. The heavens gifted him a
great political transition programme, but he spurned it in
favour of his own misconceived contraption, enthroning
Ernest Shonekan by a strange and unearthly steeplechase
succession, and undergirding it with a rapacious and power-
hungry Sani Abacha, a general and late head of state.
Abdulsalami Abubakar, another general and former head of
state, followed hard on their heels and relinquished power
after he and other generals similarly played God and in their
supposed wisdom installed ex-President Olusegun
Obasanjo. Abjuring the democratic practice of letting the
people choose their own leaders, which he gleefully
propounded in 1978 and 1979, Chief Obasanjo unilaterally
and contemptuously foisted the late Umaru Yar’Adua on the
country. The latter’s dramatic death in turn foisted Dr
Jonathan on Nigeria, unprepared mentally and ideologically.
It is shocking that in their frustrations, the pro-Jonathan
critics and columnists ignore the value of pluralism and
continue to assail the political contributions of those who
championed the amalgamation of APC and President
Buhari’s victory. Defending Dr Jonathan and denouncing
President Buhari is an irrational exercise. The president has
his weaknesses, and is still committing many faux pas and
egregious policy and appointment blunders. But rather than
pine over Dr Jonathan’s loss, and assail those who triggered
the country’s political rebirth through the peaceful change of
power from one party to another, President Buhari should
be criticised for his shortcomings. It is time to quit mourning
APC’s victory, notwithstanding the party’s clumsiness in
managing the legislature, the executive and the economy. So
far, an awkward Buhari has proved far better than a
sprightly Jonathan. Indeed, President Buhari is probably the
single most important factor in arresting the country’s drift
towards the precipice.
It is also time for critics, analysts and columnists to avoid
the bitter and vexatious essays of the pre-election period
and begin to focus on more germane national issues.
President Buhari, his cabinet and his policies are the issues.
These should be addressed. If, as seems apparent, the
president is unable to impress the Southwest or the
Southeast or even the South-South before the next elections,
then these will become something to talk about,
notwithstanding how well he pleases the North. The
president announced with flourish at his inauguration that
he belonged to everybody and to nobody. The next polls will
determine whether that delicate phrase is worth its weight in
gold. In a matter of months, the Buhari government will
clock one year, even as the president has proceeded very
slowly and very gingerly. If he does not gather speed, if he
continues along the sanctimonious line and idealism of
being his own man, and if he fails to recognise the political
environment in which he operates, he will discover only too
late that elections and the electorate can be very cruel
indeed.
President Buhari will need to pay close attention to the
alliances he built before the election if he is not to come to
grief. And going by the crippling poverty assailing the
country, and beyond the anti-corruption campaign and
some desultory recovery of stolen public funds, it is even
more urgent for him to quickly articulate and adopt a
multidimensional approach to the country’s multifarious
problems. The problems are huge and have developed into
an octopus, and are determined to resist his panaceas.
President Buhari may be regarded as part of the country’s
problems on account of his inability to quickly and efficiently
respond to the exigent issues of the day, however, Dr
Jonathan was never an option. It is time to move on and
focus on President Buhari. For, as it now seems, the
country’s fate is intertwined with his.




SOURCE/SAUCE: thenationonlineng.net/jonathan-was-never-an-option/

Focus on dismembering the slave camp aka Nigeria
That should be the goal of every right thinking person

I wonder if summary is no longer taught in schools again.

to be honest if Na love story guys will read ten of this, back to topic

op everything there is a fact but man can never be perfect in his doings

babadem2much:
I wonder if summary is no longer taught in schools again.

to be honest if Na love story guys will read ten of this, back to topic

op everything there is a fact but man can never be perfect in his doings

All write-ups must not be short or summarised to be read. With your patient indulgence, you can read through and summarise for yourself.
Most FFK's articles are usually long narratives.

Nice one.
The option of gej vs pmb, pmb was a better option ! simples. Anyone picking out pmb's failures to extol Gej is a fool and smallminded. If you will pick out pmbs failure in the last 5 months in an attempt to criticise him, do it without using it to deify failed GEJ. That is the summary of the writeup

As I write this now, Nigeria does not have ministers after five months of a new President's Inauguration and these ones are talking trash.

No greater love hath a man shown than to lay down his life for a friend. GEJ's concession saved lives. Buhari would never do the same.

saint047:
No greater love hath a man shown than to lay down his life for a friend. GEJ's concession saved lives. Buhari would never do the same.

So, GEJ was really an option albeit his administration was adjudged corrupt.

I believe in this govt.

The mere way at which institutions are performing from DSS to police to EFCC to Nigeria Army to ICPC to NDLEA, etc shows that with the right man at the center great things can happen.

When ministers are sworn in, there will be a speedy move.