Re: el-Rufai: Between Idealism And Political Sensitivity
— Jul 1, 2015 1:12 pm
On the 23rd June 2015, Nadabo published an opinion piece in the Leadership Newspaper on what he regards as Governor Nasir el-Rufai’s insensitivity to the people of Kaduna state. While this piece is reflective of the schisms of our emerging nation, myself as a ‘non-indigene’ resident of Zaria virtually my entire life was worried. I understood the content and frustration of the author, but non-the-less I was worried. What is the implication of this article on my (and others like myself) continued relevance and residence in Kaduna? Would this article breed and reinforce the sense of resentment felt by ‘indigenes’ towards non-indigenes? Would this be Jos all over again, or worse still in the distant future, sow the seeds of Rwanda? These were few of the questions that rushed through my mind in my confused, angry and disappointed state. But then again, I realised that this is a democracy (albeit a fragile one that calls for common sense and caution) and freedom of expression is one of its cardinal tenets. For this reason, the best response was to pick up my pen. In this rejoinder, I critique the weaknesses of the original article and provide some food for thoughts.
For starters, my disappointment is not because I am surprised that such sentiments of discontent exist amongst the good people of the state who are ‘natives’ or indigenes. Quite frankly, it is to be expected. Whether we admit it or not, Nigeria is an infant state where ethnic loyalties are still considerably stronger than any Nationalistic feelings from its ethnically diverse people. What irked me was reading a very poor piece which reeked of incitement, tribal sentiments, lack of judgement, balance, intellectual discourse and ultimately what I consider the most important attribute journalism: bringing other sides of a debate to the fore and providing information and enlightenment!
Nadabo starts by admitting that el-Rufai is deserving of his election, but has not been sensitive in his appointments (he contradicts this later on by alleging his victory ‘rode (on) the back of President Buhari’). In Nigeria of today, any ‘government appointments’ are considered ‘sacred’ to those who harbour a sense of entitlement about where power resides.
The mentality is that ‘offices’ are sources of wealth rather than a huge responsibility and an opportunity to serve. Probably the evidence of affluence amongst those at the corridors of power is enough justification for this ideology. However, I remain of the opinion that if service is the driver of seeking office, then less people would be keen to seek positions, but would rather focus on reaping the opportunities that come with good governance. So while this potential resentment is not surprising, Nadabo lost an opportunity to kick-start a debate that could enlighten and change Kaduna and Nigeria forever. Instead, he embarks on a journey of bigotry and tribalism. By his own admission, el-Rufai has a track record of achievement and competence but Nadabo has not attempted to understudy how he has been so successful, or if he has achieved all this with an exclusive ethnic group.
Secondly, it is mentioned that Kaduna has many eminently qualified individuals. This is not in doubt but it should be noted that every ‘eminently qualified’ persons cannot all be advisers at the same time. So majority of these eminently qualified persons would still have to engage in some endeavour for their livelihood which should be facilitated by good governance. Therefore, I would have expected the article to be focussed on the burdens of governance, and how competently the office holders perform, thereby creating viable opportunities for residents; indigenes and non-indigenes alike.
The questioning of the choice Jimi Lawal is probably the only part of the article that is unemotional. It appears that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this individual. However, we live in a country that has laws, therefore, it should not be a problem for the courts to handle if he indeed has a case to answer. If this was the focus of his article, I would have been in full support. Accountability is a key ingredient of democracy. Instead, I have extracted three comments by the author that lacks merit or deep thought; 1) ‘In particular, his appointment of Jimi Lawal, Muyiwa Adekeye and other non-indigenes into key positions is an insult to the voters of Kaduna State who rejected an incumbent’ 2) ‘people of Kaduna State that defied harsh weather conditions to queue up and vote him into office’ and 3) ‘He has grievously hurt the voters of Kaduna Sate, and made them look like fools’. Constant reference is made to ‘voters’ in this article. In response, a few questions have been running through my mind; 1) who are these voters? Are they made up of indigenes alone or a mixture of both? 2) If non-indigenes also voted, does that negate Nadabo’s argument of insult? 3) Do harsh weather conditions only affect indigene voters? 4) Did the voters ‘defy harsh weather conditions’ for the sole purpose of having only indigenes in power? 5) Was the incumbent rejected for a similar ‘offence’?
Thirdly, Nadabo states that Kaduna is the “centre of learning” while Zaria is “Garin-ilimi”’. Again, my questions are 1) has learning and education been provided by and for indigenes alone? 2) Have non-indigenes contributed to the reputation which makes many hold the state in high esteem? 3) Does diversity mean anything to the author and well-meaning people of the state? He goes on to say ‘el-Rufai is literally passing a verdict of no confidence on his own people, the very people that gave him the mandate to be in the Government House today’. In my opinion, the best thing for el-Rufai to do is to reward all voters alike with good governance, symptoms of which have begun to show.
While I agree that the appointments might affect people’s sensibilities, I see this as another opportunity for Kaduna to take the lead on this occasion, learn and also show other states a progressive way forward. Nadabo in his vitriolic piece lost a great opportunity to stimulate debates and allay people’s apprehensions of this visionary but somewhat ‘ahead of its time’ decision. Studies on migration show evidence that more often than not, it brings value and fresh ideas to a place. A cursory look at some of the most successful Nigerian towns (Abuja, Lagos, Kano and Kaduna) show healthy populations of non-indigenes. The same goes for some of the most successful countries too where big businesses like industry, finance and tourism thrive due to migration. This piece was nothing but a stark reminder that ‘settlers should never forget their place’.
Lastly, the article also misinforms the audience. Nadabo is not even aware that Fashola had Ben Akabueze as commissioner of finance in Lagos for eight years! Such occurrences are not even new. In 1956, Malam Umaru Altine was elected mayor of Enugu. In Lagos, Mr Oghene Egboh, Mr Tony Nwoolu and Mrs Rita Orji defeated Yoruba candidates to seats in the House of Assembly. So how can el-Rufai’s appointment translate to a vote of no confidence in the indigenes of Kaduna state? To put this in context, the current Head of the Bank of England is Canadian. Is that a vote of no confidence in citizens of the British isle?
I believe that Nadabo’s piece is wrong, ill-timed and not consistent with a Nigeria we should be trying to build. We do not need to drown ourselves in our fears, but rather explore new grounds that should ultimate quest for collective growth, not selective privileges. El-Rufai has made a bold choice just like a few before him. We have to place some trust in him, having given him our mandate with the hope that his successes of the past would be replicated in this instance. We should encourage that in this ‘new’ Nigeria of our dreams, our concern should be ‘the content of his character and not the sound of his mother tongue’ (to remix the famous words of President Obama). In closing, if this has happened in Kaduna, it is because the state is much more matured than a lot of its counterparts in terms of embracing diversity.
God bless Kaduna State, Long live the Nigeria of our dreams!
Afolabi Dania writes from Zaria, Kaduna State.
For starters, my disappointment is not because I am surprised that such sentiments of discontent exist amongst the good people of the state who are ‘natives’ or indigenes. Quite frankly, it is to be expected. Whether we admit it or not, Nigeria is an infant state where ethnic loyalties are still considerably stronger than any Nationalistic feelings from its ethnically diverse people. What irked me was reading a very poor piece which reeked of incitement, tribal sentiments, lack of judgement, balance, intellectual discourse and ultimately what I consider the most important attribute journalism: bringing other sides of a debate to the fore and providing information and enlightenment!
Nadabo starts by admitting that el-Rufai is deserving of his election, but has not been sensitive in his appointments (he contradicts this later on by alleging his victory ‘rode (on) the back of President Buhari’). In Nigeria of today, any ‘government appointments’ are considered ‘sacred’ to those who harbour a sense of entitlement about where power resides.
The mentality is that ‘offices’ are sources of wealth rather than a huge responsibility and an opportunity to serve. Probably the evidence of affluence amongst those at the corridors of power is enough justification for this ideology. However, I remain of the opinion that if service is the driver of seeking office, then less people would be keen to seek positions, but would rather focus on reaping the opportunities that come with good governance. So while this potential resentment is not surprising, Nadabo lost an opportunity to kick-start a debate that could enlighten and change Kaduna and Nigeria forever. Instead, he embarks on a journey of bigotry and tribalism. By his own admission, el-Rufai has a track record of achievement and competence but Nadabo has not attempted to understudy how he has been so successful, or if he has achieved all this with an exclusive ethnic group.
Secondly, it is mentioned that Kaduna has many eminently qualified individuals. This is not in doubt but it should be noted that every ‘eminently qualified’ persons cannot all be advisers at the same time. So majority of these eminently qualified persons would still have to engage in some endeavour for their livelihood which should be facilitated by good governance. Therefore, I would have expected the article to be focussed on the burdens of governance, and how competently the office holders perform, thereby creating viable opportunities for residents; indigenes and non-indigenes alike.
The questioning of the choice Jimi Lawal is probably the only part of the article that is unemotional. It appears that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this individual. However, we live in a country that has laws, therefore, it should not be a problem for the courts to handle if he indeed has a case to answer. If this was the focus of his article, I would have been in full support. Accountability is a key ingredient of democracy. Instead, I have extracted three comments by the author that lacks merit or deep thought; 1) ‘In particular, his appointment of Jimi Lawal, Muyiwa Adekeye and other non-indigenes into key positions is an insult to the voters of Kaduna State who rejected an incumbent’ 2) ‘people of Kaduna State that defied harsh weather conditions to queue up and vote him into office’ and 3) ‘He has grievously hurt the voters of Kaduna Sate, and made them look like fools’. Constant reference is made to ‘voters’ in this article. In response, a few questions have been running through my mind; 1) who are these voters? Are they made up of indigenes alone or a mixture of both? 2) If non-indigenes also voted, does that negate Nadabo’s argument of insult? 3) Do harsh weather conditions only affect indigene voters? 4) Did the voters ‘defy harsh weather conditions’ for the sole purpose of having only indigenes in power? 5) Was the incumbent rejected for a similar ‘offence’?
Thirdly, Nadabo states that Kaduna is the “centre of learning” while Zaria is “Garin-ilimi”’. Again, my questions are 1) has learning and education been provided by and for indigenes alone? 2) Have non-indigenes contributed to the reputation which makes many hold the state in high esteem? 3) Does diversity mean anything to the author and well-meaning people of the state? He goes on to say ‘el-Rufai is literally passing a verdict of no confidence on his own people, the very people that gave him the mandate to be in the Government House today’. In my opinion, the best thing for el-Rufai to do is to reward all voters alike with good governance, symptoms of which have begun to show.
While I agree that the appointments might affect people’s sensibilities, I see this as another opportunity for Kaduna to take the lead on this occasion, learn and also show other states a progressive way forward. Nadabo in his vitriolic piece lost a great opportunity to stimulate debates and allay people’s apprehensions of this visionary but somewhat ‘ahead of its time’ decision. Studies on migration show evidence that more often than not, it brings value and fresh ideas to a place. A cursory look at some of the most successful Nigerian towns (Abuja, Lagos, Kano and Kaduna) show healthy populations of non-indigenes. The same goes for some of the most successful countries too where big businesses like industry, finance and tourism thrive due to migration. This piece was nothing but a stark reminder that ‘settlers should never forget their place’.
Lastly, the article also misinforms the audience. Nadabo is not even aware that Fashola had Ben Akabueze as commissioner of finance in Lagos for eight years! Such occurrences are not even new. In 1956, Malam Umaru Altine was elected mayor of Enugu. In Lagos, Mr Oghene Egboh, Mr Tony Nwoolu and Mrs Rita Orji defeated Yoruba candidates to seats in the House of Assembly. So how can el-Rufai’s appointment translate to a vote of no confidence in the indigenes of Kaduna state? To put this in context, the current Head of the Bank of England is Canadian. Is that a vote of no confidence in citizens of the British isle?
I believe that Nadabo’s piece is wrong, ill-timed and not consistent with a Nigeria we should be trying to build. We do not need to drown ourselves in our fears, but rather explore new grounds that should ultimate quest for collective growth, not selective privileges. El-Rufai has made a bold choice just like a few before him. We have to place some trust in him, having given him our mandate with the hope that his successes of the past would be replicated in this instance. We should encourage that in this ‘new’ Nigeria of our dreams, our concern should be ‘the content of his character and not the sound of his mother tongue’ (to remix the famous words of President Obama). In closing, if this has happened in Kaduna, it is because the state is much more matured than a lot of its counterparts in terms of embracing diversity.
God bless Kaduna State, Long live the Nigeria of our dreams!
Afolabi Dania writes from Zaria, Kaduna State.
No comments:
Post a Comment