Some of the former state governors missed the point about the transition, intra- and inter- parties, on May 29 by refusing to attend the ceremonies at which the change of government was formally effected.
A transition, better known in our local parlance as handover, is not a ritual observed at the discretion of outgoing presidents and governors. It is an important symbol of the democratic culture. It symbolizes change, the only kind of change in governance promised and delivered by democracy. This is why new and returning presidents invite their foreign counterparts and other local and foreign important dignitaries to witness and celebrate their inauguration.
It is sad that some of the outgoing state governors, notably, Dr. Gabriel Suswam and Alhaji Sule Lamido, of Benue and Jigawa states respectively, two men I believed ought to appreciate the significance of their presence at the ceremony in their respective states, treated it as a non-event. They flew out of the country, perhaps to be as far away as possible from what was going on. I can understand if they and those who were in the country but kept away from the ceremony are still nursing some grievances over the loss of their states to APC. Perhaps, their loss beclouded their sense of judgment. It did not excuse their behaviour.
If outgoing president Goodluck Jonathan had stayed away from the President Buhari’s inauguration, as indeed it was widely rumoured would be the case, the ceremony at Eagle Square would have fallen flat on its face, giving rise to unhelpful interpretations about the present and the future of our democracy. The presidents, prime ministers and other foreign dignitaries, did not come to see Buhari’s face. They came because the observance of this important symbol of the democratic ethos unites peoples and governments and celebrates participatory democracy in its best and most cherished form.
Nothing in our laws or the constitution compels an outgoing president or state governor to attend the inauguration of his successor. Suswam and Lamido could very well argue, tongue in cheek, that they were legally free to do as they did. That would still miss the point.
This is not about the constitution or the laws. It is about the moral imperatives of recognizing change that is a constant element in a democracy. When an outgoing president or state governor stands behind his successor at the transition ceremony, he celebrates that change of which he too had been a beneficiary. He also invests the new administration with his moral support, however grudgingly it might have been exacted. Nor should we lose sight of two important imperatives. The first is the imperative of decency. We expect our public officers to act decently and eschew bitterness. Democracy would not be what it is if it did not occasionally dislodge entrenched political interests.
The second is the imperative of discharging the moral burden of committed leadership. To the true democrat, committed leadership is more about the other than about the self. These are some of the ingredients of the democratic culture. They may look easy or even unimportant but no country can truly grow or deepen its democracy without respecting those bits and pieces of decent behaviour that together make up the democratic culture.
Gratuitous
I was intrigued by former President Goodluck Jonathan’s claims of fighting corruption. He had made two weighty statements about corruption in the country. He said corruption was exaggerated. He also said what was going on was not corruption but stealing. Presidents do not fight stealing. That is the business of the police.
Throughout his five years in office, the man made no public commitment towards fighting corruption. The anti-corruption agencies, EFCC and ICPC, fell off the public radar. It could be argued, as Jonathan did, that he did not starve them of funds. He just did not give them enough money to carry out their statutory functions.
During the presidential campaign, Jonathan surprised me when he solemnly promised to fight corruption. He served notice that he would “step on toes.” Splendid. It took him five years to garner the courage to step on toes. He was probably looking for the correct shoe size.
I find Jonathan’s advice to Buhari on how to fight corruption rather gratuitous. I have the uneasy feeling he wants to stand on a moral high ground and sermonise. Jonathan advised his successor at the ceremonial presentation of handover notes not to allow the anti-graft agencies resort to “dramatic or illegal actions orchestrated for cheap applause.” In his considered opinion, the anti-graft agencies must be allowed to mature into strong institutions “instead of being images, the hammer and the anvil of a strong man.”
Buhari is a law-and-order man. He is not likely to go outside the law or permit the anti-graft agencies to operate outside the bounds of the law. He does not need cheap applause. Jonathan made an important point though. Under Obasanjo, EFCC under Nuhu Ribadu operated on the frayed principle that the end justifies the means. Not always. Many of us disagreed with the president’s use of the EFCC as an attack dog obliged to go after his enemies, real imagined. Yes, there was a lot of drama but it was not intended for cheap applause by a strong man.
We verily expect our new president to war, war with corruption. It is the one national assignment all of us agreed on to give him the vote. It is a tough and rough assignment but we have the audacity to believe he can fight this war and win it. It is up to up to him to choose his means and his method but we certainly would like to know what the anti-graft agencies are doing and how they are doing it. We expect some occasional drama when the untouchables are touched.
Jonathan probably fears that when the war begins and the drama plays out in the public space, it would all be about him. Sure, it would expose his own impotence; his lack of sincerity in tackling a problem that has more or less brought our country to its knees and let the world see his administration for what it was – an unsightly cesspool of graft.
