Pulling him down

Criticize any major social, political or economic leader in Nigeria, and dozens of people, maybe hundreds or even thousands, will rise up to accuse you of trying to "Pull Him Down". They never disprove the points in your criticism, nor do they provide a superior argument. They just accuse you of jealousy, tell you that your evil plans will not work, invoke the Almighty's protection of their man (which has to be some kind of blasphemy) and dismiss everything you say ... even if their hero is clearly wrong.

Moreso, many citizens have adapted their aspirations in line with the broken system. Rather than get angry about it, they hope and dream of the day that they will be among the elite who benefit from it. As such, if you criticize the wealthy grandees living the high-life on fortunes created by making the lives of Nigerians more difficult than necessary, it is your fellow suffering citizen who will be the first to accuse you of jealousy, to viciously mock your lack of riches (never mind that the little you have, you got honestly, morally, ethically, without harming your country or countrymen) .... and to tell you to go out and grab your own dishonest fortune rather than criticize "sharp" men who have already got theirs.

It is consequently extremely difficult to reform and reorient leadership and followership in Nigeria (and Africa). Our countries and economies sort of limp along without transformation. It is not that we don't grow. We do grow. But it is one thing for an industrial or post-industrial country to say "we have grown X%", and another thing for an exporter of primary resources to say "we have grown X%". Whether "growth" means you are pumping out more primary resources, or that you are getting more money in exchange for your primary resources, you are still an exporter of primary resources.

We tell ourselves things are more difficult than neccessary because of "bad leaders" who are imposed on us. The truth is we are the ones who do most of the hard work of suppressing our own democratic and economic aspirations in the service of the so-called "bad leaders" we complain about. For every so-called "bad leader" you can name, I will show you thousands of Nigerian citizens who will fight (sometimes to their death or yours) to defend him or her, even though they suffer (directly and/or indirectly) the results of the bad leadership just like everyone else ... citizens who will not show the same commitment of purpose if you ask them to lift a finger for the commonwealth of all citizens.

This is the political part of it, as distinguished from the economic dream of one day rising to join the ranks of elites milking the system.

The political part of the equation is built on an ideology of sorts, one reinforced by the actions and utterances of fellow citizens as much as by anything done by the so-called Big Men. It is the repeatedly insisted upon idea that "THEY" are "UNITED", so if "WE" do not stand "UNITED" then "THE" will take over and dominate and marginalize US.

The identity of "they" and "we" and "us" differs, depending on where you are in the country. It also differs depending on whether the contest is one for a stake in federal-level power, for pole position as the "leader" of an ethno-cultural group, for pseudo-monarchic power as a governor, for recognition as the "local champion" of an LGA or group of LGAs in a state, for a share of patronage/contracts/largesse/anti-competitive advantages/etc, or even for the otherwise ceremonial position of traditional ruler.

So long as there is a slice of power, privilege or wealth up for competition, this mindset rears itself almost immediately.

We the people, as individuals, communities and sub-national regions are no more than bargaining chips for a variety of Big Men to use in their negotiations, and ultimately coalitions with each other. We know this is the way the system works, so it is easy for the Big Men to convince us that we will lose out on access to resources if we don't have a "representative" at the table where the national cake will be carved up like the Berlin Conference.

And so ordinary citizens begin to treat anyone from within their sociocultural group who criticizes their supposed sociocultural group leader as a traitor to the group. And any criticism coming from outside the group, well, that is just "those" people trying to "pull down" your man so "their" man can replace him or take his share of the loot in addition to "their" own. They will tell you that the "others" will use your words as an excuse to move against "our" man, and will insist in no uncertain terms that it is your duty as a member of that sociocultural group to give blind loyalty and unflinching support to the Big Man.

The worst thing about it is if you persist, if you tell them that they are allowing a state of affairs to exist that is harmful to them as well as to every other citizen, they look at you as though you are a mugu who doesn't understand Nigerian politics. We are not supposed to discuss Nigerian politics as it should be, but rather to discuss it as it is. What is the point of that? Politics as it is will never deliver any of the things we vitally need it to deliver?

But no one expects it to, and so so no one is ever motivated to make decisions or take actions based on sensible debate about policy alternatives, because we have individually and collectively decided that our best bet in life is to defend our position within the context of the very system of affairs that automatically/inherently limits if not blocks the full attainment of our potential. It is so frustrating when you point out that something could be done better, and someone tells you that the person you are criticizing has done more than you, asks you "where is your own achievement", and tells you that if you think it is easy, you should do it yourself ... as if the system would ever allow you to, which is actually fundamental to the problem of never getting the best policy alternative or policy execution.

Mind you, there is still plenty of criticism in Nigeria. In fact, if criticism was currency, Nigeria would have the biggest GDP in human history. There is A LOT of criticism in Nigeria, however a lot of people only criticize VIPs who do not share the same ethnic, religious or regional origin as themselves. Indeed, when you point out that their own hero is as guilty as the men they are criticizing, they very angrily (and hypocritically) deny it and defend him to the hilt, though he is visibly and egregiously as guilty of the same conduct they were vociferously criticizing only a second ago!

This is really important because it explains in part why it is impossible to rally Nigerians together to fight for causes that will benefit all of us.

We the people now become the system's reinforcement. The "other" people see us defending "our" man, and we see the "other" people defending "their" man. Perhaps more importantly, "we" see "them" criticizing "our" man for committing the same acts that "their" man commits, while defending "their" man from accusations of the same; and "they" see "us" doing the same thing albeit in reverse.

Not only do we become each other's confirmation of why we should stand as a bloc behind our respective Big Man, but we collectively kill any possibility of joint, collective action to improve the system. Why would I rally together with "them", when "they" quite clearly are interested in "their" supremacy and not in principles or issues?

We do not trust each other. Again and again we have (seemingly) betrayed each other, and betrayed the principles we collectively pretend to believe. We listen to the critics, the self-proclaimed reformers and the so-called "progressives", but quietly and totally doubt their sincerity because in practice they swing like a pendulum, depending on their relationship (professional, financial or ethno-cultural) to who/what is in power; if the circumstances are different, they work for the success of the very situations and outcomes that they previously opposed with loud-but-empty rhetoric.

Importantly, it becomes easy to convince ordinary citizens that critics of the Big Man are just trying to "pull him down" because they are "jealous". I mean, why else are they criticizing him? If it was because of the issues, wouldn't charity start at home? Wouldn't they first clean up their own Big Men? In fact, they are defending their Big Men and suggesting their Big Men would do a better job that our own, even though both Big Men are exactly the same. So, ipso facto, they are just trying to "pull him down" for no other reason than to "pull him down".

And ultimately, we Nigerians have spent decades complaining that good projects fail because of a lack of "maintenance culture" or of "policy continuity", yet any attempt to fight in favour of maintenance and continuity will be shouted down by people who insist you are just "pulling down" an "achiever" ... even though the "achiever's" so-called "achievement" is always too expensive (i.e. there is a cheaper alternative), too limited (i.e. you could actually have gotten more of it while spending less), too ineffectual (i.e. if you had done something else, the cost/benefit outcome would be stronger), too inefficient (by definition) and too temporary (the so-called lack of maintenance culture and continuity is built into the system; there is no way to produce these positives in a system built firmly upon the opposite of said positives).

We complain that our governments (and for that matter our private sectors too) are not accountable to us constitutionally or legally, yet we are part-creators of the ideological wall of "don't-pull-him-down-because-you-are-jealous" behind which they can act with impunity. There is nothing a leader can do, not matter how bad it is, for which he cannot count on thousands (sometimes millions) of Nigerians/Africans to defend him from criticism or from action by fellow citizens.

And on this issue, as with many other issues, corruption inclusive, we face a self-defeating contradiction. As much as we complain about the effects of our broken system, those of us not currently enjoying the benefits of the breakages in the system tend to tacitly or openly oppose fixing the system because we hope to rise to a position from which to milk the broken system first before someone else fixes it.

And so the people who suffer the worst aspects of our social/political/economic system unwittingly become the system's greatest defenders, directly (through their defence of factions within the system) and indirectly (because our individual and collective actions add up to a politically gridlocked society incapable of moving toward reform, restructuring and transformation).

It is self-defeating on every level. What appears to be tribalism when this ideology is applied at a federal level is in fact nothing of the sort. If anything, as I have noted earlier, this ideology is applied most frequently WITHIN ethnic, religious and sociocultural groups by one faction jostling for position within the group against all others ... and also by Big Men within the sociocultural group against criticism from the ranks of rank-and-file "Small" Men within the group.

A side-effect of this state of affairs is pervasive apathy. There is no political debate or public discourse as such, and the empty posturing that takes the place of such debate has no connection to government policy-making decisions, to private sector regulations, or to choice of which person or faction occupies which political office(s).

Nothing we the people think, believe, want, hope or say has any relevance at all, so we don't bother. We disengage almost completely, and insofar as participating in or having an influence, directly or indirectly on government policy, we are effectively disconnected from our own political processes. You listen to people discussing our politics, it is almost like they are discussing a novel they read or a film they watched, things done in a fictional world by entertaining fictional characters whose decisions and actions don't have real effects on our real lives. Once the discussion is over, we go back to our real lives, which are made unnecessarily more difficult by policy-making that never took our rational interests into account.

Indeed, in the absence of an external limiting factor, human beings would pursue their own rational self-interest to the exclusion of all else. By relieving our policy-making and administration from any responsibility to ourselves, we permit them to pursue their own individual and sub-group interest, to the exclusion of our own. And yet we complain when the outcomes of their policies is exactly what the outcome of policy must be under those circumstances.

Poverty, not just liquid currency poverty, but asset poverty, savings poverty, economic buffer poverty, and the consequent desperate competition for very scarce resources leaves our federal republic far too prone to outbursts of "communal" violence. No one seems to realize that we the people, we the citizens are ultimately to blame, because we provide the support structure for the very system that makes these outcomes highly likely. We gain nothing from blaming vague and broad concepts like "corruption" or "the colonialists who forced multiple ethnic groups and religions into a geographical expression". The rich and successful countries of the world are as much "geographical expressions" wielded together by the force of war as we are, and "corruption" is universal (if there truly are extraterrestrial aliens on distant planets and star systems, the one thing we know for sure about them is that they have corruption there too).

Ahead of the likely-to-be-rigged 2011 Nigerian elections, there are people arguing "Southerners" should rally behind Goodluck Jonathan, saying the "North" has dominated power because the "South" has never been unified.

And on the flip-side of the coin, their adversaries are seeking a "consensus" candidate, behind whom they expect "Northerners" to rally. (EDIT 25.11.10: Atiku Abubakar is the chosen "consensus" candidate). The word is that the "South" is cheating on the rotation principle, and that it is still the "North's" turn.

Alas, if you made a list of vital issues facing Nigeria and asked the various camps to tell you what their candidate intends to do about those issues you will get (a) very vague language that purports support for things deemed good and opposition to things deemed bad; (b) false promises of things that cannot be delivered least of all in the short time-frame of the promise; (c) lies their candidates do not believe and do not even pretend to believe, but which their partisans will tell you because they know you believe.

What you won't get is an honest answer: They do not know what their candidates would do about these issues, because their candidates don't have any plan to deal with these issues.

There are those who say "progressives" should rally around Nuhu Ribadu, even though the so-called anti-corruption fighter has aligned himself with the corrupt Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Which means we will get more of the Ribadu's specialty, which is strengthening one faction of corrupt Big Men by weakening another faction of corrupt Big Men ... a plus-one-minus-one situation that leaves corruption at the same high level.

Seriously, does it matter whether corruption benefits Obasanjo and the Uba brothers (Andy and Chris) versus benefiting Atiku and Alamieyeseigha?

At the very least, someone should ask Ribadu to explain how he is going to fight corruption as president when he will rely on corrupt people to get to the presidency and (more importantly) to remain there once he gets there. How is he going to deal with a National Assembly full of corrupt people who got their jobs the same way he got his, and who are beholden to godfathers, patrons and clients the same way he is?

Governor Fashola of Lagos pretends not to see corruption all around him. Most Lagosians say it doesn't matter, so long as Fashola is "delivering". But Lagos has tremendous needs, and the budget of the state, one of the largest (if not the largest) state budget in the federal republics, is nevertheless insufficient, severely insufficient for the needs of a city-state like Lagos. The state really cannot afford to divide its revenues between the pursuit of development, and the feeding of parasites. Indeed, far from consolidating the local governments in Lagos to save money, Fashola was obliged to expand them, to create new political appointee positions for Tinubu's cronies.

Babatunde Fashola is not the first "Action Governor" of Lagos, nor is Lagos the only state in Nigerian to have had an "Action Governor" over the last 50 years. Hasn't anyone noticed these Action Governors have never have a long term effect? That their grand projects eventually rot away due to "no maintenance culture"?

Do people not realize that the contradictions built into the system destroy even the good things done?

Oops, sorry.

I am "pulling him down".