KWENU! Our culture, our future

THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER

Oga, make we manage am so!

HANK ESO

Friday, 4 March 2005

I rarely join issues with people on their point of view on Nigeria, simply for two reasons. Nobody has all the answers to Nigeria’s multifarious problems; not President Obasanjo and certainly, not I or any of my fellow Nigerian Internet pundits. Secondly, everything we say or write is subjective and consequently, is colored by our beliefs, indoctrination, level of education, political persuasion, interest, or agenda, and most importantly, our intent.

But one fact is clear. Anyone who writes or comments on Nigeria has an interest in Nigeria, even though it may be undefined or masked by other motives.

Because I write for other people to read, I also read what other people write. As pundits we feed off on each other. Since I criticize, I also expect to be criticized. But I have a rule – I don’t do rejoinders. When people write me to express satisfaction or convey agreement with what I have written, I do, as matter of courtesy, write back a brief note of thanks, in which I basically say how faltered I am, that they’ve read my piece and that I’m glad to have been of service. When people write to criticize or disagree with what I have said, I make a point to say to them, “You may be right” – after all, every coin has two sides and so does every story or issue. Being right or wrong is the end state of subjectivity.

Having said this, I must admit to having followed closely the thread of debate between two Nigerians, who I consider very gifted writers and remarkable pundits, Messrs Uche Nworah and Paul Adujie.

It all started with Nworah’s An Open Letter to Baroness Lynda Chalker. To which Adujie reacted (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare1.com/Articles/paul_adujie/2005/02/those-comments-on-nigeria-by-baroness.html). Finally, Mr. Nworah in good-spirit acknowledged that he, like any critic, had received a dose of his own bitter pill. (A dose of my own medicine). So much for these two fine duellists – who in reality pursue a common cause - the betterment of Nigeria. They both add immensely to the ongoing debate on Nigeria. In this context, they are invaluable assets in our collective service to Nigeria and our humanity. In weighing in on this issue, I neither seek to take sides or engage in an apologia. I take my stand, first, from the point of being a Nigerian, and on that same plane, from the perspective of being a critic and an Internet pundit.

Here is my take. Critics don’t trash success, renowned or groundbreaking public policies. Also, criticism of any government and its policies, be it British, Nigerian, Brazilian, Moldavian or Pakistani is subsumed in the freedom of expression and the degree to which it is tolerated in any country. In this context, the critic reflects the wariness and in some cases, the disdain of the population on a particular issue. As it does happen, some critics also represent special interests. Were the critic to be totally silenced by fear or by executive fiat, then, the nation would assume what the French refer to as bouche cousue – sealed lips- whilst the nation is thrown to the dogs.

If there is one trait common to Nigerians, it is the conscious willingness of the majority to accept with visible resignation, “to manage”, when it is obvious that they are being offered a less than a stellar performance or service; simple put, when they are being short-changed. This happens endlessly when the federal, state, and local governments, as well as craftsmen and vendors press us into accepting lower standards and urge us not to demand higher standards as a matter of right. Instantly, those who demand higher standards, be it of accountability or service as seen as detractors, as stubborn, pugnacious and meddlesome.

At one point or the other, every Nigerian adult or those doing business in Nigeria would have encountered the phrase “Oga make we manage am so” (Let’s make do with what we have). This is a catch-all-phrase and inducement to accept lower-than-acceptable standards. It is a malignant cliché that runs through every facet of the Nigerian life, both public and private. I will go further to say that it is part of the bane on Nigeria. To be asked to manage is to be asked to help in doing damage. Some refer to this as the “Nigerian factor” or “Cost of Doing Business in Nigeria” depending on the circumstance. Whatever it is called it is not pretty to behold.

No one will willingly indulge in self or national flagellation. People do so when they are left no choice. Many Nigerians will readily recount numerous instances in which they have been offered a less-than-stellar or less-than-satisfactory services or products by their steward, mechanic, electrician, tailor, barber, mason or any other service vendor. In such instances, when the client confronts the vendor with the sloppy work, the inevitable response is “Oga make we manage am so” And in most cases, Nigerians do acquiesce to doing exactly so – accepting lower standards.

In yet another area, our response to government and its agencies is to accept and “manage” dismal performances. So we “manage” and make do with a grossly inefficient NEPA, NITEL and Nigerian Railways Corporation; and with bad roads, corrupt police, customs and court officials, maleficent contractors, as well as with poor security, poor sanitation, unwholesome medical practices, dismal healthcare delivery and an overall decline in our quality of life. The list can go on ad infinitum. This disposition translates into the slew of unfinished and poorly executed public projects across Nigeria. As is well known, the government officials whose institution is putting out the contract for the project, would usually demand grafts up front from the contractor. Having acceded to the request, the contractor schemes off a chunk of the mobilisation fee or an equivalent of what he believes to be his rightful profit. Thereafter, the project is executed by “managing” whatever meagre funds there is.

Incidentally, Nigerians have good tastes – some natural and others acquired. We yearn for the good social and political ambience and savour the best things in life when outside our country. Those who can legitimately or illegitimately afford such desires acquire them. But many only wish that the same would be readily available for themselves and their families within Nigeria. In most cases, when they realize that attaining such desires is unlikely, they only gripe, criticise and stomp their feet in protest. In the end, most Nigerians are against their will forced into resignation and without any alternative, are left to “manage” and in that context, further compound our national malaise.

But then, to some Nigerians who belong to the attentive public, such complacency is unacceptable. So they speak out. They become advocates and critics. In this role, they criticise the country and its leaders and challenge them to do the needful and to do better in the interest of all, which of course, includes the vested interest of the critic, if any. They call for the best practices obtainable anywhere outside Nigeria.

Patriots versus Critics

But openly criticizing Nigeria can be and has been straightforwardly misconstrued by some, as self-righteous and unpatriotic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Those who take this view often assume the persona of a patriot and are of the view that they alone posses the proprietary rights to patriotism, in so far as Nigerians are concerned. Their position becomes the basis on which the Nigerian patriot is pitched against the Nigerian critic. But in all honesty, neither the patriot nor the critic can stake a greater claim to the love of the country. Incidentally, every Nigerian is born a patriot until turned otherwise.

Many so-called or self-styled patriots are dubious about the role and utility of a critic. But critics are not innately assumptive or whimsical, as they tend to suggest. Nigerian critics vent when they have doubts about the national direction or any issue. Unquestionably, critics of Nigeria have been having a field day recently, given the serious breakdown of trust between the rulers and the national population. And whether we like it or not, the Nigeria political landscape and the governing circle tend frequently to be a theatre of the absurd. Hence, in actuality, the Nigerian critic becomes the auger – an au courant-- on every topical and secreted national issue. As such, it must be accepted that the critic’s first goal is not to destroy or discredit, but to pull the country towards good governance and to elicit better development and values.

No one cuts off his nose to spite his face. So self-marring is not a concept the critic wittingly engages in. In my thinking, those who criticise and challenge Nigeria to do better –including yours truly- are far more patriotic than those who wallow in their comfort or accept the status quo just because our decrepit infrastructure and diminishing quality of life does not directly affect them. Also, the critics stand on a higher moral ground than those who urge Nigerians to “manage” situations as they are. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, the measure of a critic, as in the measure of a man, is not where he or she stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand in times of great controversy.

Every nation should have a whiff of the future and that whiff should be progressive. The measure of how well a nation is doing, can come in the form of comparison with like-minded and similar-sized nations or by comparing the nation’s human development index of the past with the present and future projections. Nevertheless, it seems clear, that a true critic should not be saddled with the dual role of being a cheerleader and an agitator. Those who fancy their role, as cheerleaders for any government will inevitably do so; with their blinkers on, it would not in the least matter to them if the government were failing woefully. Their job is to pander to the leadership, all in the name of patriotism. This, evidently, is not the niche of the true critic. But it would be callous and indeed morally reprehensible for those who elect to see in themselves the veritable patriots, to denounce as unpatriotic, those who do not share their views. Professor Wole Soyinka has been a critic of many Nigeria governments, military and civilian alike. Does this make him an unpatriotic Nigerian? Certainly not! Professor Chinua Achebe criticised President Obasanjo’s deafening silence on the Anambra crisis. Is Achebe therefore disloyal to Nigeria? Doubtful! On leaving government in 2003, Gen. Yakubu Danjuma criticised the Obasanjo administration and suggested that a “political cabal” had hijacked it. Was such utterance an unpatriotic act? Hardly!

Why Assume the Unenviable Role of A Critic

Why does anyone ever want to assume the unenviable role of a political or social critic, when in some instances it carries an awesome burden? Well, being a critic might be a dirty and unsavory job; but someone has to do it, in the interest of all and especially, on behalf of those who are unable to speak up and articulate their position on issues.

In the Nigerian context, there are added reasons for undertaking this task. Whether we like it or not, Nigeria is very well far behind where it ought to be politically and developmentally. As a country, Nigeria has a lot of internal contradictions. Take for instance, how we managed to get the military out of national politics, and back into the barracks, only to turn around to a situation where our politics and leadership is still dominated by the military -- absent their uniforms and military ranks. Also, the political opposition in Nigeria is in an existential crisis; with its role, principles, policies, and structure in a sorry state of flux. The political opposition has all but abandoned its check-and-balance functions, and is more interested in mapping out a strategy for capturing power. Naturally, the political opposition should form the piercing light and reflective mirror into the “soul” of the ruling PDP government as well as form its formidable shadow. But this is not the case in Nigeria; hence we have a multi-party system that is both by contrivance and by default a one-party governance structure. The three arms of the Nigerian government have become extremely fungible as can be attested to by those who honestly see things as they are and not as they pretend for them to be.

We face a situation where the dearth and death of the political opposition has created a substantive and dangerous vacuum in Nigerian politics. Hence, the task of being the nation’s watchdog has devolved mainly to the media, but also to the attentive public, of which the political critic and pundit is an integral component. There are undoubtedly plenty of criticisms, which cause anguish to Nigerian political leaders and their minders. But it should be borne in mind that as Nigerians, we could say of ourselves and of our leaders what a foreigner would politely refrain from saying about us. Then, again, foreign commentators on Nigeria represent foreign interests in Nigeria. Their take on Nigeria is always determined, tinged and weighted against their interests. But for a Nigerian, there can be only one vested interest- the good, development, peace and stability of the country. If we cannot speak frankly amongst ourselves, then we are doomed. And this is where the critic comes in.

At the heart of the issue

In his piece, which I referred to earlier on, Uche Nworah took an exception to what Baroness Lynda Chalker said while visiting Nigeria last February, thus prompting Paul Adujie’s rebuttal. If I recall correctly, Baroness Lynda Chalker said:

Many good things have happened in Nigeria in the last 18 months than in any other country in Africa but the outside world needs to know this to be able to take positive investment decisions on the country… But often all that we see outside Nigeria are the negative things. The media and Nigerians in the Diaspora must take the challenge of telling the world that good things are happening here. Nigeria stands a good chance of attracting foreign investors if they have adequate knowledge of the real situation rather than the perception, which is often wrong.

Good enough. One cannot argue with high-quality and sensible logic that “many good things have happened in Nigeria”. But neither can one also discount that many ghastly and heinous things have happened in Nigeria over the same period. As I see it, the key task of the Nigerian critic in the Diaspora is to “take the challenge of telling the world that good things are happening here.” But we also have the role of pointing out the bad things happening in our country. I presume Baroness Lynda Chalker flew into Nigeria on either British Airways or Virgin Atlantic. What would she have said that was good about Nigeria not having its own airline anymore? The British are reaping the benefits of the demise of Nigeria Airways –though no fault of theirs – but would she have been so undiplomatic or dim to say so in Nigeria? I think not. That task falls on the Nigerian critic, and it would not in any way be bad to say so publicly to our leaders. What would she say if her relative visited Nigeria and was not made aware of the rampant armed robbery and as such ended up being robbed or killed?

Indeed, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advisory on Nigeria issued on 21 February went thus:

We advise against all travel to the Bakassi Peninsula. We also advise against all but essential travel by boat and road to the riverine areas in Rivers, Bayelsa and Delta States. Localised outbreaks of civil unrest can occur at short notice. Violent crime is prevalent in the south of the country, including Lagos. You should be aware of the threat from terrorism in Nigeria. A statement issued by Usama Bin Laden in February 2003 called for an uprising by Muslims in a number of countries including Nigeria. He suggested that ‘faithful Muslims’ rise up against the Nigerian Government. You should be aware of the global risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, which could be against civilian targets. We strongly recommend that you obtain comprehensive travel and medical insurance before travelling.

Since the British travel advisory would in all likelihood be deemed more credible than a similar advisory from Nigeria, how would the British advisory play to a prospective foreign investor in Nigeria? Considering the above, one must ask the inevitable question: was Baroness Chalker being candid about her pitch on Nigeria or engaging in Orwellian double-speak?

Now let’s pursue another angle. Just last month French Finance Minister Herve Gaymard resigned over the scandal about his state-paid $18,500 a month apartment. Last year in Baroness Chalker’s home country, the UK, Home Secretary David Blunkett resigned after it emerged that his office had fast-tracked a visa application for his ex-lover's nanny. These were good developments, which Baroness Chalker could have cited as evidence of public accountability, transparency, and checks on official malfeasance and impunity. I wonder, however, how she would have juxtaposed them with the revelation in 2003 that Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) had spent a total of N240.4 million in public funds over three years to accommodate its group managing director, Mr. Jackson Gaius-Obaseki, in the NICON Hilton Hotel, Abuja. Then, of course, there was Mr. Gaius-Obaseki’s remark, in the wake of the scandal that he believed he was making a “sacrifice” for the country to have stayed in the hotel. Sacrifice indeed, in a country where large segments of the national population still subsist on less that $1 a day for an entire family. It surely boggles the mind!

Finally, what would the esteemed Baroness have said in reaction to the fact that not one single person resigned, was fired, sanctioned or jailed over the Nasir el-Rufai N54 million senate bribery scandal? Grappling with unsavory stuff such as these, remains the remit of the national critic. Revealing and assailing those involved in such profligacy is entirely justifiable.

It will certainly not do for the Nigerian critic to be hounded into submission or complacency so long as he meets his or her obligation as a critic. Certain ground rules are always called for and they should be obeyed.

For those, who write and engage in critique of the Nigerian government of the day, its policies, institutions and officers, it is worthwhile to familiarize oneself with a masterpiece on the subject of criticism, written in 1947 by James Craig La Drière and titled, “The Role of The Critic.” It was therein, that the author fleshed out the unchangeable role of the critic: “The critic is indeed a judge, an evaluator. Where there is no evaluation, no estimate of worth, there is no criticism. No amount of pure description or classification which is merely descriptive will produce criticism….”

As to the litmus test and bona fides of the true critic, Mr. La Drière offers this advice:

The critic should be honest. He can never be perfectly intelligent, or perfectly informed, or perfectly disinterested, or perfectly humble; but it is open to everyone to be perfectly honest, and to a critic who is perfectly honest his inevitable shortcomings with respect to the rest will easily be forgiven. For honest statement is the soul of criticism; pretense is incompatible with criticism. Intelligence, awareness, disinterestedness, humility, honesty-these are the virtues of the critic, and together they are the sum of his responsibility.

(Spirit, Vol. XII, 1947)

There is a raging debate out there. What the situation calls for is not to abandon the task of being a critic, but to do so constructively, with a high sense of responsibility, and a modicum of insularity against potential whiplash reaction from bleeding heart patriots. Should the critic fail in his task of baring the follies of governments and the foibles of human beings, he would have joined the plebeian ranks of the uninformed and inattentive public. In that cadre, he might as well lay down his pen or computer and join the legion that sings the pathetic swan song of “Oga make we manage am so.” Doing so will be to the ultimate detriment of free speech, public policy, good governance and national interests. The role of a true critic in keeping the people informed and the government in check and honest, is an onerous task; but it is also one from which no true patriot can claim to be a political or conscientious objector. Let us therefore stop pretending that all is well in Nigeria. Such pretence is a key point at the heart of the ongoing national debate in that it beclouds the salient premise of the debate. I rest.

With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.

-------

Hank Eso, is a columnist for Kwenu.com (New Jersey). His commentaries on Nigerian politics and global issues have appeared in The New Times (Lagos), African Profile International (New York), The Nigerian And Africa Abroad, (New York) and in Gamji.com.

Email: hankeso@aol.com