In issue here, among
others, is the preponderance of views that the president’s men, with perhaps
few exceptions, are not exactly square pegs in square holes. Equally relevant
is the lopsided apportionment of key positions to various sections of the
country. Certainly, there is enough glaring imbalance in the distribution of
ministerial duties to worry the average Nigerian concerned about a wholesome
composition of government and the real unity of the country.
Overall, the president and
his men (and women) must rise with determination and deliberate consciousness
to galvanise this country into the much-desired change promised by the new
government. Granted that officials are not expected to produce magic in running
the state, nothing short of a drastic turnaround of the nation’s fortunes will
satisfy Nigerians.
On the expected performance
of the cabinet, the economy is under recession and that has brought it under
pressure from the Bretton Woods institutions. It would require a hard-core
nationalist with radical political economy background to mind the gate.
The long wait for the
composition of a cabinet was preceded by a retreat, which served for the
president as a Sermon on the Mount. The president let it be known to the new
ministers that he was elected by Nigerians on the triple promise to combat
corruption, insecurity and revamp the national economy. To achieve the huge
task ahead, the ministers must work as team, he admonished. And to further
avoid a riotous line of communication with the presidency, the president laid
bare the part of communication, namely, that ministers must go through the
Chief of Staff. This was an important first step. Most government officials,
driven by personal ambition, often forget that government is a teamwork based
on an agenda of public service not self-interested activities.
Orientation to government policy
is desirable, but the factors that feed the legitimacy of the government of the
day are supreme. Therefore, a reflection on the composition of the cabinet is
important in two respects. One is the capacity for performance and two,
absolute regard for the sensitivity and diversity of our country. The
Florentine political philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, once explained that the
direction of government is easily discernible from the form and content of the
cabinet that the government puts in place. A
Machiavellian reading of
the appointed ministers would yield different perspective. While some people
describe the ministers as ‘a political compensation list’ and some would argue
that it is a product of real politik, others have indeed referred to the ministers
as more or less old wine in the same old bottle.
And while there is little
spectacular about the ministerial appointees, the assignment of portfolios to
the ministers does not reek of serious consideration for skills, propensity and
capacity to deliver. Although they are expected to work as a team, the missing
links create a disadvantage in the learning process, which the times we are in
could least tolerate. It will undermine the Shakespearean wisdom engrossed in
Julius Caesar, which the president has so often cited, to the extent that there
is tide in the affairs of men which, when seized upon, could lead to fortune
and once missed could lead to ill-fortune.
More curious is the
allotment of all critical security portfolios to a section of the country. The
defence and interior ministries, viewed along with other appointments of
service chiefs, the directorate of state security and even the Federal Capital
Territory which since its creation has been run by a section of the country,
create a perception of an internal colony garrisoned by a section of the
polity.
We have again missed the
historical opportunity to prove that the country belongs to all of us. Nigeria
is a very complex country that demands intelligent statecraft to run. That
statecraft must take cognisance of the differences in both cultural and
individual perceptions of the direction that the country must go. Our founding
fathers recognised the diversity and the ethno-linguistic foundations of the
Nigerian state, hence the federal foundation of the state. A recent study has
put the diverse groups in the country at over 500. Government policy must
continue to weigh this diversity in policy and practice which is why federalism
recommends itself and is variously perceived as a tool for managing diversity.
The government’s ability to
do this earns it a huge dose of legitimacy. On the contrary, it erodes its
legitimacy and engenders simultaneously fissiparous currents in the polity.
Divisive currents once unleashed will undermine government objectives of
eliminating corruption from the public domain, compounds the prevalent security
dilemma and hedge the drive for diversification of the economy. Amidst a
declining price of oil, the country’s economic mainstay and a virulent
insurgency in the northeast, the country deserves the best it can produce at
this material time of its history. This ‘best list’ must be meritorious and
balanced. (guardian)
No comments:
Post a Comment