by Weekly Insight Newspapers on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 1:03pm
More than three and half years away, 2015 appears like a breath away to politicians, positioning either themselves or their interests for elective offices. The governorship position, understandably, is for now the most contentious, with all sides trying to make the best of what appears as their strongest points. While some contenders have made bold entry into the fray, others are still playing from the periphery. For now, all concerned are cautiously testing the waters, throwing proxy punches here and there. I have observed the trend of political debates, pursuant to the 2015 governorship election and I have not been disappointed. I have heard all manner of noise and belly-aching on just one issue, zoning. That, I had expected is the most critical issue as far as our politicians are concerned, as most have nothing to offer, often relying on the sinking sands of zoning to aspire to positions they are ill-equipped for. It appears to me that the only thing we should expect as usual from our politicians is their view on which zone should produce the next governor; a well-beaten path that leads to nowhere.
Some commentators have not helped matters; they have devoted litres upon litres of ink on the subject of zoning, so much that if you were a casual visitor to this part of the country you would think that the foremost issue agitating the mind of the people is only to ascertain where the governorship position should go. Some newspaper columnists have so over-flogged the topic that each time you pick up the papers to read, you are confronted by the same timeworn arguments and sentiments. Sounding like broken drums, such writers serve their readers with completely no new insight into the debate, yet they keep penning endless meaningless articles, all in a bid to be seen as apostles of so-called equity. Some barely understand what they are writing about that you get to read stuffs like, “even if it is a goat provided he is from ‘so and so zone’, let him rule because it is their turn”. One not only gets bored hearing such hogwash, but gets insulted when the issue is further reduced to casting of aspersion on aspirants, other than those from the so-called favoured zone. It makes nonsense of intellectual debates to read such statements describing another’s aspiration as being informed by “greed, desperation, or insensitivity” and other such base adjectives.
Apart from the vague mouthing of peace and unity, none has come out to tell us why we must zone or perish. I see no reason why a good argument cannot be made in favour of zoning; but as it stands now, none is forthcoming, other than our fixation to the “turn-by-turn” syndrome of our national life; a fixation borne out of years of the locust. We have lived our lives in this country watching those who had cornered our national wealth, use it at their selfish pleasure without question. We have watched helplessly as some politicians go into office as poor as they come, and come out reeking in questionable opulence. We have collectively acquiesced to that sorry situation, so that instead of asking our leaders to account for their leadership, requiring equity and a just treatment to all manner of men, we retreat into our primordial instincts, getting content knowing that the thief is ours. We have lost our moral voice against bad leadership and hence we channel our voices to the agitation that if there must be a looter, let him be from our side. That to me is the philosophy behind zoning.
Proponents of zoning have argued that it fosters unity and peace. It would have been a beautiful argument if it were true. But the reality is quite the opposite. It is funny that those who proclaim peace and unity as the principal gains of zoning are the same people that would tell you that their place is marginalized by one leader or the other from another zone, or that employment and appointment opportunities have been monopolized by one segment that produced the leader. Presently, you very often hear such troubling sentiments as “Ibibio to be out of power for sixteen years? God forbid! The Annang have cornered everything in the state; if Annang do not support Oro in 2015, it will be a betrayal”. The discerning question would be, wither the concept of peace and unity? The scenario painted above obviously negates both peace and unity, while engendering resentment and clear ethnic jealousy and bickering.
Nigerians are very funny people. At elections they simply listen to politicians bamboozle them with meaningless political discourse and expect a different result when such leaders get into office. We hardly subject those who aspire to rule to critical issues of governance. Political jobbers go to town with all kinds of sponsored advertorials, sing the diminishing song of zoning to high heavens. We sit down and hope that when they get there they will know what to do. Over the years, this strategy has failed us. Every election year we dissipate our effort at puerile issues of zoning, at the end of the day, we lose focus as to what should be the direction of elected leaders.
In the build up to the 2011 election, instead of Nigerians asking those aspiring to lead what they had in stock for the nation, we were busy fighting for which zone should produce the president. Nobody bothered about vital issues that needed urgent attention. The fight for zoning was fought with such bitter gusto that the wound it inflicted in our national psyche would take years to heal. Today nobody is asking where the president comes from. All we are now asking is why he has decided to remove oil subsidy; why he is at the verge of restoring tollgates; why he has been ineffectual in the fight against crime and insecurity; why our educational sector is still comatose; why our health care is still in the woods. We have forgotten that we never bothered to ask him how he would tackle our crumbling economy; how he would deal with pressures from Breton wood institutions in the handling of our economy, how he would handle corruption and other intractable malaise bedeviling our country.
As it were, we cannot morally take our president to task on any serious issue because he promised us nothing other than that he is the candidate from our zone! One commentator once said of Jonathan, “Let him be there. Let him also eat, after all, his zone produces what others have eaten all these years”. That is our collective attitude. Our politicians understand that perfectly well and that is why there will never be an end to the creation of imaginary nations within the nation. Every day we hear of newly carved out empires for political gains. A featherweight politician who cannot face the regular open political competition soon carves out an enclave and the agitation for equity would begin. Tales of marginalization would follow and then, subtle threat as to what would happen if not given equal opportunity would commence.
Back home, it is the same attitude. Weak politicians cash in on any mention of zoning to make any entry. One would have expected that at the level of our development, leadership recruitment should be such that the only thing that matters should be the BEST MAN for the job. But what do you find? Even politicians that you would think could make a difference would rather hide under the cover of zoning. The worst are those who have no business aspiring to any position who would rush in because it is “our turn”. To me, the only consideration for the high office of president or governor should be the person’s capacity to deliver. The electorate should be able to scrutinize the credentials of prospective aspirants. They should tell us about their pedigree; they should tell us what they are bringing into the mix; they should be able to tell us what they have been able to do for the society; they should be able to tell us what we stand to gain by voting for them; they should be able to tell us what employment strategy they have to care for millions of our unemployed youths. These should form the central issue in our election discourse not some self-serving subjects like zoning.
In our search for the BEST MAN, we should devote our time to explore every possible means of finding a man who would look at the state as a unit of development. It does not make sense to have a sectional leader, one who knows only what is good for his zone. If we claim to be so detribalized, then why should our emphasis be on where a candidate comes from? We should trust the person we select to do the right thing to every segment of the state. That to me is unity! When we realize that, the concern of hunger agitating the mind of the common man in Essien Udim is the same agitating the mind of another common man in Nsit Atai, that to me is unity in interest. When we realize that, the sick man in Uruan would require a hospital, just as another sick man in Oron, then we are talking about unity. What we need is a perceptive leader that would yield to the cries of the greater majority of Akwa Ibom persons, not some ethnic warlords hiding under the cover of some anachronistic zoning.
The world is moving very fast and we must keep pace with it. Zoning cannot afford us the opportunity to select the BEST MAN from our bests. Our choice should pass the test of acceptability that cuts across the entire state. He must be accepted based on his potentialities and credibility and not through the narrow prism of zoning. If indeed we want to continue on the path of progress and development, we must look beyond such destabilizing issues as zoning, ethnicity and other such divisive considerations and zero in on the personality we want. Let all those interested come on board, from Oron, from Obolo, from Ibibio, from Ekid, from Annang. The common denominator should be who would serve us better. Any person that considers himself worth being a governor should not be afraid to contest the position among the very best in the state. After all, even, the ability to face fierce competition should be a very critical criterion to consider, because our governor should not shy away from national competition and political contests when our interest is at state at the national level.
Who is that man that can articulate what we can do, assuming we wake up tomorrow to discover that the nation’s oil wells have dried up? What economic blueprint would make us the wealthiest, in terms of sustainable economic growth? Who among our best would galvanize our youths to make the best of available resources? Who would, in concrete terms translate our collective wishes into attainable goals? Who among those jostling for the plum job would best harness our abundant man and natural resources to make us less dependent on funds from the federation account? The questions are as numerous as our individual needs, and a leader worth his onion must have answers to them.
If only we would wake up to the demands of such a high office and take it away from the grip of adventurous politicians who cannot stand the heat of unfettered competition; if only we can step up our debate from the ridiculous pedestal of zoning to the sublime pinnacle of competence, then our journey to 2015 would have begun on a promising note. The more we dissipate our energy on the fruitless search for a leader based on ethnicity and its euphemism, zoning, the more we would be throwing away an opportunity to select the BEST MAN from among our best.
No comments:
Post a Comment