ARE YOU THE BUFFOON?

You see, I am not at all bothered about the phrase used by the “The Economist” to describe the former president of Nigeria Goodluck Ebele Jonathan; he was tagged as an “ineffectual buffoon” based on whatever parameter they used to assess his performance as the erstwhile head of Nigeria’s government.

Some have said it was disrespectful and insulting to describe the former president as such; a few think so based on sheer pride in the Nigeria’s sovereignty while the vast majority have leapt to defend their hero or idol as the case may be. In some climes where wittiness with words is exhibited, the use of such seemingly derogatory vocabulary is not necessarily considered inflammable and able to ignite a world war.  It may just qualify as a figure of speech and should not necessarily be taken to heart but what do I know.

The British lawmakers only a few days ago lampooned a potential and future president of the great United States of America. Donald Trump was described as idiotic, foolish and also called a buffoon; these are tags which he ‘obviously’ deserves based on his many gaffes and unbridled remarks. If D-Trump becomes POTUS by a stroke of fate; will those who have called him a buffoon not be there to shake his right hand if he went visiting? David Cameron will at least have someone to eventually beat at a game of table tennis.

It is not necessarily about what we perceive as insults especially when the grammar can be unraveled and rendered less potent by consulting a dictionary. I think what is done with such insults is what should matter more. I did not shy away from calling Jonathan incompetent and undeserving of the seat he occupied. He was not competent and was in most ways clueless about how to lead his cabinet not to talk of leading over 170million people. I would be a hypocrite if I took to social media to berate a foreign outfit for describing my countryman as ineffectual or inept. President Jonathan had almost 6years to disprove my impression about him and he failed woefully.

President Jonathan still remains very popular in some quarters; one may be forgiven to think that he would be installed as the president of a certain want away nation even without elections. He has been tagged as the father of modern day Nigeria and the hero of Nigeria’s democracy which looked headed for the rocks until he somehow pulled out of trying to make votes derived from predominantly two regions appear greater than votes from four regions. He has spent the past few weeks traversing the globe giving speeches, obtaining awards and going shopping. His most recent outing and subsequent tweets had him trying to explain how President Buhari’s government was succeeding in the fight against terror because of the weapons his government purchased. Is it not normal to have expected that president Buhari upon his inauguration as president would have weapons available from the previous government’s acquisitions to equip his army with? Should we bow down and worship Jonathan for doing what he was expected to do by default?

The Economist also described President Buhari as a dictator who was repeating the mistakes he made when he was a military Head of government for approximately 20months. The economic climate prior to 1984 is in many ways similar to what exists now. Widespread endemic corruption and global slump in crude oil price were some of the issues which faced a military government which stormed to power poised to rid Nigeria of corruption and indiscipline. That regime stormed out of the blocks and politicians got copious jail terms while drug peddlers were not spared. Detentions and tribunal based judgements were rapid and the average man on the street was afraid to break out of a queue or dash across any highway.

The administration soon gassed out and it appeared only the top 2 in that regime were committed to carrying out their mission. This was at a time when Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso and Jerry Rawlings were leading the way on how military juntas could reform a deformed nation. What some may classify as a mistake by Buhari and Idiagbon was the extent they went to almost retrieve Umaru Dikko from the United Kingdom by loading him sedated in a crate. That mission failed and strained relationships with Margaret Thatcher making economic revival much more difficult. While Blaise Compaore moved against Sankara viciously, the establishment in Nigeria was more lenient and excised Buhari, Idiagbon and the handful of loyalists to the supreme commander from the command structure of the military government.

The short-lived Buhari led government refused the loans and financial recommendations by the notable international finance bodies and were determined to reverse Nigeria’s slump through their own methods. Is it really accurate to conclude that their methods were mistake laden and that they failed over the 20months they ruled? They definitely made mistakes by not watching their backs enough to detect and halt the move by the third in the chain of command in that government to displace them especially on a ‘Salah’ holiday. Ibrahim ‘Maradona’ Babaginda took over the throne and even fraternized with the British; he embraced and adopted the recommended economic policies and Nigerians were structurally adjusted. With the benefit of hindsight, will we say Nigeria benefitted “immensaly” from the incarceration of Major General Muhammadu Buhari? Some have emerged as multi-millionaires and billionaires from the structure which was developed then and by Goodluck Jonathan’s definition; the fact that many private jets dot the Nigerian skies informs those within and without that we are a prosperous nation.

Nigerians had a World Bank insider as finance minister and coordinating minister of the economy for the years that Jonathan was president. That government must have been nurtured on economic recommendations which were compliant with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)  prescriptions but one wonders why Nigerians could not palpate prosperity despite the nation’s vast resources and earned foreign exchange. The answer to this question must lie within the chambers guarded by the many corruption gates which are opened from time to time.

A man was president for almost 6years yet crude oil disappeared on the oceans, people got overpaid for services and products not rendered and soldiers were court-martialed and sentenced to death because they failed to fight to their deaths after being sent to the frontlines by commanders who had squandered or diverted money meant to procure the necessary weapons and equipment. It is amazing that supposedly educated people defend this man and call him a hero. I actually think he is only the symbol of defiance for many who do not still and may never approve of the incumbent president for either ethnic or religious sentiments. Jonathan was called names but he did not disprove them and call the bluff of those who did not think he was cut out for the job.

President Buhari has been on the seat for almost 8 months now; he has definitely not moved with the precision and speed with which he moved in 1984. Nigerians have not been forced into queues and there is definitely no one undergoing processing and intubation for onward crating back to Nigeria. Their regime was unpopular in 1984/85 but he has now received vocal and tangible backing from global powers. He has met with China, India, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Great Britain, Iran and other key players yet some have seen all this as mistakes. Some have opted to focus on handcuffs instead of the ongoing exorcism of the ‘demons’ which compel these failed Nigerian leaders to steal resources which can sustain generations of Nigerians unborn. Some people actually think that these marauders who have exploited this nation endlessly may in fact rival the devil and spur him to up his game. The insanity which has crippled Nigeria could have wiped some nations off the map already.

I am not sorry that I do not cringe at the Economist description of President Jonathan. It is up to him to defend himself and his time as president; it is also up to President Buhari to defend himself and prove that 8months is too short to tag his economic stance as full of errors. He has not even yet had the 20months he had as a military head of state so the Economist can jolly well sheath their sword until a few months. We have had a horrid past few years; we definitely needed new methods and we have to weather the storm before we can infer that they worked or now. I do not believe that all the individuals working for and advising the incumbent government are so clueless to the point where only what the president dictates stands.

When it comes to insults, I do not think there are too many graver than when Patience Jonathan called Buhari “brain dead”. In all the time Jonathan’s campaign team and supporters hurled insults upon insults on Buhari (they called him a terrorist, rapist, illiterate, pedophile and even mocked his late first wife and daughter); he did not respond in kind but instead proved that a supposed “brain dead” septuagenarian can win an election against a failed nanny despite three previous failed attempts. It should be in Nigerian folklore, the story must be told about how an old man persevered to triumph over “Fortunato” who had absolutely no ambition but was simply pushed on by luck and opportunists. There is hardly anyone who will cringe when Sani Abacha is called names and insulted save his immediate family members and die-hard supporters. We should be genuinely concerned about the quality of legacy we leave behind when all is said and done.

Goodluck Jonathan and Donald Trump should form an alliance and prove to the world that any buffoon tags are inaccurate.