Guardian

“Jonathan challenges critics, says he has performed”

THIS PIECE is provoked by a front-page caption (quoted in the heading above) in the Daily Independent newspaper of May 30, 2013 in which President Goodluck Jonathan “challenges” the critics of his administration to provide the criteria for saying that he has not performed. The “challenge” invites a response, which, as here framed, must be taken in the spirit, not of a confrontation but of a constructive criticism desirable in the interest of the good governance of our country.

The President’s presentation of the score-card of his administration in the past two years seems, with the greatest respect, to miss the point. He spoke as if we are in normal times, as if the performance of his administration during the period in question is to be judged by the criteria applicable in normal times. All the facts and figures presented in his score-card might well pass as a moderately good performance in normal times. But the times through which we are now passing are indisputably abnormal. The country is facing a situation of grave danger, the gravity of which calls for assessment criteria different from those applicable in normal times. It is no excuse for the President’s failure to perform that the present precarious situation imperiling the life, security and welfare of the people was caused, not by himself alone, but by the bad governance of successive rulers, including himself. Yet, he, as the incumbent President since 2011 (or more correctly since 2010), has the responsibility to lead the country out of it.

The assessment criteria applicable in the prevailing situation of grave danger are set out in The Patriots’ State of the Nation Statement dated January 10, 2013 (reproduced here below for ease of reference), and may be summarised as follows:

• A revolutionary change in the purpose, pace and tempo of governance; President Jonathan’s slow, indifferent and uninspiring pace of governance is not that of an administration imbued with a revolutionary ardour to transform, not just the economy, but the entire polity and society of the country in order to create a new Nigeria. There is thus a failure to initiate and lead the necessary revolutionary changes to enable the Nation to avoid the disaster that threatens.

• A change in the style of leadership, i.e. a re-vitalised well-focused leadership style, characterised by a distinctive sense of purpose and direction.

• A government that demonstrates a noticeable ability to halt and reverse the unemployment rate and the increasing pauperisation of the people with 70 per cent of Nigerians living below poverty line, as well as improve the standards of living and quality of life of the majority of citizens.

• Immediate restoration of the security of life and property in the country, and the protection of the safety of the state itself which have been put in serious danger since the eruption of the Boko Haram insurgency/terrorism in 2009, with more than 4,000 people wantonly killed and property worth billions of naira destroyed.

• Immediate and visible improvements in the infrastructure of power and transportation, educational facilities and the standard and quality of education.

• Courageous, uncompromising and purposeful prosecution of the war against corrupt practices and abuse of office in all their multifarious forms, prompt punishment of those found guilty of involvement in corrupt practices following due process of law, and the forfeiture of assets corruptly acquired.

• Instilling among the members of the executive and legislative arms of government and their staff as well as the general public a culture against the exhibition of insatiable greed and pursuit of self-enrichment, in particular, the exhibition of impunity in governance.

• Reversal of the increasing loss of public confidence in the ability of government to resolve the enormous problems facing the country.

• Re-motivation of the public service and the staff of the regulatory agencies to re-establish a merit-driven public service.

• Re-construction of the Government by the appointment of Minister fired by a like ardour for revolutionary change in governance and for National Transformation, not Ministers who see their work as consisting in routine administration, in self-reproduction through formalistic activities that tend to become symbolic and ritualistic, and as consisting simply in the initiation of not well-thought-out projects often not carried to completion for reasons mainly of corrupt practices in the award and execution of contracts.

• A President demonstrating a noticeable ability to stamp his authority as Leader of the Nation on all organs, institutions and instrumentalities of government as well as on the ruling political party which must be re-oriented to become driven less by partisan interests and more by national development and progress.

• Failure after two years in office to initiate the necessary steps for the convocation of a National Conference to bring the people of this country, as members of ethnic groups and as individual citizens, around the table to deliberate and agree on how and on what terms and conditions they are to live together in peace and unity, and to frame an instrument for their own government whose source of authority, as the supreme law of the land, is the people, acting in a National Conference and a Referendum, otherwise called a People’s Constitution.

• Above all, a President demonstrating a noticeable ability to mobilise and motivate the people to give them hope, mobilization of the people for national transformation being among the most vital but difficult functions of the President as Leader of the Nation.

These are the criteria (the list is not exhaustive) used by The Patriots in saying that President Goodluck Jonathan has not performed creditably. Having challenged those who hold this view to provide their criteria for saying so, the President has himself invited this response, and should not feel offended or angered by it.

As The Patriots said in their State of the Nation Statement, “a President imbued with a revolutionary ardour for national transformation can in a matter of weeks begin to make the people notice a change in the purpose and pace of government.” Even the common man in the street can, based, not on his “heart-beat” alone, but also on observable facts and the throng of events, notice when a revolutionary change in the purpose and pace of government is taking place.

Perhaps, we are expecting too much from Mr. President. For, it may be that he is not, by natural disposition, imbued with an ardour to initiate the revolutionary change in the purpose, pace and tempo of governance, and that he is not naturally fitted to lead the social and ethical revolution that the country so desperately needs to take it out of the messy quagmire. If such be the case, should he not make way now or in 2015 for someone so imbued, since such a revolution is Nigeria’s best hope for salvation in the present circumstances? We need a Kamal Antaturk.

The relevant part of President Jonathan’s presentation of the score-card of the performance of his Administration in the two years since 2011, as carried in the Daily Independent of May 30, 2013, will now be reproduced. Flaying critics who underscored his achievements without specifying what indices were being used, the President – “recalled his sterling qualifications that earned him the candidacy for the governorship of Bayelsa State in 2007, pointing out that his current position and achievements should be appropriately rated or assessed with clear out criteria.

Brandishing the mid-term report as his marking scheme, Jonathan, a PhD holder and former lecturer, equally reminisced on his days as a teacher who assessed students with a marking scheme, and dared those who think he has not done well to present their own marking scheme.

“Only on Monday, one of the dailies did an assessment of the ministries and performance of ministers, and the first thing I looked for but didn’t see, is the criteria that were used to assess the performance of the ministers, because when people mark you, they should mark with marking scheme.

“A number of comments about the performance of this administration are based on the heart beat of people; sometimes people assess governments based on their heart beats.”

Coming from our President, the “marking scheme” argument is quite disquieting.

All the facts and figures contained in the score-card have little bearing on the lives of ordinary men and women and are of hardly any interest to them; they (the facts and figures) are not what they (the ordinary men and women) expect from the government in the nation’s moment of manifold challenges imperiling their peace, security and welfare and the safety of the state. The score-card simply misses the point.

• To be continued.

• Professor Nwabueze, SAN, writes on behalf of The Patriots.