Perhaps it’s sub-clinical, but partisanship as exhibited by Nigerians appears to be more than just uncritical loyalty to a political party. It’s a psychiatric dilemma. Perhaps this is only my lack of explanation for, or understanding of, reference to critics of government as “haters” by those who were themselves “critics” before being in a political office.
The critic as a hater, attention-seeker or disgruntled is the new perception being popularised by this legion of former critics. And they have really invested a lot in this shame, that even political appointees whose offices aren’t recognised by the government – or are just as insignificant as their principal’s promise – have joined the force to taunt citizens who have voiced discontent with government.
This diseased mindset has been applied in their criticism of the #BringBackOurGirls campaign. If there’s a medal for hypocrisy, zealous supporters of President Muhammad Buhari will bag millions, and without a challenger from any political front. Some of the cheerleaders of the campaign have suddenly become its critics because of a new president.
This pointed to one thing, that their participation in this long-lasting campaign for the rescue of the girls of Chibok wasn’t a show of humanity. Just a restatement of their hatred of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
And it’s why they are unwilling to accept that people can actually be legitimately critical of a style of governance, for they see everyone in their own image – as sycophants. To them, an apposition has to be rooted in an unrevealed interest. To them, an opposition has to be sponsored, or an agenda driven by bigotry or vendetta.
This justifies my advocacy for development of Civic Education in Nigerian schools. Our understanding of government and the place of civic vigilance is dispiriting. Whatever is being taught as it right now isn’t effective. And it’s funny when government appointees interpret civics as hatred of the government, even funnier when their partisan allies agree with such pedestrian acknowledgement of the appointees’ inability to play their role beyond serving as attack dogs.
That those appointed to advise our politicians exhibit that critics are haters explain why our governments fail .But since we survived Jonathanians, we are strong to tell their successors, the Buharists, that praise songs don’t build a strong nation. A government is only as good as the people that surrounds it, and if this holds any truth, then now is the time to speak the truth to power. This is the time to praise those still standing, those who have refused to compromise on their values, those immune to blackmails.
The political zealots have even resorted to blackmails as a part of their scheme to shut critics down. The latest victim is the US-based columnist, Professor Farooq Kperogi. In a bid to disrupt his scrutiny of the government, as he did to governments before this, his personal life was made a subject of public ridicule. The intent was to distract, and dissuade him. First he was charged of bitterness for not being given an appointment. It didn’t matter to them he’s a highflying scholar at an American university, and evidently loved there for his service.
When it’s obvious that the columnist was high above that shallow stream of mischief, a fiction was woven around his academic scholarship – that he was sponsored by a Nigerian university, and that it’s a moral low to stay back in the United States even after benefitting from Nigeria’s largesse. “That’s flat-out false,” he wrote in a reaction to the blackmail on his Facebook. “My master’s degree was paid for entirely by the University of Louisiana. I got a full tuition waiver and a monthly stipend for my duties as a graduate teaching assistant while I was a student there.” And then, “For my PhD at Georgia State University, I also had a full tuition waiver and a monthly stipend, and was a graduate teaching instructor.”
That they are frightened by the columnist’s commentary to the point of blackmailing him is itself a moral validation of his critiques of the President’s reluctance to lead the change he promised, plagiarise the right things about Obama (like getting rid of the many presidential jets), run a frugal government in view of the lean economy of the day, amongst other discontents.
Kperogi isn’t a government’s spokesman, one of whom he’s even had a decorous exchange with, over the veracity of a report the Presidency didn’t refute, and yet expected the columnist to know it’s false. As a commentator and a citizen, it’s a right to choose to praise and condemn the policies and decisions of the government he considers a misuse of the nation’s resources, especially in this season of growing inflation.
We must learn to see assessment of the government as recognition of the moments it fulfils electoral promises. But making governance look like a humanitarian service is barefaced sycophancy. The politicians are not doing us a favour by patching roads and rehabilitating structures. It’s what they are elected and overly paid to do, and these aides of theirs who critical citizens for dissents with their principals, even though their lives are funded by public funds, are just in need of a psychiatrist to see the irony of their position. May God save us from us.
