Politics
There is no doubt that Chatham House in the United Kingdom has since its establishment played crucial roles in promoting global peace and influenced the establishment of some global financial institutions. However, while some Nigerians are impressed with performance of presidential candidates of the APC, LP, NNPP and the Chairman of INEC at Chatham House, some others believe that such pilgrimage has no political gains and therefore needless and less than graceful.
By Goddy Ikeh
NIGERIA, Africa’s most populous nation with a population of over 200 million is set to conduct its presidential and general elections in February and March this year and recent events in the country tend to portray the country as Africa’s biggest joke, especially with unnecessary anxiety created daily over the forthcoming polls.
The attacks on INEC facilities and the bitterness that have characterized the ongoing political campaigns may have been responsible for the growing global interests in the upcoming elections and the invitation extended to the presidential frontrunners in the polls and the invitation of the INEC Chairman by Chatham House in the UK to brief the international community on the political developments in Nigeria and if the elections will be conducted in the face of persistent insecurity challenges across the country and if politicians are willing to maintain the peace before, during and after the polls.
As Nigerians were putting behind them the performance of the Bola Tinubu, presidential candidate of the APC, which generated mixed reactions among Nigerians, the candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi and the candidate of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP, Rabiu Kwankwaso, took their turn at Chatham House. Prof Mamoud Yakubu, Chairman of INEC also took his turn at Chatham House.
In his presentation, Obi told the organisers and the guests that he was offering himself to be the team leader of a new Nigeria where no Nigerian, regardless of his or her tribe or tongue shall be estranged, marginalized or excluded.
The former Anambra State governor assured his hosts of his commitment to lead a country where equity, justice and fairness, rule of law shall prevail if he wins the election. Obi, whose campaign is a clear departure from the empty promises of the APC and the PDP, has attracted millions of embittered Nigerian youths, who are daily frustrated by the decay of the Nigerian society and the disturbing levels of injustice, poverty, lack of opportunities, unemployment, and exclusion from governance.
“Such youths will cease any opportunity and use any tool to express their frustration and anger; I believe that some of those who are agitating are doing so partly due to governance failure in creating an inclusive and progressive Nigeria.
“A working Nigeria with equity, justice and fairness will effectively checkmate extreme groups as Boko Haram and ISWAP,” Obi said.
Obi believes that nation building and the stabilizing of the society have become imperative and Nigeria must win those that can be won over by ensuring that equity and justice dictate the way in which the country operates. Indeed Obi’s address at Chatham House was well received and it reassured his hosts and guests that Nigeria could still be rescued from the old politicians, who had mortgaged and looted the oil-rich nation for decades.
In his address at Chatham House, the former Governor of Kano State, Rabiu Kwankwaso said: “We can point fingers at all sorts of factors allegedly responsible for our situation, from coronavirus to global economic recession, from Western powers to international capital.
“But for me, we are where we are because of the mistakes and the wrong choices made by the very people entrusted with the business of governing Nigeria in the last 24 years.”
Kwankwaso, who was a former minister of defence and spoke on the topic ‘Nigeria’s 2023 elections: Service delivery and policy alternatives’ also gave a list of challenges facing Nigeria to include insecurity, growing poverty, growing and uncontrolled inflation, growing unemployment and despondency, decaying infrastructure, as well as high rate of maternal and neonatal deaths.
According to him, collapsing education system, crisis in healthcare services, very weak institutions, growing corruption and graft, unbelievable theft of our crude oil and other mineral resources, and growing mistrust among the constituent communities are the other challenges which the country are battling with.
“I understand the issues involved, the mistakes that were made, the wrong priorities that were set, and together with our team, we are better connected with the hopes and aspirations of the Nigerian citizens,” he said, adding: “We understand, agree with and share the grievances. And we have a practical plan to address each and every challenge bedeviling our country.” He believes that the NNPP has a large following, especially, when it comes to supporters at the grassroots level.
The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, also took his turn at Chatham House and gave an update on INEC’s preparations for the 2023 elections.
Prof Yakubu assured the gathering that the issue of postponement of the general elections had never been discussed or considered. He disclosed that the electoral body has concluded a policy on diaspora voting.
Addressing the recurrent issues around legalising diaspora voting, the INEC Chairman said that the legal obstacles preventing foreign-based Nigerians from voting would be cleared eventually. “We have actually completed the policy as far as the commission is concerned and we identified two categories of Nigerians living outside the country,” he said.
Despite the political mileage which the politicians hope to achieve by appearing at Chatham House, some Nigerians have faulted the move, saying that their voters do not reside in the United Kingdom and that they should direct their energies and strategies at home where the voters reside for any meaningful impact politically.
Speaking on the performance of Obi at Chatham House, the media adviser to LP Presidential Candidate, Valentine Obienyem said: His speech was an interesting narrative, not fatiguing and in strange tongues, but a clear and flowing stream, sparkling now and then with substance of governance. He built the speech around the theme of the engagement: “Nigeria’s 2023 Elections: a Vision for Policy Change and Institutional Reforms.” He could be relied on to say something whenever he spoke.
Obi started with the foundations of the problems of the country by tracing the roots thus: “The Nigerian state is captive to an elite gang-up and a rentier political economy that has concentrated political power in the hands of those who came to power and influence mainly through their own contrivances and not through the affirmation of the people, and therefore, do not have the incentive to serve the people’s interest. It is the capture of the State that has led to the problems she faces on all fronts.
The continued economic decline of Nigeria has led to widespread poverty in the realm. Using statistics, Obi explained to the audience how poor Nigerians are: “How did we (Nigeria) plunge into such economic decline that we have overtaken India as home to the biggest pool of the absolute poor in the world? While the poverty rate in India is about 16%, that of Nigeria is about 63% with about 133 million Nigerians classified as multi-dimensionally poor.”
He concluded that by his every step, “Obi has proved his preparedness for the job. Age being on his side, he would absorb readily, unlike others, the drain the arduous task of governance will make upon his resources of body, mind and will. More than others he understands the country and her problems better. More still, he has never been part of the problem. This is why each time he speaks about Nigeria; he is so plain and truthful that they affect that catharsis of emotion that even set some crying. Many cried at Chatham House. From his speech, all we can do now is to console Nigerians and inform them that with Obi and Datti in the race, promising meteors have entered and are poised to alter the political orbit.”
In the same vein, Majeed Dahiru, a renowned political analyst and veteran journalist, said during an interview on Africa Independent Television’s ‘Kaakaki’ programme, that Obi’s performance at the Chatham House in the UK was indeed a welcome alternative to the mudslinging strategy of the APC and the PDP have engaged themselves in since the campaigns started in the country.
According to him, Obi going to Chatham House was a good thing because it shows there is a third force, an alternative for Nigerians. So, when the two big parties are busy fighting in the mud and muddying themselves, I think Obi gave a good account of himself at Chatham House.
”I mean, he displayed some level of intelligence, capability, and capacity to govern a country. And he was pointing at all of the issues he has been talking about and his vision for Nigeria. So, talking about issue-based politics, away from the ‘rofo-rofo’ of the PDP and APC, there was something to cheer about Obi’s outing in England. Everything he said were issue-based and he actually projected Nigeria well to the outside community,” he added.
Commenting on the invitation of Nigerian politicians to Chatham House, the Guardian said in its recent editorial that the scramble of aspirants to the Nigerian presidency in 2023 has been as notable as it has also been widely depicted as self-demeaning. But arguably, a striking comment on their less than noble trips abroad is in a newspaper cartoon trending on the social media. It shows the presidential candidates on their knees, arms raised in supplication toward a shut front door of Chatham House pleading: ‘‘O Colonial Master, we come seeking for your validation,’’
It is a truism that a picture can tell a story better than a thousand words. So too, this cartoon that captures, most succinctly, an unbecoming rush of these politicians to the citadel of Nigeria’s former coloniser, to explain themselves to ‘the master.’ Notwithstanding the extenuating explanations offered by their apologists, within the specific context of seeking Nigeria’s highest office, these trips are needless and less than graceful.
Commentator on the matter, Yusuf Shehu Usman, in his well articulated excoriation ‘the pilgrimage undertaken by our Presidential candidates to the Chatham House London to present their agenda for Nigeria to the foreign think tank,’ asked: ‘Why is the Chatham House so interested in the politics of Nigeria to the extent every person contesting or even wishing to contest for the Presidency of Nigeria must appear before the Chatham House to present his credentials to a foreign body that cannot influence the outcome of the election in Nigeria?… Is it an extension of neo colonialism on the part of the foreign think tank or a manifestation of inferiority complex and disregard for self-worth on the part of our Politicians that is fueling this JAPA approach to domestic politics?’ He added, in obvious indignation : ‘It’s even more insulting to the collective intelligence of Nigerians that these presidential candidates even consider it as an achievement to be invited or solicit an invitation by the Chatham House London to address the House on their mission and vision for the Nigerian people.’ Mr. Usman concluded: “The Chatham House pilgrimage by our Presidential candidates has no value addition to the domestic electoral worth of any presidential candidate in Nigeria. The votes that they need to win the election are here in Nigeria not in the UK. The candidates should address us through our local national think tank, the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies Kuru (NIPSS).”
What does Chatham House really do that these aspirants find so worth their time and resources? Its website states: ‘‘Our history is one of building understanding between nations and driving world-changing policies. We continue to set a high bar to champion positive solutions.’’ This is quite a laudable mission in a world that since the end of the First World War has been between countries, in and out of war or the threats of it.
Indeed, Chatham House and its purpose were conceived within the context of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to be ‘an institute for the study of international affairs…to foster mutual understanding between nations and to propose solutions to the biggest challenges facing the world.’ Then, as now, no one can fault the vision and the mission of the British think-tank to foster a much desirable world peace.
On the other hand, and this is important for Nigeria and developing countries to note, Chatham House has been instrumental to the creation in 1944 of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). It is a product of ‘major contributions from a Chatham House research group led by Paul Rosenstein-Rodam.’ In 1946, staff from the institute joined the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ‘whose missions they helped to design and subsequently draw on a number of institute recommendations.’ The subsequent ‘guidance role’ of both the World Bank and the IMF in the economic fate and misfortune of Nigeria and many other countries around the world is a point to ponder.
Some have justified the presence of Nigeria’s presidential aspirants at Chatham House as a necessary opportunity to speak to the substantial population of Nigerians in Britain in particular, and the foreign countries in general. Others think that the institute provides a respectable platform to speak to the world. Still, others note that the traditional and long relations between Nigeria and Britain is an important reason that persons aspiring to leadership in this country should speak to and cultivate -whatever that means – the support of the latter.
Counter argument against the continued acts of self-abnegation by past, present, and aspiring leaders of Nigeria are as many as they come. Some argue that Britain’s continued interest in Nigeria and in its former colonies have absolutely little to do with goodwill and altruism but everything to do with self-interest and the continued political control and economic exploitation of the human and natural wealth of the country. To this extent, they contend, there is no good reason for the ‘pilgrimage’.
This is indeed a strong argument for the clear and simple reason that, by receiving for safe keeping, or as conduit to other destinations, Britain continues to aid and abet the ‘destruction’, so to speak, of Nigeria by its kleptomaniac public officials.
The multidimensional impoverishment of the people of Nigeria, such that their otherwise well-endowed country is, in recent times, ranked as the ‘poverty capital of the world’ is directly linked to the looting in cash and in kind by persons in power of public wealth. It is cheering that Britain, along with parts of the world is by conscious policy detesting any notion of harbouring stolen funds or encouraging corrupt officials in other lands. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that a genuinely friendly country would insist on same standard of behaviour in public office in Nigeria and in Britain, that a ‘civilising’ colonial master would insist that Nigerian officials, on oath to so do, discharge their public duties to their country as honestly as do most British public officials. It is hard to find clear evidence that Britain wields its undeniably huge influence to this urgently needed end. Britain may mouth much indignation and condemnation of the corruption that is killing Nigeria and its people. But we dare to say that it is yet to match these with action that will turn Nigeria’s fortune around for the better.
Indeed, some would go so far as to maintain that Britain is comfortable with a misgoverned, ever- drifting but natural resource-yielding Nigeria. If there is even an iota of truth to this, it would be a terrible pity for both victim and perpetrator.
Do presidential candidates need Chatham House to speak to Nigerians abroad who, by the way, have no voting rights? Of course not. However, because of their connections to international interests that can help improve the country, if aspirants really must leave these shores to meet and interact with fellow Nigerians on their plans and programmes for their country, we should think that the Nigerian embassy is as good a venue as any. Whatever these politicians are paying (if at all) to use the Chatham House facility can more usefully accrue to the purse of the Nigerian mission.
Do Peter Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Bola Tinubu, and the yet to feature Abubakar Atiku need the Chatham House podium to speak to the world on their foreign policy if elected? Absolutely not. As politician Chief Sunny Onuesoke is quoted to say, ‘[we] have similar bodies like Chatham House here in Nigeria. The NIIA and CDS among others.’ So said too NIPSS alumnus, Yusuf Usman who maintained that it is ‘a negation of patriotism to shun what we have built with public resources to go abroad to a similar Institution to project the political mission and vision of persons seeking to occupy the highest political office in Nigeria.’ We cannot agree more.
Tinubu at Chatham House promised to do many things across the sectors to improve the fortune of Nigeria and its people; so did too Obi and Kwakwanso. Incidentally, chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmoud Yakubu was also a guest of the House. Since it is all about here (in Nigeria) and not about there (in Europe), pray, why would these people expend so much time and other resources to do the needless? This strategy defies common sense.
The point must also be made that politicians make many promises, in speech and in writing, to the electorate. The largely unfulfilled content of the All Progressives Congress (APC) manifesto of 2015 is a clear case in point. More important, the then presidential candidate of the APC, Muhammadu Buhari, speaking at Chatham House in February 2015, made large promises to restore Nigeria to the path of peace and prosperity if the Nigerian people gave him the job. On the pervasive insecurity in the land, he noted that: ‘‘What has been consistently lacking is the required leadership in our battle against insurgency’ and promised that ‘if I am elected president, the world will have no cause to worry about Nigeria as it has had to recently’…we will be tough on terrorism and tough on its root causes by initiating a comprehensive economic development plan promoting infrastructural development, job creation, agriculture and industry in the affected areas. We will always act on time and not allow problems to irresponsibly fester, and I, Muhammadu Buhari, will always lead from the front and return Nigeria to its leadership role in regional and international efforts to combat terrorism.’’
On corruption, Buhari said ‘‘…there will be no confusion as to where I stand. Corruption will have no place and the corrupt will not be appointed into my administration. First and foremost, we will plug the holes in the budgetary process. Revenue producing entities such as NNPC and Customs and Excise will have one set of books only. Their revenues will be publicly disclosed and regularly audited. The institutions of state dedicated to fighting corruption will be given independence and prosecutorial authority without political interference.’’ On the economy, the aspirant said, ‘‘In the face of dwindling revenues, a good place to start the repositioning of Nigeria’s economy is to swiftly tackle two ills that have ballooned under the present administration: waste and corruption. And in doing this, I will, if elected, lead the way, with the force of personal example.’’ He added: ‘‘In reforming the economy, we will use savings that arise from blocking these leakages and the proceeds recovered from corruption to fund our party’s social investments programmes in education, health, and safety nets such as free school meals for children, emergency public works for unemployed youth and pensions for the elderly.’’ A few months to the end of his two terms (eight years) as chief executive and commander-in-chief, it is regrettable that there is very little to show for these promises made on the ‘global stage’ of Chatham House.
The ‘pilgrimage’ of the presidential aspirants is only the latest in repeated trips to London and other foreign destinations to discuss purely Nigeria matters. In the past months, Nigerian politicians made trips outside the country to hold political meetings of sorts. A disgusted Nigerian Academy of International Affairs (NAIA) said: ‘It is most unfortunate and heartbreaking that some Nigerian leaders had to abandon the shores of this country for the ex-colonialists’ capitals of London and Paris in search of delusion-solutions to Nigeria’s problems.’’
In its conclusion, the Guardian condemned such trips and warned ‘‘those trips abroad to discuss genuine matters of our country must stop forthwith because those who do not have faith in Nigeria to hold and keep their secrets have no business running the affairs of Nigeria. They are advised to seek ‘bread’, ‘glory’ and publicity in other ways’’ This admonition applies too to presidential aspirants who would rather speak on Nigeria’s challenges and their solutions to them from foreign lands to foreigners. There is neither political astuteness nor wisdom in that.
A.
Tags: Abubakar Atiku All Progressives Congress Bola Tinubu Chief Sunny Onuesoke INEC Labour Party Peter Obi Prof Mamoud Yakubu Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso Yusuf Usman
