Jonathan as a great Nigerian President

Acliché says we never know the value of what we have until we lose it. I believe most people who have ever held something they had in unjustified contempt and lost it afterwards would agree with the cliché, as they might have realised after the loss that it was more valuable to them than they had thought. From my experience, this is often true with relationships, such as the majority of Nigerians have broken with President Goodluck Jonathan, as reflected by the result of the March 28, 2015 presidential election.

Even before an electioneering campaign characterised by mudslinging, he had become the target of insults unimaginable from citizens to their president. On social media, some of his younger critics went to the extreme of saying that having a goat occupy his office was preferable. The opposition summed him up as “clueless,” a patently derogatory and inappropriate epithet. Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, ought to be exercised responsibly and never without restraint, contrary to what obtained with his critics, most of whom barked at him like mad puppies on social media.

But while it was clear that the insults directed at his person and office were unwarranted and a nagging provocation, he took them with resolute calm. His reaction led  Ike Okonta, a political scientist, to credit him with having “restored civility to the institutions of the Nigerian state.” His exemplary tolerance was the hallmark of that civility and our democracy is the main beneficiary of the attendant cultural progress.

Nigeria can actually be described as a country whose people have always been dissatisfied with their leaders. Since Independence, they have either murdered, deposed, disgraced or harassed their leaders in or out of office. With this in mind, President Jonathan should perhaps feel less surprised that they abused him as “clueless,” since they did worse to his predecessors. And who knows what they will do to his successors?   

Nigerian leaders are usually accepted by their ethnic groups but not as national leaders. This is due to the vicious rivalry between the ethnic groups, which prompts other ethnic groups than that of any current leader to seek ways to undermine rather than support the leader, because they expect his exit from power to create an opportunity for someone from their ethnic group to take over. Until Nigerians become a truly patriotic and united people, putting their country above their ethnicities, they will never realise good leadership among them.

I have not met President Jonathan but I admire him as a leader. For I believe he meant well for our country and was determined to give it a new, positive direction with a focus on empowering its people economically and creating a truly prosperous nation whose citizens played respectable roles in its economy.

Of course he had his flaws. Apparently afraid of making mistakes, he seemed to hesitate too long at crossroads and to have acted late whenever he finally resolved to act, even though his decisions turned out to be right. He also seemed inclined to pleasing as many people as possible, placing the politics of compromise above principle. But his flaws were exaggerated by his detractors for political gain. And in those areas where they could find no fault with him, they thought it necessary to invent one. They seemed desperate to make him a fall guy in the intrigues-ridden Nigerian project.

Alas, some of his aides I had cause to encounter struck me as quislings working against his interest. They treated people in ways that made me wonder if they thought he hired them to lose him goodwill. And goodwill, they did not seem to understand, is critical to success in politics. A vote is a symbol of goodwill. And it was the loss of votes that cost him re-election.

This may be a lesson for other leaders who may not know that the behaviour of the people a leader surrounds himself with has a strong bearing to his success or failure. A leader could end up being perceived as good or bad, like his aides. And when those offended by the aides exact their revenge, especially through an election, their pound of flesh is carved from his chest. For they know that with his eventual fall all such aides will be dislodged to their detriment like birds roosting in the branches of a fallen iroko tree.

Jonathan also had exceptionally good aides, some of whom I had the privilege of meeting. The same Jesus that chose his good and loyal disciples also chose the greedy and treacherous Judas. And if we do not blame Jesus for choosing Judas, then we should not blame Jonathan for choosing his bad aides. Or for retaining them even after their unreliability had become glaring, as was the case with Jesus and Judas, whom he knew would betray him but would rather not kick him out of the fold.

Perhaps such disappointing outcomes are inevitable as the fulfilment of the dictates of Fate, which Thomas Hardy profoundly describes as “the President of the Immortals,” and so that the world may become wiser by learning from the experiences of such leaders.

But despite his shortcomings, I believe Jonathan will end up as the toast of history, recognised as a great Nigerian President and one of Africa’s great leaders. As a friend told me recently, his values are fifty years ahead of our country, as reflected in the following quote from his speech accepting defeat in the March 28, 2015 presidential election: “As I have always affirmed, nobody’s ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian. The unity, stability and progress of our dear country is more important than anything else.” Immortal words!

By contrasting these words with those of his contemporaries who openly declared an election “a do or die affair,” and who threatened that “the baboon and the monkey” would be soaked in their own blood if an election did not go as he anticipated, having earlier instigated post-election violence leading to the death of hundreds, then it becomes clear how different he is as a human being, a politician,  and a leader – who prized the life of others above his ambition in a country whose leaders have tended to do the reverse.

Jonathan has shown that he can afford to lose election even as a sitting President. Those who cannot afford to lose election cannot be trusted to build a democratic culture or a peaceful and prosperous nation, since the prosperity of any nation is intrinsically linked to its peaceful existence. For they are likely to instigate election-related conflicts that could threaten democracy, peace, stability and progress in countries where they are permitted to thrive.

And those who quip that he had no option but to concede defeat need to have a better appreciation of history. Laurent Gbagbo just happened in 2011, not far from our shores, with his refusal to concede electoral defeat as President of Côte d’Ivoire, and his insistence on retaining power, which led to civil strife and the death of many Ivoirians. Besides, our country has a history of the annulment of a presidential election widely acclaimed to have been free and fair.

In defeat, Jonathan chose the path of honour in a way that was unprecedented in our country. He deserves credit for doing so. And history, I believe, has reserved a place for him among great leaders for that singular act.

Ikeogu Oke