The paradox of Jonathan’s post-defeat canonisation

President Muhammadu Buhari recently poured fulsome praise on his predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan, for conceding defeat to him in last year’s presidential election. Buhari said Jonathan’s gesture “easily showed his great sense of patriotism”. No praise can be greater than to be described as having “a great sense of patriotism.” But the president genuinelybelieves that, with his singular act of conceding defeat to him, Jonathan “saved the Nigerian state”. Jonathan himself has fed the narrative that he saved Nigeria. In a recent interview with ThisDay newspaper, he said: “I have made sacrifices for Nigeria. I am praised all over Africa for averting bloodshed.”

However, I have a problem with the narrative. For me, it raises two fundamental questions. First, was Jonathan’s action so self-denying to warrant his elevation into sainthood? And, second, even if his action was extraordinary, should it dwarf his records in office and make him a sacred cow that cannot be held accountable? Well, my answer to each of these questions is “No”. Without belittling what Jonathan did, there was nothing self-sacrificing about it, and it would be perverse to treat him as untouchable. Let’s start with the first issue.

Now, when President Buhari said that conceding defeat must be difficult for Jonathan because he had been in office for 16 years, rising from a deputy governor to President, what standard was he judging him by? Mugabe’s? Gbagbo’s? Or was Buhari saying that if he was in Jonathan’s position, he would find it difficult to concede defeat if he lost? Surely, in all civilised nations, including some African countries, conceding defeat in a free and fair election that one actually lost is not an act of sacrifice. The narrative about “making sacrifices” and “saving Nigeria” certainly suggests that Jonathan didn’t lose the election, but that, for the sake of the country, he conceded “defeat” to avert bloodshed. But, of course, that was not the case. He lost the election. So, what exactly was the sacrifice and why the self-congratulation about “saving Nigeria”?

Okay, dear readers, I am not being naïve. I understand the context. The election was conducted against the backdrop of apocalyptic predictions about the disintegration of Nigeria. Everyone feared that if Jonathan lost, the South-South would blow upall the oil installations, and bring Nigeria’s economy to its knees; and if Buhari lost, the North would tear Nigeria apart. Indeed, when Buhari said that Jonathan “saved Nigeria” by conceding defeat to him, he gave credence to the predictions. Essentially, Buhari was implying that if Jonathan had not conceded defeat to him, Nigeria would probably have been torn apart, as widely predicted at the time.

So, let’s be clear: Jonathan only “saved Nigeria” because his supporters and Buhari’s contrived a war-like situation that made Jonathan’s action look extraordinary! In that contrived crisis-setting, his decision to concede defeat in an election he actually lost suddenly seemed statesmanlike because he denied Buhari’s supporters the excuse to take Nigeria down to Hades, while calming the nerves of his own restive Niger Delta people!

But does that justify Jonathan’s ennoblement as a hero? For me, no! And I come back to the same point: he lost the election, and so, he didn’t make any sacrifice. For Jonathan to say he “made sacrifices” by conceding defeat is like saying, “Yes, I lost, yet I could have refused to concede defeat and cause problems for Nigeria if I wanted to. But I didn’t, so make me a hero!”To put it simplistically: if someone wanted to attack me but refrained from doing so, I may thank him, but he is not a hero, because he shouldn’t harm me in the first place. This is not a popular view in Nigeria, of course. But we should stop indulging our leaders and start demanding better standards and accountability from them. This is why Jonathan’s attempt to claim the moral high ground by lecturing Africa on peace is, in my view, self-indulgent.He is not lecturing on good governance or anti-corruption or leadership, for instance, because his records on those are appalling. Instead he is basking in the acclaim that followed his decision to concede defeat in an election he lost. It is a perverse form of achievement on which to build one’s global reputation!

Which brings me to the second paradox in Jonathan’s post-defeat sainthood. His administration actually left Augean stables for its successor. Countless allegations of corruption and misappropriation of billions of dollars are swirling around his government’s key functionaries, including the serious allegation that he diverted $2.1 billion meant for buying arms to fight terrorism and save innocent Nigerian lives into funding his ill-fated re-election bid. Yet, some people believe that, because he conceded defeat in that election, Jonathan should be treated as a sacred cow, untouchable! For instance, a prominent cleric, Matthew Kukah, once said that Nigeria should be indebted to Jonathan “even if he stole all the money in the world”. And, indeed, any suggestion that Jonathan might be prosecuted immediately provokes angry reactions along political and ethnic lines.

Recently, it was rumoured that the former president was considering going on exile to avoid arrest and prosecution. Of course, it turned out to be false as he returned to the country last week. But the reactions to the rumour were interesting. Ebenezer Babatope, a PDP chieftain said “If Jonathan goes on exile, Buhari is in trouble.”It’s not clear why. Another PDP chieftain, Austin Opara, said: “The people of South-South are solidly behind him”. Indeed, according to ThisDay newspaper, the heightened attacks on oil and gas installations in the Niger Delta is blamed on Ijaw militants who claimed Buhari had reneged on his promise not to prosecute Jonathan and his associates because of his decision to concede defeat in the election. Apparently, the Niger Delta militants refrained from destabilising Nigeria after Jonathan lost, contrary to widespread predictions, because, if the story is true, he extracted a “deal” from Buhari. But now that the “deal” appears unstuck, the militants are returning to the trenches, to bring Nigeria to its knees! So much for patriotism and sacrifice!

So, back to my point, Jonathan became a “hero”simply because his supporters and those of Buhari created apocalyptic visions of the 2015 election, which then made Jonathan’s decision to concede defeat in the election seem extraordinary. But, for me, Jonathan’s iconisation is unmerited, and Buhari’s comment that Jonathan “saved Nigeria” for conceding defeat to him is self-serving!

And what about the Jonathan administration’s Augean stables? So far, it’s only his foot-soldiers and associates that are being investigated and prosecuted by EFCC. What about Jonathan himself? Should he be untouchable? Of course, not! Recently, President Obama was asked whether he would protect Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her email scandal. Obama replied: “Nobody is above the law”, adding, “How many times do I have to say it?” That must be the mantra in Nigeria too. We must reject impunity and demand accountability. And, in my view, heavens should not fall if Jonathan is prosecuted, assuming he has a case to answer, of course!

 

Olu Fasan