Obasanjo, Atiku and peace-making clerics

Last week’s reactions on the presence of Catholic Bishop of the Sokoto Diocese, Mathew Kukah, Presiding Bishop of the Living Faith Church Worldwide (Winners Chapel), David Oyedepo and Sheik Abubakar Gumi at the reconciliation meeting between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his deputy, Atiku Abubakar, presented another opportunity to interrogate the capacity of the average Nigerian to fully embrace the essential ethos of democracy.

Irrespective of any other way the idea of democracy is defined, the most critical ingredient of this system of government is the respect for the right of every individual, no matter their status to determine who should lead them. The inalienability of this prerogative is the very essence of democratic practice.

But Nigerians still seem not to get this! While understanding that this state of ignorance should not be a problem in itself, since knowledge by human beings gradually increases with the level of their experience, two things worry one about chances that Nigerians’ disposition to democracy would change anytime soon.

The first is the pervasive culture of the veneration of age over knowledge. The average Nigerian is brought up with their voice suppressed- that is if they have a voice at all. So, when elders speak, younger people are generally expected to listen and not to speak up. It does not matter whether they have an opinion or not. A corollary to that is the near deification of religious leaders who are all fundamental human, notwithstanding the height of their spiritual endowments.

This culture has unwittingly contributed to the timidity of the average Nigerian and their reliance on the opinion of other people in arriving at their electoral choice. It should be stated though that money and plenty of it, is progressively, as wealth has continued to trash that influence such that those who have enormous financial resources now control the will of the people!

In addition to the foregoing, it is also almost a Nigerian thing to blame every other person but oneself for the unacceptable state of the country. This self-righteous tendency eradicates prospects for any serious introspection and ultimate redemption for self and country. To make matters worse, there are only a negligible ineffective civil society initiatives interested in expanding the mind of the electorate to the determining power in their hands. Poverty, that cankerworm of disability, has taken root in every stratum of our national life, impeding the ability to properly focus and seek the common good. So, interventions are largely about monitoring elections rather than preparing voters for making the right choices.

Although these the clerics have in different statements disavowed the views that they were at Obasanjo’s Ota residence in furtherance of interests other than their ecclesiastic calling, to reconcile all men, it should be within their democratic rights to endorse a candidate if they so wish! And Nigerians should learn to allow that!
True, these men lead large congregations which may be swayed by their endorsement of candidates but even that is within the democratic rights of such faithful. And it should not be subject to criticism.

The anger about the capacity of leaders of religious organisations, which was ill-advisedly ventilated by President Muhammadu Buhari at the Interfaith Initiative for Peace Conference in Abuja last week, apparently stems from the idea that a congregation would vote out of deference to their leaders. But that is no reason why religious leaders should not endorse candidates if they want to.

What must be understood is that any faithful who subscribes to the sentiments of his religious leader in the choice of political leaders would have also exercised his democratic right. This is why the concept of universal suffrage, which guarantees the rights of every adult to vote in elections, is an ingredient of democracy. Elections are not for children who are impressionable and unable to make up their minds but for adults as conceptualised by each jurisdiction.
But it is even more than that. Every religion and denomination in Nigeria comprise people from all political tendencies, hence chances that a religious leader would force his choice down the throat of people under his spiritual leadership are very contestable. If religious adherents take counsel from their leaders without personal discretion, their failure to sieve such counsel and accept what works for them should totally be their fault and not that of the religious leader.

It should be conceded however that tinges of hypocrisy are evident in the attempts by the clerics involved in the case under discussion to explain their presence at Ota. A common line in explanation of the three gentlemen is the motivation to engender peace between the two erstwhile political allies in line with their divine calling. While you cannot query the qualification of the clerics to seek peace even without invitation, it is within the limit of expectation to wonder why their peace overtures are limited to politicians. Why are they not moving into warring communities and ethnic groups and pursue the course of peace for the country?

But more than that, the three gentlemen involved in last week’s event are known to be critical of the current administration and its performance. It therefore cannot be a mere coincidence that they were found in the place of reconciling the current symbol of political opposition with his former boss as they explained. Religious leaders in Nigeria, especially when their motives are altruistic, should exercise their democratic discretion judiciously and without apologies for it.

What is most important however is the reevaluation of the values that guide the citizen’s electoral choice in Nigeria.
In other democratic countries, elections are won and lost on the bases of the political philosophy and social agenda of the political platforms under contention. While the future political destiny of many countries will be determined by plans for the reform of healthcare, education, issues of immigration and the like, there are no core values to which political parties and political actors hinge their ambition here. This situation pauperises the citizen and diminishes their chances of making informed political decisions thereby making ethnic cleavages, religious associations and other such primordial considerations in the choice of leadership.

This is why Nigerians raise the alarm when leaders of otherwise non-partisan institutions and groups take partisan views. But if the democratic culture must grow, more attention needs to be placed on building the capacity of Nigerians to make informed electoral decisions rather than the compromises and pretenses that currently define the country’s democracy.