The two rules (I)

This article is different from what we are used to. You need to think critically to get the gist. Otherwise, you may read over and over until you get exhausted. That is not my wish.  I visited a restaurant recently and saw the inscription: “There are two rules: the chef is always right, and if the chef is wrong, the first rule applies.” This is a tough one. Many will read these two rules over because they are contentious. That is not the end of it. I researched and found the “Rules for the Kitchen” with six rules: “the chef is right, the chef is always right, and even when the chef is wrong, the first rule applies. Chef doesn’t eat. He tastes. Chef doesn’t sleep. He takes a rest. Argument with the chef means going hungry for the day.” I still struggled to come to terms with these rules. But my reality is that I can’t change any of these rules.

This brings me to governance in Nigeria using President Bola Tinubu as the chef. It’s been a year, and a lot has been said about his stewardship. The presidential aides have done well in reeling out the president’s achievements in the last year. Some have praised the president for the government’s policy direction, and some have protested and complained equally. This is the reality. But there is another dimension.

The customer is always right is a phrase which has gained notoriety. What does it mean? There are several interpretations. But with the benefit of hindsight, how can a customer be always right when they are at the receiving end? The chef and the customer analogy can explain the president’s scorecard in one year. The president is the chef, and Nigerians are the customers.

As the chef, the president has prepared several meals for Nigerians. Some tasted nice, and some did not. It’s nothing new or strange. The taste of the food is dependent on several factors, such as religion, ethnicity, or political affiliations. This is a fact that we must admit. A cursory look at some of the criticism of this administration reveals these variables. It’s common to hear, “The president is favouring his kinsmen with respect to privileging them with vital political appointments.” (Olusegun Obasanjo was the last president whose preferences were strictly merit-guided, as different from the biases of ethnicity or faith). “The president is siting legacy projects in the southwest.” “The president is against the Christian faith by having a deputy of the same faith. (But this same president didn’t blink an eyelid when he appointed four key service chiefs from the Christian faith.) “The president removed fuel subsidy to impoverish Nigerians.” “The president wants a new jet when Nigerians are suffering” These and many more have characterized the discourse on Nigeria in the last year, and it is not surprising to those who think critically.

Let me digress. In historical research, absolute objectivity is not obtainable. Several factors come into play in the course of research. The researcher’s bias comes into the fray. They may be cultural, ethnic, religious or social. At the end of the research work, a position will be taken. It might be for or against a social phenomenon or a government policy. This is my point in analyzing President Bola Tinubu’s one-year administration using the kitchen rules.

The president does not eat. He tastes. The president does not sleep. He takes a rest. This explains the quantum of work effort he puts into preparing meals. And we don’t expect all the meals to taste nice, given the varieties and differences of our palates and taste buds. This also explains why some praise the president’s efforts while some protest and complain. The implication might be that we are not mindful of certain things. Lou Holtz said, “You are never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you are never as bad as they say when you lose.”

Back to the crux. The president has done well. This is my position. You don’t have to agree with it. That is the essence of scholarship. My first point is the quality of appointments in the security sector.  Take time to peruse the credentials of heads of security agencies. They came on board with rich resumes. For example, the Chief of Army Staff, (COAS), Lt. Gen. Taoreed Lagbaja, has had a sterling career in the Nigerian Army. He was a former General Officer Commanding, (GOC), of One Division of the Nigerian Army, and also the Chief of Operations at the Army Headquarters, (AHQ). Those conversant with the credentials and demands of these positions would agree that they come with huge responsibilities. It takes a brave heart and top of the line professionalism to succeed in these positions. He did so before he was appointed the Chief of Army Staff. The success story of “Operation Forest Sanity” which tackled the menace of banditry and kidnapping in the North West, comes to mind readily.

My second point is the presence of mind of the president. Some decisions have been made and reversed. The presence of the mind is an analytical endeavour. The ability to remain calm and take quick, sensible action. Some have viewed some of the government policy reversals as a weakness. No, it is a strength that buttresses the presence of mind narrative. It means that the president reevaluated when necessary. Is this a plus or a minus? I will help with a quote I stumbled on by Maria Gonzalez, author of Mindful Leadership: The 9 Ways to Self-Awareness, Transforming Yourself, and Inspiring Others.

The author stated, “Mindful leadership entails being aware of one’s internal compass. It enables a leader to respond to a situation as it arises, to respond to the reality of constant changes from a place of deep calm and focus, and to have the presence of mind to face the reality of any situation.” Does this quote describe President Bola Tinubu?  To be continued…

Ocheja, a military historian and doctoral researcher, is an alumnus of the Nigerian Defence Academy.