MINISTERIAL NOMINEES: BETWEEN TECHNOCRACY, MERITOCRACY AND APCIOCRACY

MINISTERIAL NOMINEES: BETWEEN TECHNOCRACY, MERITOCRACY AND ‘APCIOCRACY’ Some seventy two hours ago, my boss described me as the Buhari of his organization, not in the popular messianic mantra nor in the manner of the one-man─ or two if you would add the Vice President─ moralist government of the All Progressives Congress, but as a typically rigid Ekiti man who knows his onions, who is wise and shrewd in his economy and would die for the cause in which he vehemently believes. I share a lot of qualities with the man Buhari and I have at no point hidden my respect and regard for him. So, if I fail to write this article, two justifiable consequences might befuddle my ardent followers, namely my very good friends, Fasakin James, Jedidun Tope, Adebomojo Akeem, and others would be justified to tag me a partisan journalist. Even if they do not, the moral aspect of me would obviously lose its rest.

Coming out of a self-exilic mission, not as in the style of many of our irresponsible and shameless politicians, but instead as a researcher who has gone silent, seemingly oblivious of the noises and unscientific comments and remarks on social media, I anxiously anticipated the eventual healing of the protracted ‘delaytactisis’, dementia, amnesia and hysteria plaguing the release of the names of the cabinet, or in the words of President Buhari ‘the technocrats,’ who would together with the President steer the course of bringing the desired change for which Nigerians voted. By going silent was of two-fold justification: I went in search of facts, and to watch the unfolding of events in Nigeria, especially as it concerns the much awaited list. The very first personality of call after this period of self-silencing was Pastor Poju Oyemade, who at the Covenant Christian Centre, Iganmu Lagos on the programme the Platform, brought together more than three thousand people. The date was Friday 1st of October 2015, and the event was organized to mark or mourn the 55th anniversary of Nigeria Independence or pseudo-independence, as the critics of colonialism would call it. Speakers at this glamorous event included Bolanle Austin-Peters, Olusegun Adeniyi, Professor Pius Adesanmi, Professor Patrick Utomi and the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Kukah.

In his characteristic usual display of academic and intellectual depth as well as historical conviction, cerebral Pius Adesanmi took a swipe at the Nigeria nation and her history. Picking up his topic ‘Hating Nigeria to Greatness’, Adesanmi x-rayed the mournful scenarios of the past and the hopeless future of the political space and the progressive pace of the Nigeria nation. Paraphrasing his analogy of the prodigal expatriate who is full of a nostalgia of ‘missing his home’ and ‘missing his country.’ For him, the two feelings are different and poles apart. Missing Nigeria connotes missing a culture of irresponsibility, of mediocrity and/ or of unproductive and useless credentialism. He emphatically lamented the obnoxious culture of mediocrity, a counter-productive ‘Mourinhonic wishful thinking,’ veiled in miracle, of raising a dead Falcao to life. The peak of Adesanmi’s discomfort with the unpopular culture of mediocrity was his denunciation of a nation romancing with the devil and promoting a system of recycling old horses.

Unarguably, the government of Nigeria hitherto from May 29, 2015 has been in charge of a man of merit and one who understands the enormity of literally shepherding a flock infected with variety of illnesses, prevalent among which are corruption, impunity, irresponsibility, mediocrity, and insecurity.

A man who does not mind whose ox is gored in the process of bringing about a changed country.

He has shown himself a true leader who is not only tired of the mess of the rich but also of the cry of the poor. He belongs to everybody and ‘belonged’ to nobody. A leader whose body language, resolve and readiness to fix Nigeria are beyond doubt. The oil industry is like never before, witnessing a new dawn, a dawn in which motorists are now being humbly beckoned upon and

pleaded with by fuel station attendants for patronage; power supply is approximately between 18-22 hours per day; fight against insurgency is yielding growing hope; while corruption is losing very rapidly its grip of the country’s economic growth. In sum, the last four months of Buhari-led administration has indicated some direction and hope for good days ahead.

But why would he shepherd this grievously afflicted flock alone for four months (until September) before appointing a cabinet? One, to look into the past administration and areas of government so as to make rights choices in terms of appointments and policies; two, to bring in technocrats who possess wealth of experience; three, to garner morally disciplined people who possess integrity and sense of responsibility; four, to bring in people based on merits and not necessarily party or political affiliation.

Interesting and very sound reasons.

Shortly, before delving into the crux of the matter, the question of whether the eventual list was worth the long wait may get its answer from the standpoint of another troubling question: Why would Buhari wait till the last day of September before the release of the list? The two questions could simply be laid to rest by a logical perception: that there were either a hasty fluke or an unjustifiable indiscretion, or both, in both processes of nominations and release of list. For if the second batch of the list would contain the public-certified meritocrats, and not opportunists and politically injured plaintiffs, whose names appear very clearly in the first list, then there was a misplacement of priority, another justification for the argument against unjustifiable indiscretion.

The question of whether or not there was convincingly thorough, non-partisan and objective consultations by President Buhari over who should make the first list is absolutely in doubt.

Technocracy, defined as a philosophico-political doctrine which advocates the deployment of highly trained engineers, technicians, scientists, lawyers, artisans, etc to run the government and government affairs, was one of the four rationale behind this protracted wait for the selection of ministers. If going by the definition, therefore, that technocracy is summarily government run by highly trained and certified professionals, then the excuse of delaying the list might to a large extent pass the justification test, since the list is replete of professionals: eight lawyers, three engineers, two medical doctors, a seasoned strategist and historian, a military officer, a lecturer, a land administration expert, an economist, and a pilot, save for Rotimi Amaechi and Ahmed Isa Ibeto who are avowed professionals in politics. Furthermore, professionalism involves active practice in a profession and not just mere credentialism. Again, the caveat of Adesanmi. Hence, the question becomes relevant: that how many of these above-listed professionals are in actual sense professionals? I guess that would be a story for another day. One can only say that the only thing that probably could justify their being technocrats in the real sense of the word is obviously their possession of professional certificate.

Meritocracy, though an elitist doctrine, describes a socio-political theory which promotes merit, abilities and achievements over wealth, influence, affiliation or association. Merit, on the other hand, consists in values that deserve respect and acknowledgement; good and praise worthy qualities that distinguish a person; and a proven ability and accomplishment. By reason of consequential inference, meritocracy gives opportunities and advantages to people to run government and its affairs based on their respectable and acknowledged values, worthy characteristics, and proven abilities and achievements over time. If again, this definition is anything to go by, then Buhari’s argument for delaying the list till the period, when the wait was almost turning to suspicion, may gain some justification, relatively though.

To begin with, besides the political propaganda, character assassination, image smearing and denting, hate remarks, politics of prebendalism, of hate, and of witch hunt that conspicuously dominate and characterize the spatiotemporal Nigerian political practice, the victim of which many of the

ministerial nominees have fallen, the truth that cannot beg for validation and public approbation is that some of the nominees may not have presented themselves as people who possess merit, in the true and strict sense of the word. If rating by abilities and achievements, indeed, some of those nominees, who have been tested in public offices before, whether as governors (or deputy), senators or commissioners have not performed creditably and meritoriously well, compared to the wealth of resources in, revenue accrued, and allowances earmarked to their states and constituencies. The poverty level of states in which these so-called technocrats have ‘served’ (this language, however, is absurd, strange and inappropriate to use when discussing governance in Nigeria) is ridiculous. The culture of mediocrity and lack of justifiable moral clarity continue to triumph when a governor or senator who could not find a lasting solution to the economic conundrum of his state and constituencies and the poverty-stricken level of the citizenry should now be saddled with the responsibility of bringing up policies that would transform the entire Nigeria.

Now, to further buttress the the issue at stake, the ‘APCiocratic’ reign. My use of the word ‘belonged’ in one of the paragraphs is advised. A further cursory inquiry into the personalities that feature in the partial cabinet list reveals that henceforth a possible move-away from the mouthed technocratic and meritocratic governance might arguably ensue. For heaven’s sake, are we going to continue in this politics of compensation? It appears to me that what Buhari has done in this nomination process is, on the one hand, as Pius Adesanmi noted, recycling old horses, and, on the other hand, reimbursing the defeated.

Defending the President’s action, however, two theories have emerged. One of such theories, which ironically and incidentally is a validation of the perpetuation of the culture of mediocrity, posits that better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. This school of thought argues that experience is quite important and relevant to effect the desired change for which Nigerians yearn. Almost all the nominees are either former or serving political office holders. So, they are familiar not only with the President and his readiness but also with the affairs of government in Nigeria and the trouble of its citizens. Fantastic? The other theory posits that he who pays the piper calls the tune. According to this school, the inclusion of some names in the cabinet list was a deliberate effort to placate and compensate the wounded warriors at the April elections, and to offer shelter for the political jobbers and prostitutes who for selfish interest move from one party to the other.

My conclusion will be my pledge: I believe that the resolve of the president, and not the ideology of APC perpetuating itself as ruling party, may lead Nigeria to the destination for which she sets forth at dawn. But how will the resolve not collide with and act antithetical to god-fatherism of the founding fathers of APC and selfish interest of some ignoble defectors whose tenths at one party were leaking and sought to find refuge in the camp of the new APCiocratic government? We all hope to see if this battle would at the end yield the result towards which we all look.