The death of messianic or saviour politics

THE current state of ennui is to a large extent the result of the death of messianic or saviour politics. This is politics that revolves around a charismatic leader who is ascribed redemptive or saviour qualities. Until he became President in 2015, Buhari’s supporters passionately promoted him as an ascetic and incorruptible man who had the magic wand, or whose ‘body language’ alone could solve all, or most of the country’s problems.

However, by the time he exhausted his eight years in office, almost all indicators of human development in the country, including some progress made in nation-building, had nosedived. People who fervently argued that the country would have been transformed if his time as a military ruler in the 1980s had not been aborted by the Babangida coup in August 1985, were left shame-faced.

When Tinubu was campaigning for office, in contrast to Buhari, no one marketed him as ‘Mr Integrity’. Here his promoters, while not conceding the scandals and allegations linked to him, argued that since we have tried a man deified as a saint (Buhari) and it did not work, it might be time to try a man who had an opposite image. He was promoted as a talent spotter, creator of modern Lagos, and ocean tamer, who, when he was the governor of Lagos State, demonstrated his cosmopolitanism by having Nigerians from different ethnicities and religions in his cabinet.

As a very wealthy man, his promoters argued that at this point in his life, he needed nothing more than an opportunity to show gratitude to God. He was said to know the crooked and their ways and how to tame them. While Buhari’s saviour marketing revolved around his assumed integrity and incorruptibility,  that of Tinubu centred on his promotion as  a competent man who is both politically intelligent and street smart, who knows the ways of the crooked and how to tame them  to move the country forward, and who is willing to commit class suicide to achieve this goal.   Less than two years in office, many who promoted this brand of messianic politics have also become shame-faced.

There is also another thing about the Tinubu presidency. For a long time, politicians from the Southern part of the country, particularly opposition politicians from the South-West, appropriated to themselves the moniker of ‘progressives’.  The subtext is that the problem of the country is bad leadership and that if the ‘progressives’ were allowed to take over power, the challenges of the country would be fixed. Tinubu was one of the prominent faces of the ‘progressives’. However, with the Tinubu government making the incompetent and clannish Buhari government look good on all fronts, the ‘progressives’ have also been demystified. 

With the failure of messianic politics and the de-mystification of the ‘progressives’, a season of ennui seems to have taken over the land. Combined with unprecedented hardship in the land, people are simply being bored and tired of everything. They do not trust that the opposition angling to replace those in power, including the separatist leaders, would be any different, if given the chance. At the same them they can hardly withstand the names of those ruling over them. There is hardly any institution or individual that is able to command legitimacy across the fault lines. For many people, there is simply existential crisis.

What is to be done?

There is no magic bullet for the country’s numerous problems but I believe that three effective bullets, could in combination, help. These are:   hope to Nigerians; a leader who will be willing to commit class, ethnic and religious suicide; and the re-imaging of our politics:

Restoring hope to Nigerians

The key challenge the country faces is how to restore hope to Nigerians. Hope is that ingredient that makes life worth living. Obviously those who promised to renew hope have ended up pushing people into greater despair. There is less trust in people and key institutions of the state, including religious leaders. 

Class suicide

It was Amilcar Cabral, the revolutionary socialist leader of the national liberation movement in Guinea-Bissau, who formulated the theory of class suicide. He explained it as the act of dying to the privileged class of one’s birth or circumstance by sacrificing one’s own advantages in favour of full identification with the oppressed.

Given my argument that our current system of leadership recruitment can only throw up   people with deep pockets and certain rough edges, the hope seems to be for people to pray for the emergence of a leader who would be willing to commit class, ethnic and religious suicide. Unfortunately, since politicians promise heaven and earth when seeking for power, it is difficult to know beforehand a leader who will become radicalised by office.  While some leaders get radicalised by office, some previously radical individuals could also be de-radicalised by the system. 

Re-imagining our politics

It will not be enough to have leaders who will be willing to commit class, ethnic and religious suicide. There is also a need for the re-imagining of our politics. I feel that the nature of our politics (in which elections are conducted every four years) exacerbates the crisis in our nation-building process. Not only is politics seen as a veritable vehicle of wealth accumulation, there is also a pervasive fear that whoever captures state power will use it to privilege his or her in-group and disadvantage others.

For this, politics tends to be anarchic and almost a warfare, in which all forms of primordial identities, including ethnicity and religion, are mobilised in a simplistic binary of ‘we versus them’. Elections, therefore, deepen the chasms in our fault lines and the wounds from one election cycle are not given enough time to heal before another election cycle beckons. For this, I strongly feel that the Western brand of liberal democracy is unlikely to work in our environment and that we need a novel solution. I do not agree with those who argue that our problem is fundamentally the economy, because economic policies themselves are decided through the political process.

Since the fear of being excluded and marginalised is at the heart of the contentious nature of our politics, I will recommend a collegial presidency in which one candidate is elected from each of the six geopolitical zones, with each of the six persons elected into the college taking turns to serve as president of the college for two non-renewable years, while others become vice presidents responsible for constitutionally specified duties. 

In this collegial system, if just one of the six leaders of the college chooses to commit class suicide, it will have a domino-effect on others. For instance, if one of the collegial presidents is known to come to work in a bus, it will mount implicit pressure on the others who use long convoys.

A collegial system of presidency, with a single tenure of 12 years, will also give us a long break from presidential elections (which, besides the cost, have lost their value as credible vehicles for leadership recruitment). Remarkably nearly all the leaders deified by Nigeria’s public intellectuals – Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore), Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysia) and Paul Kagame (Rwanda) share one thing in common – longevity in office. 

I have no idea how we can give Nigerians hope in the midst of the current hopelessness and distrust of everyone and every institution; I have no idea how a leader who can commit class, ethnic and religious suicide will emerge, and I have no idea on who will champion the re-imagining of our politics. But I believe that the three, working in tandem, may give us succour and the necessary breathing space because Nigerians are indeed being squeezed and need space to breathe.