THE VERDICT OF HISTORY

THE VERDICT OF HISTORY 

by Fashina George

What will tomorrow say of our actions today? Could it be that some of us act today without thinking of what verdict history shall give of our actions? Some hide behind the fact that the verdict of history will usually be the product of what the writers' of history choose to say of it. But what such people forget quickly is that regardless of the point of view of the historian, and regardless of the bias used to record an

A Historical fact

historical event, there are usually only one verdict history gives of that event. That verdict could either be good or bad. Wise men ensure that the decisions they take today, the words they speak, and the actions they carry out shall place them on the right side of history. When history shall give its verdict, it would pronounce some people good, others bad and it will describe some as ugly. I will be describing in this essay some people history is likely to place in the three aforementioned grouping and my desire for writing this is that those who might find themselves in some ignoble position in history as a result of their words and actions today could retrace their steps so that history might speak better of them tomorrow. This essay is prompted by the position of many players in the political scene as Nigeria gears up to another presidential election that is coming down to a choice between two individuals: the incumbent president, Dr Goodluck Jonathan and his biggest opponent, General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd).

I begin this discuss with a look at the bad. For me, as a supporter of Buhari in the coming elections, "the bad" are people who know for certain that Goodluck Jonathan is not competent enough to be reelected but must support him because of some pecuniary gain they stand to get. As it stands, a loss for Jonathan at the polls will be a loss to some people's source of illegal funding and corrupt enrichment. These are the people who cannot afford for an anti-corruption crusader like Buhari to be president. And they are the ones at the root of the campaign of calumny against the good General's name in numerous documentaries airing in prominent media houses around the country. These men and women are the Daniel Kanu's of our day. Daniel Kanu was the infamous gentleman who was planning to raise a million man march to campaign for Sani Abacha to transition from a military ruler to becoming a civilian president. If death had not come at the right time, Abacha was gunning for a lifetime presidency and an evil man like Daniel Kanu would have been at the root of it all. The historical account of the mid nineties in our country clearly shows that a man like Daniel Kanu was a "bad" in all sense of the word. Unfortunately, we have latter day Daniel Kanu's who would have us believe that Jonathan is the savior of Nigeria. They want us to know that what their principal could not do in six years, he plans to do in the next four. They see no problem with the insecurity in the land; they cannot understand that the death of over 15,000 men and women in north-east Nigeria at the hands of festering insurgency should be blamed on an administration that is not competent enough and on a Commander-in-chief that cannot command. These men and women are bad people because they are clearly fostering an incompetent leadership on the Nigerian people all because of what they stand to gain from it all. History will certainly give the verdict that such people were evil.

Next, we take a look at the ugly. An ugly sight is one that is not fitting to behold. The ugly in the present Nigerian electoral scenario are people blinded by ethnicity and religion in their choice in the coming election. Nigeria has the Muslim and Christian religion as the predominant religions in our society. Unfortunately the leading candidates are from these religions: Buhari a Muslim and Jonathan a Christian. Some people are ugly electorates because their choice of candidates is solely based on the religion the candidate is professing and not competence. While supporters of both Buhari and Jonathan can be guilty of this, the supporters of Jonathan are guiltier. The reason is because the lie that Buhari is seeking to Islamize Nigeria is raging more among Christians while no Muslim has ever been told that Jonathan is seeking to Christianize Nigeria, despite the fact that he is known to attend prominent Christian worship centers around the country, canvassing for votes. General Buhari has made it abundantly clear that he is seeking to preside over a secular Nigeria and that every man's religion, under his administration, shall be private. Those who investigated the manner he handled the question of Nigeria joining the Organization of Islamic

Politics beyond creed or tribe

Countries (OIC) have shown that the Buhari government of 1984 jettisoned the idea of Nigeria joining the IOC. While very few people know that Goodluck Jonathan is the only serving Nigerian head of state that has ever attended an IOC meeting. Unfortunately, the ugly would not believe this. Their manner of thinking is incredibly hard to behold and even reason with, so that sometimes the best option is to avoid these people entirely. The unfortunate part of the present political quagmire is that most Christians who appear undecided as to who to vote for in the coming elections can be found in this group. These people are certain that Jonathan is not competent enough to run a second term in office, but they cannot bring themselves to voting for a Muslim.

The other people that must be seen as ugly in my electoral grouping are those whose choice of candidature is purely based on ethnicity. Here some supporters of Buhari will appear to be guilty. But one must excuse the northerners for their tribal bias at this point. The first reason being that Goodluck Jonathan might have cheated the northerners out of their legitimate share to power. After the death of Yar'Adua in 2010, the right thing for Jonathan to have done was not to run for office. He had a wonderful opportunity to apply the recommendations of the Justice Uwais led Electoral Reform committee to changing the warped electoral process of Nigeria. He could have sat as an observer while at the same time overseeing an election that was certain to be free and fair, as an incumbent will not be running and the electoral reforms would have been adequately applied. Unfortunately, he did not. He however promised the northern people that he would be running a single term in office. This condition alone procured him support from many former head of state, prominent amongst them, Olusegun Obasanjo. Again, Jonathan reneged on this promise and is now running for a second term in office to the chagrin of his former supporter, Obasanjo, and the annoyance of the northern people. It is no surprise then that he has virtually zero support from the north, while Buhari, who already had a cult following from that region has, garnered their support. The insecurity in the north, which many believe Jonathan left to fester because he and some of his subordinates were benefitting illegally from it, has not helped him also. Quite naturally, the people of the South-south and the South-east have come to again support their own. What might differ this time in the political equation is that the All Progressive Congress(APC) has made inroads into the South-south, especially Rivers State, which has Gov' Amaech at its helm, a leading APC stalwart. There are also a number of people in the South-east who share the sentiments of the likes of Fr. Mbaka and are likely not to vote Jonathan in March 28th. And, finally, the South-south and South-east will not be able to ruse up astronomical figures for Jonathan as they successfully did in 2011 with a functional INEC card reader. In all of these we can still find an electorate that is ugly in sight because their choice of candidate is based solely on ethnic sentiments. One could excuse the northerners for their sentiments for Buhari but there is certainly no excuse for even a South-south or South-east person who votes for Jonathan; seeing that his six years in office has only recorded failures and to vote for him solely on ethnic grounds, is indeed an ugly sight to behold.

Finally, we take a look at the good. The good in this political situation are the opposite of the aforementioned in this article. Any man whose choice of candidate is not based upon what he would eat now but upon what his children's children will eat tomorrow is a good man. Any person whose choice of candidate is based on competence: on precedence; on record in public office; on the candidate's manifestos and plans for governance; is a good person. Any man or woman who chooses to vote in the coming election, not basing his choice on religion or tribe is a good person. History will speak well of these people because they are the ones who could judge the matters on ground rightly and make choices beyond primordial sentiments.

No person alive today wishes to be spoken of as an evil person in the days to come but this will be what will be said of the bad and the ugly this article has described so far. Nigeria occupies a momentous period today in her history and just as some good men and women are spoken of today as having helped deliver her from the grip of British colonial rule and years of military rule, so also will some men and women be recorded as having led the campaign to deliver her from the grip of neocolonialism - a colonial rule that has the rich and the wicked oppress the poor and the righteous. I am saying in effect that General Buhari represents the poor, suffering but righteous elements in Nigeria today and a support for him is a support for good. Those who will vote for Buhari would have transcended all these evil and ugly sentiments. These men and women shall have history declare that they were indeed good people.

Join the clamour for good in Nigeria. Vote Buhari/Osinbajo of the APC for president and vice president respectively on March 28th.

Vote for Change!

Fashina George is a media Consultant. He resides in Lagos, Nigeria.