Speaking is Governing: Mahmud Modibbo Tukur and the President’s Move

That was 2013. It must be obvious that they couldn’t work with GEJ to carry out their threat, given the baggage and the harvest of scams before and during GEJ. Too myopic to read their global context, our local politicians continued the looting spree, unaware or careless that there has been a Western about-turn as far as serving as hide out is concerned. Now, they are being grabbed outside and taken back home. That is one major dynamic that has changed.

The last of these dynamics is the situation whereby, unlike in most other countries where anti-corruption or the movement against rentierism is the agenda of the civil society, it is the government/leadership that is leading the movement against rentierism in Nigeria at the moment. It makes the battle against rentierism easier. But as the last paragraph quoted above from Tukur’s epistle indicates, it is not easier in the sense of victory guaranteed just because the state is leading the move. It is not victory guaranteed because the people can still revolt against their own objective interests if not purposively conscientised on a major move as Buhari seems to be embarking upon.

There is a solid mobilisational document in Tukur’s epistle, with some editing by either the party or the Presidency. It is something that every citizen ought to read and master, with particular reference to why the emerging policy direction might be worth their while. The point is that if disciplining Nigeria’s unruly capitalism can be seen to be firmly on the card, then there should be no failure to bring everyone to a basic appreciation of that beyond the casual Cyberethnicity that frames what goes on in the name of debate in contemporary public discourse on the question of Nigeria’s way forward. Even the president would find certain paragraphs in Tukur’s letter refreshing if it is a long time he has read it, although it was to him the letter was originally addressed and the letter being the same minority report his government adopted in 1984, 31 years ago.

But, why is it important to be harping on this issue of disciplining capitalism since last April? One reason for that is what Tukur is saying about the Buhari persona in the last of the three quotations from his epistle. Assuming that Buhari can do something strategic is, therefore, not all idealism because Mahmud Modibbo Tukur was not the type who would refer to Buhari or anybody as being pro-people if it were otherwise. He did not need anything from government as to be sycophantic or fail to say his mind. What he said then and what some other people are saying now suggests certain potentials in Buhari that ancient fears might be hindering Nigeria from exploring more adequately.

Thus, while I take seriously the views of, say Balarabe Musa or Odia Ofeimum, I equally consider as engaging, Adamu Ciroma’s position in the run up to the presidential election, inviting the country to try this man who has managed to stay above many things most of us have not resisted. At that point, I saw Ciroma to be practically challenging Nigeria to experiment with idealism rather than try to be realistic in choosing for the next four years. Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah said earlier this year too that Buhari could emerge the Lee Kuan Yew of Nigeria. It could be idealism but nothing happens without idealism. Buhari could, indeed, emerge a Yew, depending on which direction Nigerians push him if they have a same perspective on what can be said to be unfolding. Finally, there is no Nigerian leader who successfully practicalises an alternative business model to the unruly capitalism of the past 30 or so years who would not emerge the hero for it. And Nigeria is desperately looking for a hero whose moral authority can be a cementing factor.