Monday 8 September 2008

OBAMA, GOOSE BUMPS AND NIGERIA



Incidentally, Obama does not elicit goose bumps from only doting and swooning females. No less a man, one hulk of a man than the preacher of preachers and the United States leading African-American pastor, T.D Jakes admitted to such susceptibility recently. He was quoted as telling a CNN interviewer recently that he “watched with visible goose bumps” as Obama claimed the Democratic Party’s nomination, shortly after, rival Hillary Clinton conceded defeat and wound down her campaign.


If Dr Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, Director-General of the Nigeria Stock Exchange did not create Africans for Obama, someone else would. And it won’t necessarily be because there is money to be made. It would be because they love Obama and would want to contribute their quota to having him elected as President of the United States of America.

Let me make two or three quick points in passing. One, unless we are careful, we will end up demonising everybody in public service for even the most basic of mistakes. Even, if one agrees that the Africans for Obama dinner was one fundraiser too many for the Stock Exchange boss, the speed with which she was accused, tried and convicted by the media smacks of indecent haste. Thank God, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has come to the conclusion that no known laws have been violated and she has therefore been told to go and sin no more. That notwithstanding, the EFCC has taken on the role of seizing the money (about N74million) made from the dinner and returning it to those who contributed it. That is wrong. Has any of the contributors complained to EFCC? Even if they did, is it not a civil matter for which they should be advised to take out a writ? This is institutionalising the widespread practice of policemen and soldiers serving people as rent and debt collectors! Perhaps Okereke-Onyiuke should consider challenging the EFCC’s decision in court.

The second point that needs to be made is that the indiscretions of this “green-card” holding lady sitting atop one of Nigeria’s apex financial institutions should by now have convinced her employers that she’s lost touch with corporate ethical best practices. She should therefore be, as someone would have put it, “kurucified” or in this case sent to Harvard or wherever it is that her erstwhile comrade-in-arms in the ”third-term for Obasanjo” project, Festus Odimegwu, was sent by the board of Nigerian Breweries Plc.

Thirdly, it is one of those ironies of life that projects of more enduring values do not get the funding support of the many rich friends of Ndi who could garner N74million afterhours for a foggy idea with a high-sounding title.

As I was saying before the digression however, Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke and Company are not alone in the Obama song-and-dance. Obama is the closest thing to football in Nigeria today. That may be a bit exaggerated but, man, Nigerians, particularly the women folk love this guy! While some swallow hard at the mention of his name, others develop goose-bumps at the sound of his voice; yet others swoon at the sight of his picture. Obama-mania is growing in leaps and bounds. His youth, his oratory, his rock-star image and his African heritage have all combined to enthrone passion for the man to such levels that the all-time poster boy of US politics, John Fitzgerald Kennedy must be envious.

Incidentally, Obama does not elicit goose bumps from only doting and swooning females. No less a man, one hulk of a man than the preacher of preachers and the United States leading African-American pastor, T.D Jakes admitted to such susceptibility recently. He was quoted as telling a CNN interviewer recently that he “watched with visible goose bumps” as Obama claimed the Democratic Party’s nomination, shortly after, rival Hillary Clinton conceded defeat and wound down her campaign.

Jakes, a best-selling author of many books, singer, and entrepreneur’s goose pimples however had other roots. In his words: “This is not just a victory for African-Americans, it is a victory for democracy that proves that our country provides possibilities for all people.” He is not alone in situating the Obama appeal beyond animal attraction. My Centre Pastor, Rev Ajibola Oluyede, for instance, saw the rise of Obama as the product of “the audacity of hope”, which happens to be the title of Obama’s autobiographical book. In his opinion, and he illustrated many sermons with it, Obama is the modern day manifestation of the powerful symbiotic relationship between faith and hope as powerfully taught in the Epistles.

You can hardly fault that. You cannot ignore the grass-to-grace substance of Barrack Obama’s life. His meteoric rise from one-term state senator to one-term federal senator to presidential candidate is the stuff fairy tales are made off. Recall the fact that he was given next-to-no chance when he started the nomination race against the combined political clout of Hillary and her former president husband, Bill Clinton. Consider that no black leader, including the once popular Rev Jesse Jackson of the Run Jesse, Run fame ever went beyond the first few months of any nomination race. Think about how his pastor, Jeremiah Wright became an albatross he had to , reluctantly, remove from his neck; his well publicised Kenyan and Moslem roots; his wife’s gaffe on her new-found pride in America and so many such campaign stumbling blocks. From all of these, it is easy to find something Davidic about this man.

But, apart from all of these there is one strong thing that connects Obama to Nigeria and Nigerians: his liberal political tendency. Liberalism is alive and well in Nigeria, largely. Many truly embrace the liberal school of public governance which is where Obama stands. To appreciate this, it is germane to define liberalism, particularly in the context of this piece.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word liberal was not used in the English Language as a public governance concept until 1801 when it was defined as: "tending in favor of freedom and democracy." Does that remind you of the average Nigerian? My focus here however is more in the area of liberalism described as cultural liberalism.
Wikipedia defined
cultural liberalism as focusing on “the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. …Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas…”
When this is applied to the Nigerian environment, you begin to see a certain meeting of minds between the vocal population of Nigerians , the one’s who have access to and or control the media of mass communication.


Permit me to show a couple of examples of how this unarticulated though clearly discernible leaning play out in the direction of public policy in Nigeria.

Very recently, a delegation of the National Inter=religious Council (NIREC) .paid a courtesy visit to the Governor of Lagos State, Mr Babatunde Fashola. Among other things, he drew their attention to the surge in homosexuality in the nation, From the next day and for at least one week thereafter, Fashola was the butt of many jokes in cartoons. He was lampooned for leaving more serious matters to dwell on an insignificant subject.

The same goes for the people’s reaction to the so-called Anti-nudity bill. Respected women rose up through many NGOs to attend the public hearing on the subject. There arguments: it is a distraction.

One Mrs Kenny Babalola-Adepoju, said to have served with ex-Governor Bola Tinubu’s government as Special Adviser on Special Duties and Inter-governmental Affairs, and a leading light of the Action Congress (AC) in Lagos State describes those behind the bill as having “nothing to do”. She continued in a newspaper interview very recently: “May be, they have nothing to do. There are lots of more important and serious bills panting for enactment. We are all human beings. We are all created with, at least, a minimum level of intelligence that will tell you what to do to belong in the society, save there is a problem somewhere. Most of us are grown up and we know that it is not good to go out naked. Mostly, its when you go to parties that you see such things as exposure of erotic zones of the body. Anti-nudity bill? What kind of bill is that? Does it portray us as serious with the job we should be doing? I even learnt that they took a large entourage to America to discuss the bill. Imagine taking such bill to America, a land of freedom and liberty. I’m sure, one of the people they met could have even worn ordinary bikini to the meeting. I want to see who will cast the first stone in this case of anti-nudity…” That is liberalism in practice. (Continues next week)

1 comment:

ProAnalytics said...

I agree with virtually everything on this nicely written piece. But...as you rightly pointed out the EFCC shouldn't have had the 74M collected back with the intention of paying it back to the contributors when they(contributors) never cried foul or complain to the EFCC of being defrauded. Yes I also agree that perhaps Ndidi should consider challenging the EFCC's decision in court, but has it occurred to you that the fact that no one is hurt or bruised in this whole affair is fishy and smells of some heavy rotten rat? How can there be no law broken and the sums collected has been ceased and is been return to the contributors? These people gave for a purpose, a purpose which they were made to believe in and they willingly gave based on what was sold to them. Now, the Obama campaign is saying that what was sold to the contributors upon which they willingly gave was not correct. What was told to the public at the point of contribution was not what was told to the investigators. Gentlemen, we need to shine our eyes. Who is fooling who here? I believe some law was broken, if not Ndidi should be in court right now to challenge the EFCC's decision as you rightly pointed out since none of the contributors cried foul or is this some sort of soft landing?