This piece was inspired by an innocuous line I had posted on Facebook in reaction to Dele Momodu’s column in Thisday published on Saturday, November 15. Writing on the notion that Buhari lacks religious tolerance, the publisher of Ovation International observed: “He’s perceived to be a Muslim fundamentalist, an allegation that has not been proven by his accusers till this day…
Buhari has related well with Christians all his life. His first daughter was married to an Igbo man, a Christian. Both his drivers and cook were Christians….” In reaction, I wrote that it was wrong to “cite the fact that Buhari’s daughter was married to an Igbo man” in attempting “to dispel the notion he’s an ethnic bigot.” I drew from the Rwandan experience as a premise to buttress my point.
“Many Hutus had Tutsis as wives (but) such ties didn’t stop the genocide.
I’m not suggesting the general has such tendencies; just to point out how silly the argument is, really.” My post may have seemed innocuous to me, but the vitriolic comments it generated is a further reminder of how intolerant we have become of opinions that diverge from ours.
But, even more so, it highlighted an increasingly worrying trend I have observed among supporters of General Muhammadu Buhari which, to put it mildly, is an unwillingness to accept the simple fact that their hero could be someone else’s villain.
There is, of course, that other silly variant of this inclination which has also become a default reaction mode of the Buhari horde – imputing an ethno-religious motive in any viewpoint that fails to idealize the former head of state. It is such hubris that fuels the conceit that has defined Buhari’s political career, one that conveys the sense of entitlement perceived in each of his outing as a presidential aspirant which began late 2002 when he was driven into the crowded convention ground of the All Peoples Party, effectively truncating the ambition of Rochas Okorocha.
The results, although as yet inconclusive, had clearly shown that the Imo State governor was coasting to victory. The general was not bothered by the way the party’s presidential ticket was handed out to him even if it came at the expense of due process.
If he was, it did not reflect in his acceptance speech bereft of any conciliatory tone. Needless to say, that imposition sowed the seed which would later destroy the APP (the precursor to All Nigeria Peoples Party that eventually morphed into the All Progressives Congress along with the Action Congress of Nigeria and Congress for Progressive Change). What else but hubris would make a politician seeking to be Nigeria’s president view questions about his refusal to appear at the Human Rights Violation Investigations Commission (Oputa Panel) as an irritant to which he shouldn’t be obliged to respond?
This dismissive tendency has also, sadly, been internalised by the retired general’s supporters who consider him beyond reproach and more or less regard past exemplary conducts of his as sufficient atonements for some shortcomings no matter how grave.
There is, if you like, an unspoken reckoning that Buhari necessarily deserves everyone’s votes and so needs not commit time and effort to earn those votes. So when a voter expresses a legitimate concern about his occasionally divisive comments, it riles rather than serve as an opportunity to reassure; alienating the electorate further and drawing the man seeking their votes deeper into his messianic bubble. Stripped to its essence, the underlying message of Buhari’s politics is “vote for me, I’m a good man”.
But goodness and weakness are not mutually exclusive. Besides, being good does not invalidate that virtue in others. I never referred to Buhari as an ethnic bigot in the Facebook post. He certainly would not have written Dora Akunyili the sort of glittering recommendation that paved the way for her ascent to national prominence if he had such provincial outlook.
Yet, such noble conduct does not suffice as a response to weaknesses in Buhari’s personality often cited by critics. The weakness cited by most critics is the ex-military ruler’s penchant for intemperate comments, a trait that first surfaced at the National Quranic Recitation competition held at the Ali Akilu Square in Gusau, Zamfara State, in 2002. Buhari was quoted as saying the following words: “I am hoping that Nigerian Muslims will unite because of what is ahead of us…
Anyone you don’t agree with, anyone who would not protect the interest of our religion and our own interest, forget him – whoever he is. If it is possible, re-elect candidates who will protect our religion and our interests.”
Of course, Buhari claimed then he had been “quoted out of context”. But about 10 years later, he would face a similar charge. The case this time was the prelude to the 2011 elections when he made what seemed like a veiled admonition for his supporters to express their angst against those presumed to have stolen their votes.
The results of that election are well known and the bloody aftermath still serves as a chilling reminder of how easily an appeal to religious sentiments can eclipse all reason.
He may have clarified his statement and denied that his exhortation to supporters then was a call to arms, but we should nonetheless not resent those who would rather take his explanations with a pinch of salt.
Doing otherwise promotes a sense of entitlement which terribly hurts the democratic spirit and emboldens political parties to shut out other aspirants. Credibility is not a closed shop; it is strengthened by a continuing process of appraisal. Sadly, it’s a point that Buhari’s acolytes are unwilling to acknowledge.
FRENCH VERSION
