Politics Is Only A Stepping Stone To Enrichment In Nigeria – Bishop Kukah

In this interview, Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Dioceses, and social commentator, Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah, declares that there are no professional politicians in Nigeria. This, according to him, explains why there is high turnover of individuals in Nigeria’s politics who do not really understand its essence to societal development, and also bares his mind on other national issues. ANKELI EMMANUEL spoke with him.

Looking at the political structure of Nigeria vis-à-vis our inherent cultural diversity, what form of government would you say is the best for our country?

I think the first thing is to take cognisance of where we are. Not so much a question of what is the best but what we have now. What we have actually has the capacity of delivering on the diversity of the country. And the good thing about the republican form of government is its democratic industry. The question however should be the level of our conviction in its operation. But most important is the proper understanding of the logic and the sequence of republicanism. What matters in that direction therefore, is the essence of politics in itself. Politics is an act and a skill primarily for managing differences and diversity and then the provision of services and management of people occupying a particular geopolitical entity for higher objectives. Therefore, for me, those are really the issues and I think the system we have now has that potential. However, in terms of the capacity of the managers, the problem is that, I don’t think our people have sufficiently understood how this system plays out. So I think it is too early in the day, despite the restlessness of our people, it is a bit early in the day. Our people have not schooled themselves into this philosophy. There are no professional politicians in Nigeria. Politics in Nigeria is only but a stepping-stone to enrichment. And if today, something else happens, Nigerians will fall back to it. Therefore, the result is that we have high turnover of individuals who do not understand the rules of the game and this is why we are where we are.

Looking at governance from a holistic dimension, what are those parameters that are used to gauge if it is been good?

Well, as you know, the word governance is a recent phenomenon. I don’t like the word myself because I think it is imprecise and it is suspense. However, since it is the word that is being used lately, it is therefore considered as an attempt at measuring and defining basic minimum conditions that can meet what government aspires to do. So, we don’t need to look far because there are basic human indicators which when you scale them, whether on a scale of 0-10 or whatever, those are the aggregate issues and how a country ranks in those issues is a measure of the country’s capacity in wrestling with the problem of good governance. For example, you have a security index and the question then is that how do the people perceive that they are secured in a country? The perception is important. For instance, perhaps it will be astonishing to say that one of the most insecure places in this world would be Israel, as you would expect. But there is a psychological feeling you have when you are in Tel-Aviv or any Israeli area of security by virtue of the nature of the architecture of security itself and also the presence of people who guarantee such security. Therefore, how you feel as an individual is important. Then you also have the second point, which is corruption. Again, there are largely perceptions of how do they see the issues of transparency in the system. And these are questions that only individuals can answer. So, simply, when you ask a Nigerian how he perceives or encounters the issues of corruption, I am very sure, he will tell you “corruption is everywhere I turn in the Nigerian system.” For instance, when you use health as a scale of gauging good governance in Nigeria, the question would be that, what is the indicator showing in-terms of the life span of the average Nigerian. If you live in Nigeria, the average lifespan is now going down to below 50 years. Whereas, there are other countries where people are living to be 80 or 90 and above and if we are to follow the trend of things in Nigeria from the point of view of the resources that are available to sustain life and the health conditions, then people expect to be able to reach higher than that. So, there are a range of issues to aggregate governance as either good or not. Another basic indicator is education. And when you rank how a government is functioning, you can measure whether it has the capacity or meets the threshold of good governance. Therefore, it is not what the politicians themselves are saying, which is that Nigerian politicians believe that if you show 120 ambulances then you are delivering on health or if you show 120 patrol vehicles, it means you are delivering on security. Or if you show the number of boreholes which you have sunk, it is evident that you are delivering on some level of health. So, often than not, in our own case, the pictures shown by our politicians sometimes do not match the realities.

Talking of transparency as an indicator of good governance, do you personally see transparency in the Nigerian system?

Well, transparency is a function of many factors. But most important, again, is the consciousness of the people. I give you a simple example. Somebody got a wife and had three children, alright but, your wife just came from the village and she is not educated and you got three children who are also illiterates. Now, when you come with money and drop $10,000 on the table, your wife might pick the money and probably use it to light a fire because she does not know that it is money. Alternatively, if she does not know the difference between a N50, N100 and N200 notes. So, what I am saying in essence is that, even at the level of the transparency, let us not forget that when you use the word transparency, it means somebody can see through. And its only education that enables people to see through. In effect, what I am saying is that, just as an indicator of good governance is that people need to have the capacity to see the conditions around which they live. For instance, if you come from a village like mine or yours where people have been used to drinking water from wells or trek two kilometres to a stream and somebody comes to dig a borehole, it is believed that development has come and that they don’t need any other thing. What I am saying in effect is that, like other aggregates of good governance indices, it is really the functionality of the individuals that makes up the society and their level of literacy. They are the ones that can assess the level of transparency of government. But at another level, transparency is also a function of how much information does the public have. What kind of freedom do purveyors of information, like the journalists have? What access do they have to able to receive, process and pass on information without fear of intimidation, blackmail and fear of repression? So, it is quite possible that government might actually be doing a lot of good things and making all kinds of claims, but the most important ingredient for transparency is the media and how much information do the people and the media’s ability and capacity to without restrain, access information, process it and pass it on to the ordinary people.

The media as a facilitator of transparency, how do you see the Nigerian media?

You know, we need to be fair and as far as I am concern. For instance, if you take the Church, you can discuss the Church within the Nigerian setting. And if you take governance, you have to discuss it within the Nigerian setting, just as if one takes the media, it has to be discussed within the Nigerian setting. Now, there is no way any institution can function outside the dynamic realities within which it exists. So, you cannot have the kind of corruption we have in Nigeria and expect the media to be made up of a bunch of angels. However, what is most critical, I think, is that this country must consider itself extra-ordinarily lucky. Because if you travel throughout Africa, nobody or country has even a quarter or even a fraction, including South Africa, of the quality of media that Nigeria has. It is incredible. And it is not something we pay much attention to. The sheer number of titles, the sheer number of vitality and intensity of contestation of ideas in Nigeria is impossible to surpass Nigeria. Indeed, if you go to London, after you pick up five, six or seven newspapers, then there is very little or nothing to talk about. But, in Nigeria, you talk about almost a hundred titles contesting and debating different things. So, to be fair, I think the Nigerian media are definitely, and by far, remain the most consistent and the most persistent platform for articulating issues relating to governance. When the universities were bound, the media was still up, when almost everything is turbulent the media is up. And the greatest thing about journalism like somebody said, is that when there is danger and people are running away for their dear lives, the journalist runs towards the danger because he has to report the danger to the public. So, I think in whatever shape or form, we must commend the Nigerian media for having done extremely well, especially, in very, very difficult circumstances. From the point of view of dealing with issues of transparency, accountability and holding those in power largely accountable. Whether we ignore the cartoons, ignore other alternative sources of communication, I think on a balanced scale, the Nigerian media deserve some degree of commendation.

Talking about Nigerian leaders not schooled on how to govern, do you think it is possible to learn that from the four walls of a classroom?

I don’t know but there is this whole debate about whether leaders are made or born or whatever. The issues, however, do not necessarily cancel themselves out. I think that the classroom offers you a fantastic opportunity and platform to theoretically see the various dynamics. At least, you can study the rise and fall of great nations and so on and you can reflect on the mistakes that great people made. However, it is just like every other thing else in life. You may read every book there is to be read about marriage and how to look after a wife but when you finally get married, you may discover that the wife you have been reading about in the whole literature is not the one you have just married. In the same way, you can read everything there is to be read about leadership but when you become a leader, the circumstances might naturally become different because you have defined principles but it does not prepare you for the kind of crooked variations in those you are going to lead and work with as well. I think there are all kinds of other dynamics but I think essentially, the most important thing to say about leadership is that, one, it is not a one man show. It is about vision. It is about mobilisation of resources, human and otherwise. And, it is about direction. Once you got a lot of those things almost properly in place, then you don’t necessarily measure a successful leader by saying he was able to do X, Y, Z. It might actually be the case that, a fantastic leader just like the case of Moses in the Bible, who led the Israelites across the Red Sea may not necessarily be the one to lead them to the Promised Land. But he remained the leader who brought them up to a particular level. Therefore, it is important that people should understand that different leaders perform differently and the essence of leadership is continuity. That is why when you talk about the classrooms, it might not necessarily be the four walls, it might as well be experience. In whichever case, today, the special assistant to the governor, who has travelled the length and breadth with the governor; whether he is the special assistant on media, or chief security person and has seen governance at close range, when those people decide to continue with the governor’s legacy after the man wins an election and goes to the National Assembly, after the end of his tenure, he has gained some bit of experience. However, on paper, the man ought to be pretty well equipped to be able to do things slightly differently. So, usually that is why the experience is very important but if you don’t have a system that continues to improve on the mistakes overtime, then you will not have continuity. That is why there can be no vital conversation about leadership without a clear understanding of the followership. And the followership is not just a bunch of people who continue to follow without ideas. No. By and large, they continue to negotiate and define positions and prepare themselves. They win elections and they lose elections. Therefore, the classroom can only be a metaphor in the sense that, a classroom can be just watching the big man speak on the podium. In the same way, you can learn how to play golf; you can learn how to play football sometimes not necessarily by having a coach. There are all kinds of skills that are available from readily watching others in the game.

Nigerian politicians like their counterparts the world over, are good at criticising almost everything about their opponents. What is the political implication of such?

Well, it is simply an understanding of the dynamics, which explains why opposition is a constitutional platform and the role of opposition politicians is naturally to continue to present a higher morale value to what the present administration is doing. And that is why when people talk about politicians being selfish, I wonder because politics is the only subject where your first name is selfishness. Because it is a game that implies you saying, “I am better than you are.” Other areas of life can deal with humility but politics has no word for humility. Because you are telling someone that, though, he is sitting there, you are better than him. In politics, when you go to fight and face defeat, the system allows me to come back and challenge you. The question is for ordinary people to understand that human nature is the same and this understanding is important. Because you see, the reason why our politics gets to be rather cantankerous is that it is about the basic elements of life; it is about water, it is about resources, it is about distribution of resources. It is about who has, about favours and so on. But elsewhere, where systems are a little bit in place, people are at ease to an extent. For instance, most Americans would not really be bothered about who becomes the next president whether Donald Trump or any other candidate. Yes, on paper, after a bit of noise, everything will stabilise in part because if you are a student somewhere in America, the issue of whether the President is from your village or whatever the case maybe doesn’t necessarily translate to anything. Because you are not going to leave the University and suddenly go and become a special assistant or whatsoever and get a contract today and change your car tomorrow. It is not going to work that way. So, what I am saying in effect is that, in reality, the opposition will always continue to present the higher sense of the fact that things will be different but only the foolish ordinary person that refuses to educate himself by realising that politicians are basically, ordinarily the same. Because when tomorrows’ opposition becomes the government in power, it produces almost the same dynamics. So, yesterday, it was the APC as a party accusing the PDP of trying to undermine them, accusing the PDP of harassment, intimidation and so on but today, APC is in power and it is PDP that is complaining of intimidation, harassment and all what not. Therefore, for me, this is the way the system works and it serves as the ingredients of politics.