THESE are truly ecstatic times. The political space or terrain is adorned in bright, ornate colours. Characters, events and the general setting bespeak enthusiasm, gaiety, pomp and pageantry.  At the deep level meaning, however, the whole atmosphere embodies moral religious, political and personal significations.  The efforts of the flag bearers of political parties are beginning to represent one thing in the guise of another.  Some abstract qualities are beginning to assume meanings outside of the political narrative they were intended to project. A dual interest is evoked – in the events, characters and setting on the one hand and in the ideas they are projected to convey or the significance they bear, on the other. The emerging scenario is one in which these appearances have been employed in such a way that they represent meanings independent of the action in the main plot or effort.

  The alleged non-possession by Gen Muhammadu Buhari of the basic secondary school certificate qualification and the reactions thereto are in the mould of an extended metaphor in which objects, persons and actions are equated with meanings that lie outside the main story or string of events. The presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) understood the deep level meaning of a perceived smug indifference to the whole affair or of irreparable damage by a characteristic taciturnity in such a matter. He romped to his alma mater, Government College (Former Provincial School) Katsina and obtained therefrom a statement of result. Buhari’s defence, “I attended Provincial Secondary School, Katsina and I graduated with many prominent Nigerians, including the former Chief of Staff Supreme Head-quarters, the late Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and the ex-president of the Court of Appeal Justice Umar Abdullahi. My examination number is 820002 and I passed the examination in the second sitting” would appear like an epilogue concluding the drama of wits.  But some of Buhari’s hatchet men have poorly presented his case.  After all, they have argued a priori, Buhari could not have joined the army without the possession of the basic requirement for enlisting thereat. He even rose to become a Major-General and head of state, they have impishly concluded. These ones seem oblivious of the many lapses, which are in themselves the anti-thesis of professed criteria for preferments. There is evident among these hirelings a convenient collapse of memory regarding the numerous certificate scandals that have been the lot of a broad spectrum of Nigerian public office holders.  They neglected to remember the high profile sagas of “Evans” Enwerem, Salisu “Toronto” Buhari (no relation of the General), Bola Ahmed Tinubu, etc.  Shorn of their probable authenticity, these stories titillated the curiosity of a bewildered general public even as the print media had a field day.  The Army of which Buhari had been Commander-in-Chief have in a terse denial of his assumption that his academic qualifications were in its custody said it was “not in possession of copies of Buhari’s certificate except for the record.”

   Disturbingly there is a leaning towards a progressive simplification of issues, of certain tendencies or hubris in our socio-political development and of the many accidents of our history.  This process of simplification is insidiously entrenching itself in our thought process and may leave us devoid of the robust enrichment which rigour, ardour and a civilised insistence on the benefits of shared values, etc. would naturally afford us.  It is lame to argue that because a person has reached a projected pinnacle of his career or calling, he may not be questioned regarding his basic or foundational moral or entitling credentials.  It is in fact an exercise in gross simplification to say his person is above the set basic qualification.  But Buhari knew better than his handlers.  He avoided the subtlety of elaboration that was throwing his matter out of gear or left spanner in the works.  He simply advised the authorities at the Ministry of Education, Katsina State to do the needful; to bring out from their records entries from the controversial certificate arising from the examination, which the General professedly sat for in 1961.  Why the issue was allowed to generate so much hoopla 54 odd years after it had been settled in an examination room is another matter.  Required in our situation or circumstance is a type of approach which solves, through the application of logical processes, some sort of enigma or difficult-to-understand situation.

 The many reasoned elliptical pronouncements including the trite vituperations of persons whose duty it is to protect their principal by the use of diatribe, bitter invectives, abusive argument, harangues, etc. have sorely missed the point.  They have been remiss in one particular or vital area.  I do not think the literatures that poured forth have been of any assistance to the main proposition – the proposition that Buhari may or may not have been questioned in the absence of the records regarding a basic qualification criterion for the presidential elections.  The real issue is not about the propriety or otherwise of the insistence of his adversaries that he, not having produced a certificate evidencing his qualification for the elections, has not complied with the provisions for contesting.  The matter truly revolves around a very narrow compass.  The Presidency, typified by its chief occupier, is the embodiment of our shared values in the cultural, political, economic, social and moral spheres.  The elements that truly define our governance style and processes are elicited in the office of the President.  Much as the ruler’s right to issue commands and be obeyed is entrenched in our political value system for the common good of the society, the obligation of the people to obey derives from the general acceptance of a common perception of the good of society. Ascertainable rules or laws have been fashioned for the peace, order and good government of society.  Some of them relate to qualifications for offices of state.  A scrupulous or unbending adherence to their stipulations will improve even the quality of perception by the ordinary people of the mechanism of governance.  Today, there is visible alienation from the state because many ordinary citizens have come to perceive government as distinct and different from society.  For a large number of the people, government remains the “enemy” of the people.  Government is, in the perception of the ordinary people, capable of anything from the sublime to the most heinous.  And in truth, many of our governments are far from being based upon a common allegiance to accepted purposes of society.  Our objective conditions would seem to suggest a reciprocity between the individual’s rights and duties, which rests on a moral imperative that compels him to give or perform duties to the state and the reciprocal receipt by him of rights.  Many governments in this clime amplify the importance of the performance of the duty of the citizen while neglecting to accord the citizenry the bundle of rights implied or expressed as constitutional guarantees.  Many public office holders even appropriate to themselves, their cronies and family members the material and other opportunities of state to the painful exclusion of the generality of the people.  Added to all these is the general ineptitude or smugness of government.  The people reflect with bitterness that they are called out every four years regarding the possibility of another ritual of elections.  We are in one such season.

  Our political parties are structured or positioned in such a way that there are no intrinsic or fundamental differences between or among them.  They speak the same idiolect and offer the same set of token twitches.  Our people truly have no options to make at elections.  As a result of a palpable lack of an underlying ideological framework, Nigerian political parties cannot discern that a probable peaceful co-existence and rewarding mutual interaction [between differing forms of attitudes and modes of thought ensuing from mutually antagonistic social formations or bodies] even though at once a desirable and valid objective is not the raison d’etre for their formation.  For the achievement of the social goal of advancement and progress, more than a strife-free or patronising co-existence of these different modes or thought and action is required.  As a matter of fact, an infinitely-sustained, uncompromising oppositional relationship between or among them [as differentiated from shifting or opportunistic compromises or pacts] leading to a revolution in the thought process and in attitudes is a sine qua non for true social, economic and political growth and development which, in any event, are the professed or advertised goals of the political formations registered as political parties.

  We sum up by saying that since legitimacy is a desirable source of authority, it is proper to subject our leaders’ claims or submissions to prying, if malevolent, scrutiny or examination so the truth regarding their prognoses, etc. may thereby be ascertained or established and their legitimate aspirations may receive or earn legitimation.  Our verdict should be that the demand for an explanation of why anything or any situation is or exists is ultimately proper, valid and legitimate. 

• Rotimi-John is a lawyer and commentator on public affairs.