Opinion: Wole Soyinka and his army of nay-sayers

by Obi Nwakanma

Wole-Soyinka

But to demean her, and to ask the president to “call his wife to order” without as much as understanding the intricate issues behind the Rivers situation exposes Soyinka to needless partisanship. 

Last week, Professor Wole Soyinka, our world-renowned playwright and Nobel laureate for literature inserted himself in a very unseemly way in the rage in Rivers state. In many regions of the world, Soyinka is known much more for his defiance than for his art. In fact, he has turned nay-saying into an industry and into an art.

He is of course to be counted among the most politically or socially conscious intellectuals spawned in the 20th century, and we must be grateful to Soyinka, for those moments when in his actions and his work, he helped us to articulate the very principles of what he himself described as the “first condition of our humanity” – justice.

On my part, over the years however, I have come to an increasing understanding that Soyinka set the bar too high; it requires the arch-angel Michael, himself the archetype of Amadioha/Ogun, to pass the test for justice. Justice in fact is far too high a demand. Justice is expensive. It demands one eye for one eye. Measure for measure. I think that what we really need may after all be compassion.

Compassion is the gift of the spirit. It is calmer and kinder; less abrasive than the harsh and blind mistress, whose sword and balance, reminds us all in its arching, that all must come short and be damned. I have thus broken with Soyinka on that principle, after many years, and I have redefined that mantra about justice: I think compassion is the first condition of our humanity. I am reminded, in coming to these terms, that Soyinka is a great creator often under the grip of his archetypal divine.

He may in one moment of overreach, succumb to the fate of his demiurge, who in one moment of excess, smashed his own work, and upon waking to the consequences of his rage and inebriation, created misshapen life, and thus inundated nature with sublime terror and the horrific. I felt a chill in the bones, when last week, Soyinka unloaded a barrel of grapes on Patience Jonathan, Nigeria’s first lady over the crisis in Rivers State.

It is pointless repeating some of Soyinka’s words about Mrs. Jonathan, but it was clear that he was not only impatient with this Patience, he held her in utter contempt. In Professor Soyinka’s view, Mrs. Jonathan was the cause ofthe crisis in Rivers State that threatens democracy. First, I’d like to say, that the situation in Port-Harcourt has been overdramatized, and overplayed for political gain.

A minor political disagreement in one corner of the federation does not threaten the fundamental foundations of the democratic state. Those who make that claim only stoke the stove of discontent. The Rivers crisis amounts to nothing more than a storm in a tea-cup. We must have the courage to tell our highly respected man of letters, that his words not only amount to the abuse of another man’s wife, the disregard in his address of Mrs. Jonathan smacks of pointless elitism and partisan rancour.

The president’s wife holds no political position. She does not head the army or the police. She is actually a permanent secretary in the Bayelsa State civil service on a leave of absence, and whatever that means. If she breaks any law, she must bear the consequence, since the constitution of the land does not grant her immunity. If there is any proof that she is the cause of the crisis, the law must be allowed to treat her like every adult citizen.

But to demean her, and to ask the president to “call his wife to order” without as much as understanding the intricate issues behind the Rivers situation exposes Soyinka to needless partisanship. Of course, Soyinka loves to say his nays, and the situation in Rivers offered him an opportunity to indulge, but in this particular example, the laureate falters rather badly.

Which brings me to another issue: last week Professor Ango Abdullahi, politician and former Vice-Chancellor of the Ahmadu Bello University, purporting to speak for the North claims that the north will ensure that “power does not remain in the South.” It’s all part of nay-saying. No! in Thunder! “We no go ‘gree!” Fela calls it all “shakara.” It is a form of signifying. But let me be up close, and a little personal: what forces could Ango Abdullahi muster to take power back to the “north?” I do not see it. Rotation of power, North and South, is not a constitutional requirement, it is a gentleman’s agreement.

Of course politicians often redefine who the “gentleman” is and what constitutes an “agreement.” It is slippery stuff. To be clear, I do not worry where this power stays – not or south – so long as it is good hands. If a great candidate emerges out what is now called “the north” to challenge President Jonathan in 2015, it will be a great thing: it will give Nigerians a broader choice to make.

Perhaps such a person might have something of value to say and do in terms of effecting the economic and social transformation of Nigeria. This is not what Ango Abdullahi is suggesting. He is not making any case for policy changes in lower and higher education; in research and development; in the rebuilding of the infrastructural stock of the nation; in our national security and national defence capabilities; in providing access to adequate housing for a majority of Nigerians; or establishing a robust foreign and domestic policy to enhance the standing of Nigeria in the world; or of transforming the bureaucratic system for greater efficiency and productivity; no; he simply wants power to return to the North, merely for the sake of power.

It is mediocre thinking for a Professor. Finally, the question I often ask, which North? There are three norths today, and there is no historical evidence of shared destiny.

Besides, Ango Abdullahi seems unwilling to understand that today, in many parts of the north, there is increasing awareness of individual choice, and the fact that peoples fates are no longer determined by a group gerontocrats playing God and Russian roulette in a select conclave. Power ultimately belongs to the people – not to the Arewa Consultative Forum. That is what 2015 will be about. The right to say ‘No!’ is a democratic right.

But nay-saying simply for its sake is a symptom of a particular kind of excess – an addictive love of the stage.

———————————————-
Read more on Vanguard Newspapers
Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.

Comments (4)

  1. Catchy headline but no substance. It is better to have interesting interface than hopeless governance

    .

  2. Very well said…and to say a few idiots in Sweden does not make him smartest guys in Nigeria…He tried and failed woefully as a politician…therefore his opinion of Nigeria politics in most cases are just nothing but that of a town crier…Wole…i expected you to reply Abacha’s daughter …rather than you playing God from Lagos…for Benin were i come from…you are nothing but 1 guy when carry first for exam!

  3. In my candid opinion, this write up makes sensible sense. Its very myopic to put the blame of Rivers crisis on Patience. Its great to know the very political Nigerian Media has not ‘brainwashed’ everybody.

  4. Whoever wrote this piece and wherever u’r from u’ve done a very bad job of trying to shift blames from madam Patience, u’r her puppet, we know buh go back and tell her Nigerians are wiser now, they can’t fool us no more. I am a southerner nd i’ve bn in d south all my life and i want to categorically tell u that the southerners will massively vote a Northern candidate come 2015, mark these words. G.E.J and his family are a disgrace to the south.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

cool good eh love2 cute confused notgood numb disgusting fail