Nigeria Content Online

Obviously you read

about the president’s (unelected) wife and Nigeria’s first lady

publicly berating a constitutionally elected, federalism-protected and

a-NOT-even-answerable-to-the-president-himself governor on an executive

decision he had taken, which (mind you!) he is lawfully empowered to

do. Totally unscripted, it was just the type of news that makes for

compulsive viewing/reading!

So, is our brand of

democracy different from that practiced all over the world? We seem to

have re-written the rules to suit our whims. Are the spouses of our

political officers for example, also elected by proxy in our brand of

democracy? Is it like a bargain purchase: buy-one-get-one-free?

We do not seem to

be able to separate our elected persons from their spouses; and it may

be deliberate. Methinks nobody wants to criticise the overt, visible,

in-your-face spouse because nobody knows when it will be their turn to

enjoy such privileges. You know, they could also benefit from the same

office; who no wan shine?

Let’s imagine if

Chief A had bad-mouthed the office of first lady of his predecessor in

his domain, would Madam Chief A still be able to ‘reign’ as first lady

subsequently? We saw some political office-holders promise not to

unleash their wives on us to ‘reign’ as first ladies, but what did we

see? Presidents, bullied, out schemed and coerced by feminine wile,

turn the proverbial blind eye because ‘after all, madam is not the one

who bastardised the system’. Why will it be when it is now ‘madam’s

turn’ that the office will end? Abeggi!

For crying out

loud, are we not all guilty of sycophancy when in breach of established

international protocol for instance, we address unelected spouses as

‘your Excellency’? Who dey ‘dash’ the title ‘Excellency’?

With the jury still

out on whether or not we truly ‘elected’ them, we are further forced to

contend with a warped Bill/Hillary-Clinton-2-for-1 bargain? Must

spouses be in our faces, all the time? Is it cultural, because they

apparently intercede on behalf of all? When we encourage and/or imply

parallel powers, paraphernalia of office and so much visibility to any

spouse, then we must expect limits to be blurred.

When spouses of

elected persons are given offices, staff and full-fledged budgets, who

monitors things? Who would have the audacity to perform the oversight

function over such spending?

Aberrations are

what one gets when one ignores the law per se. Starting with simple

breaches, they are entrenched when we observe laws only in the breach.

The aberration here began with the decision of a state governor to

jettison essential state work to entertain the president’s wife, a

chore that should have been naturally and more appropriately left to

the governor’s wife.

If the governor

really appreciated the concept of true federalism as espoused in our

Constitution, he would have cherished, respected and protected his

space.

The rule of thumb

universally, is that he who comes to engage one in one’s territory,

shall play the game by one’s rules only. You come to me on my own

terms, period!

Of course, our

first lady has stepped up her brief since the ‘presidential campaign’

started. The danger therein is the perception that whatever she says,

positively or negatively, reflects the president’s thoughts and

feelings. So, when she endorses governors for a second term during her

visits, she enters the political arena.

One is left with

the impression that the possibility of someone else emerging in that

state as governor after election is foreclosed. So, could the governor

have been hoping perhaps to be endorsed as his counterpart in Delta was?

That incident has

reiterated the need for more training on matters of real protocol for

political office holders and those around them. As the president

prepares to finally formally (expressly) declare his interest in the

race, we must not allow mere norms of culture and tradition to color

the law, otherwise there will be a Gordon-Brown moment happening here.

The professional protocol coach must honestly tell people their

limitations, and there are many!

A country

bastardized by military rule has left elected officials thinking they

need to be dictatorial and unbending to show authority like the

military did.

They resent being questioned or queried by those who supposedly elected them.

Should a democratically elected person think in terms of being in power or in office?

Does their being in office mean they have all the answers? Therefore, must we accept their opinion just because?

That thought was what the first lady was trying to convey: that the

governor should not think that he has such a monopoly of knowledge, he

is not even willing to consider another opinion. The message was apt,

undoubtedly. Only thing is: these positive thoughts should have been

expressed privately!