The old debate on the generational shift of power to the youths was rekindled two days ago by former President Olusegun Obasanjo. He called on the old generation of politicians to step aside and collaborate with the younger ones for the purpose of nation-building.
The former president spoke at a lecture organised by the Murtala Mohammed Foundation. It was an occasion to honour the memory of former Head of State General Murtala Mohammed, who was assassinated at 38 on February 13, 1976. Obasanjo, who was Murtala’s deputy, became Head of State at 39 after the tragic incident.
The call for “intergenerational collaboration” was actually made by Obasanjo in response to the remarks made by the guest lecturer at the occasion, Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi. Although Fayemi’s topic was “Beyond Boko Haram: Addressing Insurgency, Banditry and Kidnapping across Nigeria,” the governor said in passing that he was in primary school when Murtala and Obasanjo came to power in 1975.
In response, Obasanjo said, inter alia, that “something must be wrong” if members of his generation were still competing for power with those of Fayemi’s age. Instead of inter-generational competition for power, Obasanjo advocated a model in which the older generation could step back from the political stage and pass on their experiences to the succeeding generations.
In a way, Obasanjo’s important statement is a continuation of the perennial national conversations on power and the generational question. Five years ago, there was a lively exchange on the question between Obasanjo and Olisa Agbakoba. In an open letter to Obasanjo, Agbakoba called on Obasanjo and others in the older generation to join in the search for “young vibrant leaders” to govern Nigeria. On that occasion, the eminent lawyer put the matter like this: “Our country is held back by a crop of leadership that has outlived usefulness and effectiveness as a result of old age.
“It beggars believe that there is no culture among our political elite, to encourage younger people with new ideas to aspire to positions of leadership, in particular the office of the President.”
The context of the letter is also important. First, Agbakoba’s letter came a few weeks after the National Assembly had passed the not-too-young-to-run bill to pave way for younger politicians to contest elections. Secondly, at the time Agbakoba made his statement, politicians were already making their calculations towards the 2019 elections. As usual, age was thrust upon the polity as a factor in the permutations.
Expectedly, Obasanjo fully replied Agbakoba a few days later, challenging the younger generation to change its attitude towards power in the light of the “opportunities” available.
Obasanjo defended robustly the much-criticised record of its generation in power. Of the younger generation, he said: “Most members of the younger generation of Nigerians are mostly contented with waiting for dead men’s shoes and are unwilling to beat an alternative path to leadership.
“In such a situation, it is to be expected and actually it is human that those with some head start in life will not concede such advantages freely and based on their innate goodness. The world, as I know it, is powered by shrewd hard-headed calculating individuals and the cornucopia of their mercy is decidedly thin and it is unlike God’s rain that falls on the just and the wicked alike.”
With a tinge of hubris, he even told Agbakoba that he was available to help with mentorship in matters of power and governance. Unlike two days ago when he made a case for a generational power shift, Obasanjo was obviously harder on the youths in his intervention in the debate in 2017 when he pointedly accused the younger generation of Nigerian politicians of “work avoidance.” The former president explained that his generation in the military got to power as young men circumstantially and that it was “not our own making.” He claimed that they made a success of their intervention because of their “determination, commitment and national outlook.”
However, a lot seems to be problematic with the debate on the generational shift of power. In fact, a number of myths should be exploded to make the debate more productive. First, a static view of things is sometimes taken in discussing age and access to power. It is, of course, a biological reality that the matter of age is a dynamic one. Some of those who could play the role of youths in their political parties when this dispensation began in 1999 are now firmly on the seats of elders. About 20 years ago, some politicians and activists were putting together a movement of those who were under 50. The primary qualification for membership was to be younger than 50 years in age. Obasanjo was president at the time. The movement seemed to have a vision to take charge of the affairs of Nigeria in the spirit in which Obasanjo was to charge the youths on power and leadership responsibility 15 years later. Today, virtually all the members of the under-50 movement of that time are all above 60, with some nearer 70 than 60. After all, no one can be permanently in the youthful age except members of some Nigerian political parties in which a 65-year old man could be the youth leader!
Secondly, the generational question is often posed in ahistorical terms. It is simply not true that Nigeria has always been governed by old hands. Some of the old figures who have featured in the last 23 years have been in the arena of power since they were in their youth. It is part of the mythology of Nigerian politics that young people have never been in the saddle. On the contrary, Nigeria has largely been ruled by youthful energy. The three premiers who formed regional governments in 1951 were under 50 – Nnamdi Azikiwe (47) in the east, Obafemi Awolowo (42) in the west and Ahamadu Bello (41) in the north. Some members of the federal cabinet in the First Republic were in the 30s just as some of the federal permanent secretaries. Mathew Mbu, for example, had been High Commissioner in the United Kingdom and minister before his 30th birthday! When the civil war broke out in 1967, General Yakubu Gowon as Head of State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was 33 while the Head of State of the Republic of Biafra, General Emeka Odumegwu- Ojukwu was 34. Some of members of the cabinets on both sides were also in their 30s working with older personalities. President Shehu Shagari was under 60 when he was elected in 1979. Even in this dispensation, a number of the governors elected in 1999 were under 40. As pointed out above, Fayemi, who was a primary school pupil when Obasanjo became military Head of State in 1976, is today the chairman of governors’ forum. He is a former minister. His name has consistently been mentioned in the list of presidential hopefuls by pundits, although he is yet to make a declaration. Similarly, young elements were elected into national and state parliaments. The House of Representatives has had speakers who were under 40 in the last 23 years.
Thirdly, at no point in history has a generation “stepped down” for another generation. It doesn’t just happen that way. As Bola Tinubu would say, “power is never served a la carte.” As sketched in the foregoing no generation has ever waited for power to be handed over to it by an older generation. Quite a number youths are playing crucial roles in contemporary times, but that is not on the account of power being handed over to their generation. Even if you go deeper into history, at a point younger elements seized the initiative in the nationalist movement. The youths in the Zikist Movement, for example, didn’t wait on the older elements to define their mission for them in the struggle.
So, what Obasanjo said in 2017 seemed to be closer to the reality than his current advocacy for those in power to step down for the youths. Just like the generations before them the youths should organise themselves for power in democratic contests. There is a surfeit of sources of inspiration for such endeavours. Some of the political giants of today were unknown in the political landscape barely a generation ago. They didn’t plead for power to be transferred to them; they just stepped on to the stage through different trajectories. Neither did they make a fetish of youthful age.
There is no point putting the age factor forward as the only qualification to govern. Decades after Americans elected Bill Clinton at 46, George W. Bush at 54 and Barrack Obama at 47, the same electorate elected Donald Trump at 70 and Joe Biden at 78. Only four years ago, Mahathir Mohamad returned to power at 93 as Malaysian prime minister. It does appear that in other climes the focus is on the purpose a leader is to serve while in power and not necessarily the age. This point could be illustrated by the American presidential debate in 1996. Questions came up on the age of the Republican candidate Robert Dole, who ran against incumbent Clinton. Dole was 73 while Clinton was 50 at the time. In a memorable rhetoric of the debate, Clinton said he was not as concerned about Dole’s “biological age” as he was worried about “the age of his ideas.” At the time, Dole was regarded as the oldest man ever to run for American presidency.
All told, beyond the generational question the ultimate question should be this: what is to be done with political power when it is shifted to the youths? When this question is rigorously posed, the lacuna in the present conversations about age and politics would become more conspicuous.
There should be a greater emphasis on the relevance of the ideas of any politician to development. Beyond the age, the ideas of development purveyed by politicians should also be an important factor of politics. This is because what to do with power is a function of the underlying ideology propelling politics of the old and the young alike.
There are young people with clear visions for progress just as their members of their generations imbued with reactionary ideas. Similarly, there are old people with backward ideas just as there are others in their generation who embrace thoughts that, if applied, could help to widen the frontier of development if they could get into power.
The polity would, therefore, be more enriched by ideological politics than mere advocacy for generational power shift.
Thisday
