Since President Goodluck Jonathan’s presidential ambition was the focus of Ambassador John Campbell’s book entitled “Nigeria: Dancing on the brink”, it’s become almost impossible to discuss President Jonathan’s ground-breaking election without mentioning the former USA ambassador to Nigeria who currently
serves as senior fellow for Africa policy studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ambassador John Campbell also seems bent on being recognized as a recurring decimal in Nigeria’s political discourse in view of the timing and content of his post-election commentary entitled “Nigeria: The morning After”. In view of Ambassador John Campbell’s direct (albeit illogical) attack on President Jonathan’s presidential bid, it would have been better if he’d considered changing the title of his book from “Nigeria: Dancing on the brink” to “Nigeria: Campbell versus Jonathan!” In the same token, in view of Ambassador John Campbell’s intentionally-biased and characteristically-negative comments on President Jonathan’s electoral victory, he should consider changing the title of his post-election commentary from “Nigeria: The Morning After” to “Nigeria: Campbell versus Jonathan Part 2!” I’m suggesting the re-titling of Ambassador John Campbell’s pre-election and post-election commentaries on Nigeria because his two write-ups are much-more personal than diplomatic and much-more whimsical than objectively policy-oriented.
Or what policy objective can be achieved by relying on the advice of a senior diplomat who chooses to wantonly misrepresent the historical and contemporary facts of Nigeria’s politics in a manner that clearly reveals his pro-North, anti-South agenda that is willy-nilly designed to divide rather than unite Nigeria and Nigerians? Why does Ambassador John Campbell insist on making Nigeria his Africa policy laboratory? Why does Campbell insist on designing all Nigeria policy experiments to prove the sharp and irreconcilable differences between Nigeria’s North and South? Why does Campbell insist on using President Goodluck Jonathan as his preferred sample to be used in his months-long Nigeria policy experiments? In ‘Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink’, Campbell argued that President Jonathan’s presidential bid was divisive and therefore ill-advised because it both breached the zoning arrangement agreed between what he termed the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’ and wasn’t a product of what he termed ‘elite consensus’.
Campbell went as far as warning that if President Jonathan contested the 2011 elections, the election was bound to destabilize the country to the extent that it could trigger a military coup! But, contrary to his predictions, president Jonathan contested and won the 2011 presidential election on the strength of the most unprecedented inter-regional, inter-religious and inter-party consensus under which a good number of opposition parties adopted him as their presidential candidate, even one of the leading opposition parties that had its own presidential candidate surreptitiously worked for President Jonathan against its own presidential ticket! The broad pan-Nigerian consensus that brought about President Jonathan’s ground-breaking electoral success was so overwhelming that he scored the mandatory 25% of votes cast in as many as thirty-one out of Nigeria’s thirty-six states! Since Ambassador Campbell is so fixated about Nigeria being deeply-divided between the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’, it should interest him to know that President Jonathan scored the mandatory 25% of total votes cast in such core Northern states that are predominantly populated by Muslims as Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, Jigawa and Gombe! Despite the well-known fact that there are as many Christians in the North as there are Muslims in the South and that in Northern and Southern Nigeria, Christians and Muslims freely inter-marry and so many families have both Muslim and Christian relatives, it’s curious that Ambassador Campbell knows only a Nigeria that’s deeply-divided between the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’! Despite the fact that the vast majority of Nigerian Muslims and Christians have always freely worked and done business together as evidenced by the fact that there are hardly any ‘Muslim only’ or ‘Christian only’ public or private enterprises or positions, it’s curious that Campbell knows only of a Nigeria that’s deeply-divided between the ‘Muslim North’ and the ‘Christian South’.
Furthermore, though the pan-Nigerian mandate given president Jonathan in the just-concluded presidential election clearly demonstrates that even if Nigeria is divided, it’s not between any ‘Muslim North’ and ‘Christian South’, Ambassador Campbell insists on interpreting the same mandate within the prism of his preferred ‘Muslim North’ and ‘Christian South’ divide by asserting as follows, ‘The elections have polarized Nigeria and resulted in likely underreported bloodshed in northern parts of the country…The predominantly Christian South sees the election as credible. However, many in the North view the presidency and the elections as having been stolen from their region and from their candidate, the northern Muslim Muhammadu Buhari ’. Despite President Jonathan’s well-known pan-Nigerian posture and all-inclusive presidential style, I find it frightening that Campbell went beyond discounting what almost all international and local observers as well as the UN, USA, EU and the majority of the global community have adjudged Nigeria’s best election so far as he also targeted President Jonathan with the most outrageous accusation of being anti-North saying, ‘But since winning the election, Jonathan himself has showed a thin ear to the north’s concerns. His now notorious “Enough is Enough” speech recalling the horrors of the civil war was particularly poorly received, demonstrating his lack of sensitivity to northern concerns.’ One way or another, it’s self-evident from Campbell’s anti-Jonathan posture and the personal hostility he’s using to prosecute his curious agenda that he sure has an axe to grind with President Jonathan! When a diplomat begins to act or speak undiplomatically, it’s obvious that something has gone fundamentally wrong.
When a policy adviser who should always be the most objective contributor begins to articulate biased policy positions that reveal his respect/sympathy for one group and disrespect/lack of sympathy for another group, then it’s certain that the policy being influenced is intended to divide rather than unite! To all of his curious steps, my question is-what exactly is Campbell prospecting for in Nigeria? Why is Campbell giving the impression that he can only achieve his crowning diplomatic and/or Africa policy success by proving the existence of a deeply-divided Nigeria and/or instigating local and international hostilities that will make it impossible for President Jonathan’s presidency to succeed? What’s the diplomatic wisdom of focusing more on the few negatives while ignoring the many positives of a nation? What’s the diplomatic wisdom of exaggerating the importance of the missteps of the minority who insist on politics of religious bigotry and hate while ignoring the inclusiveness and unity of the majority who are passionately pan-Nigerian? If President Jonathan’s ground-breaking election which proved all of Campbell’s pre-election predictions to have been patently-flawed couldn’t influence him to radically re-think his policy positions on Nigeria, what else can possibly compel him to admit that his Nigerian diplomatic/policy experiment is a monumental failure?