The Politics of Active Inconsistency

Some consistency fellas.

It was a laughing session when it appeared the party was unprepared for the in-fighting that greeted its "ideal" choices for the leadership of the National Assembly. Anyone who could string a few disjointed sentences together upbraided the party in power for it's infantile handling of the imbroglio. They were seen as unprepared for leadership and the diplomacy of horse-trading for which the democratic practice is famous.

A few of the more lettered amongst these critics - on both sides of the divide - who remonstrated with the party counselled for an adoption of a more proactive process that takes the confidence of those involved - especially actors with clout who invested time, money and effort in no small measure to the instrumentality of the emergence of the old general as the head honcho of this new government - into account when sorting out critical positions.

Now that it "appears" that the party has followed that counsel and that there has not been any noticeable fracas in the listing of cabinet positions - albeit partially - there is again another round of hue and cry, the most notable being that this list could have been released immediately after the May 29 event (or any time after that).

Really?

Aren't we fatigued with the desolation political chicanery evokes from the wild orgy for power and position? Don't we realise, given the lessons that we are still learning from the Senate President's "palace coup", that several compromises have to be made which of themselves can allow for the change that we fantasise for the country? Where is the wisdom of experience if after the brouhaha the previous leadership tussle elicited, the government allowed itself to become embroiled in something as preventable as a repeat performance?

Now, let us allow ourselves to conjecture.

Which will be a softer landing for the government? Is it making enemies of those who helped it come to power - though of questionable character - or keeping them on its side whilst allowing the body tasked with screening them do their due diligence on them? Think about it this way. The administration has done its part in allowing time to satisfy the different blocs within while "rewarding" their loyalty and assistance. In so doing, it has ensured that some internal peace within the party is maintained. Nigerians are thus spared another round of unproductive weeks internecine flame-throwing (because whether you agree or not, the political sabre-rattling accounts to losses for all of us as time that could have been politically and economically engaged productively is frittered away for zilch).

It is now left for the nominated and the body tasked with their screening.

Two things can happen going forward. Those nominated may fail to scale the hurdle at the screening which may necessitate their substitutions (and a good number of them have that axe hanging over their heads, no?). Or they may advance from that stage and still rope themselves in by hanky-panky behaviour in their future portfolios (or maybe by EFCC in their previous constituencies) for which I believe this government will be all too pleased to show them the exit and follow up with some prosecution (maybe I'm too optimistic). Both scenarios offer some exciting outcomes to look forward to. And anyone who knows me will understand why.

However, jumping on the bandwagon of railing the administration for doing what it can to allow for the peaceful conditions necessary to face the tasks at hand and do its actual work of seeing to the welfare and security of the people it serves because it affords us a platform to be in one voice with those who have their personal gripes with the government of the day doesn't augur well. It is an opinion. It is personal. But it is held with reason. Some things are better rushed into. Others, not so. But we shouldn't tell one to both rush and tarry in the same circumstances.

Consistency, fellas. Consistency.