Serving Personal Interests

Serving personal interests was a statement which started some heated arguments at a conference held at Friends International Centre in London, December, 1980. Happily, the tactful moderator of the conference, a Buddhist monk from Afghanistan, brought the arguments to a halt. Among other issues of vexation was a trending television documentary in the UK, Squandering of Riches, which depicted how Nigeria’s wealth was being spent in lavish flamboyance by the political class and leaders. That was how statements from two Nigerians at the conference sparked off arguments. “Serving Personal Interests” was followed by another statement by a Nigerian: “Our problem is not money, but how to spend it”. Juxtaposing these two statements with the trending television documentary: Squandering of Riches, one other Nigerian raised an objection at the conference, on the ground that a particular section of the country was being vilified and put in bad light. The deep insight of the moderator of the occasion saw the need to steer the discussions on a neutral line. But the point had been made in 1980, that insolvency was looming!  Current trend is how to continue with lavish and flamboyant spending even when the country is laden with huge debts, borrowing here and there, to service old debts, buying exotic cars for political office holders, while the masses are hungry and gnashing their teeth. It is not that concerned Nigerians are not speaking up against these insensitive frame of public policies and programmes, rather the truth is that “serving personal interest” is a vital driving force in Nigerian politics.
What economic sense does it make that billions of public funds should be spent to buy a yacht for the luxury of those who enjoy political comfort, build a befitting house for a vice president whose dignity would abhor occupying a “tukumbo” house? The same culture of vanity and hedonistic interests makes it difficult for political office holders to inherit and use facilities which served their predecessors. Even if more debts would be incurred to be able to provide such obscene luxuries, the Nigerian senate would approve the budget! So, it came to be that Nigeria is so prone to lavish and profligate squandering of the nation’s wealth, that fatuous habit or culture cannot be curbed. Several honest studies have indicated that insensitive leadership is usually a primary cause of mass revolts. Such insensitive leadership is always made possible by the fawning attitude and self-interests of a political class that seeks to short-change the masses. The sure result of this scenario is usually the fall or economic collapse of a country.
How would an insensitive and profligate leadership expect deep loyalty, patriotism and sacrifices from the masses that have been deliberately impoverished and browbeaten to a state of stupor? it is sad that state security organs of government are not seen to serve as impartial eyes and ears of the nation’s leadership, thus creating a scenario where those in power banquet day and night, when the nation is burning and bleeding. Security apparatus, like the mass media, should serve the purpose of putting a check on excesses of the masses, as well as the leadership class. Dancers rarely see their back! Someone must draw their attention!  The fact that several Nigerian professionals are leaving the country for greener pastures, should serve as an indication that the leadership and political economy of Nigeria are faulty. Neither must we wait until there is a mass revolt before it would dawn on our leaders that the masses are very hungry and sad. What led to the intervention of the military in Nigeria’s politics in 1966, were far less disturbing than the current situations. The truth is that the military and the entire security organs of government are in a dilemma; who to support: the leadership class, or the long-suffering masses?
There is little doubt in the minds of many Nigerians, who the real destroyers and problems of this country are. In the evolution of a viable political system, efforts by money-bags to form an elitist governance, known as an oligarchy, can produce a stable polity. But this is so only where the money and elite class are not predators, serving personal interest under the guise of governance. In the case of Nigeria, the evidence is clear that politics, even under the false name of democracy, is a self-serving engagement; an investment gamble! Many Nigerians are now aware of “serving personal interest” component of the nation’s political industry. The masses become ready tools and accomplices in the self-serving political shenanigans, especially those who can be used and discarded at will. It is quite a dangerous game to play, but it works, because of the use of money as a juicy lubricant. Part of the game plan is to create misery, poverty, divisions and political structures serving vested interests, such that the hungry masses look for where to find “palliatives”. Those who offer such palliatives win mass support.
Surely, this kind of political game plan is not only risky but also destructive. Perhaps the foundation of this faulty political system was laid by past military administrations since 1970, whereby the oil and gas resources of the Niger Delta zone, became the bases of Nigeria’s political economy. Practical meaning of political economy is simply the use of political strategies to determine who gets what quantum of the national “cake”, with little input but maximum benefits. This is where the issue of “structure” counts in politics, which serves personal interests; faulty, self-serving structure! The ripples effects of the monopoly of the oil and gas resources of a section of the country for the maximum benefits of a chosen few, are beginning to manifest in current state of the nation. Late Bola Ige gave some hint long ago that some blacklash would follow, because “it is a sin to plunder the resources of the Niger Delta People”. Turn and twist the issues as political power merchants may, the truth remains that Nigeria’s political economy is a booby-trap, cleverly designed by some master strategists, as if “marching to war”!
The aforementioned heated arguments during a conference in London, 1980, involved five Nigerians, each in favour or against a political economy that would use gangsterism and blusters, to legitimatise illegality. Thus, the basis of Squandering of Riches was the availability to easy wealth provided by the oil and gas resources of a “conquered zone”. Someone at the conference raised objections at the statements “serving personal interest” and “conquered zone”. Maybe hate speech, 1980!.

Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer of Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.