The critic in pole position

Those who should know agree that not everybody should criticise. Ditto praise: that not everybody is qualified to be allowed to give or take it. That criticism or praise should not be given by just about anybody. And, that it is up to recipients or targets of criticism or praise to determine how and what and when and who are important or unimportant.

Which naturally throws up the first poser: who can criticise? Many people say intendment is key. Others insist that intendment is everything. Those in this school of thought reason that when and where the critic has genuine, pure intentions, target must take heed.

Here is about the person who advises differently with the sole aim to see target or things improve. They may be target’s friends or foes or opponents. Criticism ought to be critiqued always on the bases of merit and timing. It should never only be about source.

In politics Nigeriana, contrary advice or criticism is treated with suspicion. Public office holders, ever so thin-skinned, suspect every non-praise, spoken or written, to be enemy action. Nationally and subnationally, input by political opponents can never well-received let alone tried out. This mannerism is as retrogressive as it is harebrained.

We all know that, the Bola Tinubu government would rather let a camel from Donald Trump’s America pass through the eye of a Nigerian needle than for any suggestion from, for instance, Messrs Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi and Chibuike Amaechi and Nasir el-Rufai to as much as come before the federal executive council. Those men shall have to wait for their turn in Aso Rock or wherever, to try out own ideas. It is this Stone Age winner-takes-or-decides-all mentality that makes our politics so rancorous. Nobody should blame those who go to every length, physically and spiritually, in a bid to get on board.

Unfortunately, this leadership comeuppance or mishap is not peculiar to just the incumbent president. It was there before him, it shall be there after him. It is a Nigerian thing, and it permeates our entire landscape; across all spheres of our national life. Most if not all of the aforementioned leaders and indeed our compatriots would act like that too, given the opportunity.

Just so you see how deep the rot is: let us draft in Mallam el-Rufai, former minister of FCT, former governor of Kaduna state, quoted to have once argued that the opposition should never be blamed for criticising government recklessly. He maintained that the raison d’etre of the opposition is to take over government and one of their strategies (or stratagems?) is irresponsible(?) criticism. If developing countries want to make meaningful progress, they should practise citizen democracy. Government must be community effort and the opposition must be peopled by patriots!

The critic must be patriotic and criticism must have the sole objective of adding -not subtracting nor wounding- value. But, there again, targets -especially (those in) government- must raise their tolerance threshold. They must be conscious that criticism would hardly come from supporters. They must understand that all criticisms cannot be sugarcoated to taste good for their highly sensitive auditory palates.

A message or two, too critical to ignore, are embedded in the last two sentences. Although the Nigerian situation is heedlessly insane in that a staunch supporter can overnight be termed an opponent just for criticising, one is still of the opinion that the best person to criticise is a known friend, fan or supporter. Such criticisms carry with them a measure of history, of relationship, and of reassurance that they mean well. They are like criticisms from parents to their child, or teacher to student, or priest to congregant.

Overall, it is important for the critic to show themselves approved or knowledgeable, loving, respectful, successful and well-intentioned. I concede that this is a very subjective point. No critic can love or respect any Nigerian political chief enough. Those guys have a horrendously high expectation of self that can be met only by sycophants!

Still, the person and persona of the critic as well as their anima play an inevitable role in the perception and ultimately, the reception accorded criticism. On a good day, the person being criticised will first perform an in-depth critique of the critic before even considering the worth of the criticism. Woe betide the critic if target is an envious, garrulous, hateful, petty, and pretentious person. Such a one can bring about the Israel-Hamas type fireworks over something as intangibly harmless as citizen criticism.

Second is the question or place of how, what, when and where in criticism. In a hypersensitive system such as ours, critics are expected to walk on eggshells. It is almost like they have approval to say what they want but should not, because, as Idi Amin warned, freedom of speech is guaranteed but not so, freedom after the speech. Targets are increasingly too interested and too bothered by how criticism is served, when, where and what the matter is.

One hears and reads such arrogant nonsense as, “he should not have said it like that.” Or, “she should never have brought the matter up online.” Or, what do they want reporting the matter the way they did?”

Fortunately, these men and women and children of power cannot have their cake and eat it. Akwaibomights have a befitting -even if vulgar- proverb made for this context. The hen always complains, once the rooster mounts, why she has to provide both the cloaca (or vent, read vagina) and the occiput (back head) to be picked with a beak. Apologies if you do not quite grab that: it is best delivered and best understood in the original language.

Going forward, the thing is that the critic must remain audacious and professional. They must never condescend to the point of allowing the leader to enforce how criticism should be packaged. Critics must never forget that politicians are the only professionals who can lie, cheat and steal, and still be respected. Sssh, dear Nigerian politician, I, Michael BUSH, am not the copyright owner of that line.

You cannot blame the person who only paraphrased something that another wrote. If you must, blame America’s legendary writer, humorist and essayist, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, best known by his pen name, Mark Twain. He was born in Florida, a village in Monroe County in the state of Missouri, USA, on November 30, 1835. He died on April 21, 1910, in Stormfield, the mansion built for him in Redding, Connecticut; the mansion into which he moved in 1908.

Go and get him, if you can. Leave me alone. Furthermore, dear leaders, in addition to intentionally becoming accommodative, patient and tolerant, you ought to grow a tough skin. It is unleadership, really, for the leader to descend to the playground in the name of proving your point.

Which reminds me. There also exist leaders who are worse critics because they pay scant attention to the art. They like to maliciously and disrespectfully criticise other leaders or own subordinates and people. This category is made up of players, not leaders.

Thankfully, although quite annoying, there is a developing analogy that we can import (or afghanistanise with) at this juncture. President Trump, who is supposed to be a global example, last week refused to apologise over his recent racial foul. A very consistently unpresidential man, Mr Trump has shown himself both in action and in speech as more a player than leader. One wonders, as this space asked last week, if such trademark pugnacious rhetoric would be cured by a mere sorry -eventually.

Sadly, foul-mouthed so-called leaders are the worst haters of criticism. They like to sit around, all day, like small minds, to gossip or denigrate their helpers. Once they arrive the top, they like to poke fun at genuine and costly sacrifices made by others for them when they were at rock bottom. Alas, they will thereafter clean up, package and emerge, looking like Saint Humility according to the order of Peace.

The eve, which now is, is the opportune moment to begin prepping for the next general elections (2027). The critic in pole position, deriving from the foregoing, is the man or woman or boy or girl who knows enough and is therefore not only experienced and ready to -in the meantime- stop criticising leaders but also bold enough one, to start; two, to plan; three, to run; four, to become and five, to serve as the leader of our dream. For 2027 and beyond, Nigeria is in dire need of talk-and do critics. We need to vote in leaders who having once or serially been critics shall come to appreciate own critics as partners -not enemies- of progress.

Now, if there has ever been an attempt on your career, on your dignity, on your freedom, on your life, on your survival, because you criticised a leader, 2027 is our chance. Hello, Sowore. Hello, VeryDarkMan. Hello, Princess God’s own Udoito, Local man et al?

2027 is a golden opportunity to, at least, try to show that we can. However, if for whatever reason you decide to wait for another window which might not come, know enough to forever keep your activism and brilliance and boldness plus including your mouth, your pen, your camera and your everything else shut. It is time to go out there and learn how easy or difficult it is to be in a place where blows of criticism rain on you relentlessly. Since every journey begins with a step, now is the best time to take the it of ours.

God bless Nigeria!