Friday, June 19, 2015

President Buhari or Mrs Buhari; Who is Scrapping the First Lady's Office?

By Chinedu Opara In many developed democracies with functional public institutional infrastructure and social welfare schemes for delivery of services to the ordinary people, first ladies have continued to play invaluable charitable and social roles. Some even help in giving expression to particular government policies of special interest. Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosalyn Carter played active roles in the government of the United States. A reasonable presumption would be that the office of the first lady is relevant and helpful in Nigeria. Even without statutory grounding, any intervention aimed at delivering succour to the poor especially in a weak society will be welcome. The grim circumstances that have led to a proliferation or rather mushrooming of NGOs justifies that office. In Nigeria, however, many incorrigibly selfish and greedy people have scammed International donors severally by using phoney set ups and this has adversely affected international support flowing to those in need. Ordinarily, this necessitates establishment of efficient charities that can gather and channel funds and energies altruistically. To me, The office of the first lady should be such an institution. It’s widely assumed that the wife of a president anywhere wields power and influence. She will wield even more power in jurisdictions where democratic checks and balances are weak and where democratic institutions are almost non - existent. The office should then be able to circumvent bureaucracy and meet disadvantaged groups or push policy on their behalf. But now, is it President Buhari or the Wife that want the office abolished? In his campaign days, President Buhari said he views the office of the first lady as an extra constitutional profligate agency. He believes that the office has come to be a symbol of vanity, ostentatious living and perhaps political meddlesomeness. A man reputed for probity and frugality who seeks to run on strict anti - corruption stance and public discipline can be expected to touch that office . President Buhari is a man of few words, he doesn’t give details. His sentiments are shared by many. It is unconscionable to engage in a supposed philanthropic enterprise for personal aggrandizement. And nothing points to this tendency more than that every first lady ushered into office in Nigeria abandons projects initiated by her predecessor and engages in new projects . Their sense of philanthropy is never self effacing, it is nearly always geared towards vain glory. They mobilise funds, they mobilise other women into subservience, and they become empresses. They revel in extravagant gatherings of cronies, embracing frivolities in furtherance of their class distinction. They pay lip service to the poor and the marginalized through shameless tokenisms, like sharing bags of rice in Abuja. Funds are wasted inviting all manner of people from all over Africa and beyond. In promoting tastes that are manifestly sybaritic and hedonistic they reveal an inner contempt for the poor and make a mockery of moderation and contentment the very values they should embrace. The hidden motive of these projects is to massage their swollen egos and they do it in a manner so coarse that it irks and disconcerts. Since the constitution was ’ daft’ enough not to provide official trappings for the presidents’ wife they would exploit charity and appropriate officialdom, create their own empire and reign supreme. Also we have In the past seen how office of the first lady extend her influence into government and party structures to cajole, harass , intimidate and subdue government and party officials. Often operating in the shadows; they facilitate high profile appointments, procure mouth-watering contracts, make and unmake people. Always dispensing patronage and often taking commissions. Now having seen all these, Can it be said that the President is scrapping the office of the First Lady or Mrs Buhari just removed the name? President Jonathan believed that the office promotes women and empowers them. And that its scrapping would amount to sending women back to the kitchen. He debunked the suggestion that the office and its activities have been a drain pipe on the nation’s resources, noting that the office gets nothing from the public treasury. Not many believe the assertion though. He touted programmes the immediate past first lady initiated and their benefits to women, children and the poor as evidence to support the utility and retention of that office. A president who regularly lays claim to women empowerment and liberty and who is generally easy- going would be expected to retain the office. Some may argue that in a male dominated society where women suffer grave , widespread, socio -cultural , systemically structured limitations and disadvantages, any opportunity, whether tokenistic or substantive, that throws power or influence the way of women, in some sense and to some degree , alleviates gender inequality . However, even moderate feminists would counter that any empowerment of women that flows from a kind political gesture of men to their ‘appendages’ or ‘ornamental objects’ perpetuates rather than alleviates gender inequality and discrimination. If women are in the kitchen they will not come out of it until definitive processes and policies that will correct societal structures and conceptions that impair gender equality are consciously and diligently entrenched. While the suggestion that the scrapping of the office furthers the subjugation of women can be labelled mere political gimmickry, it can be argued that, if occupied by a truly self-effacing lady, imbued with sense of philanthropy and patriotism, the office will immensely benefit the society. So can we now say that regulation can cure the mischief? But how do we identify a potential President? And if we do how do we vet his choice of partner? Haven’t ambitious and intelligent people surprised many with the type of wives they choose? Some exceptionally gifted women have also surprised many in choosing queer men. The office cannot be regulated in any case by law since its existence in Nigeria is unknown to law. I now wonder if our President has, despite his posturing, addressed his mind to the seemingly general negative public perception of that office in Nigeria. If the office has been abused, as many believe, Is he removing it? Is he insistent on retaining it? Does he intend to effect a reformation to make it useful?

No comments:

Post a Comment