Should Trump; should he not?

“ARE reformer-rulers jinxed? Why do they often suffer the dire consequences of the misrule of their predecessors? Sultan Tuman Bay the Second, the Mamluk reformer-ruler of Egypt; Emperor Louis XVI, the reformist Bourbon ruler of France who got caught up in the French Revolution of 1789; Mikhail Gorbachev, the reformist but last hegemon of the USSR – and now Nigeria’s reformist President Bola Ahmed Tinubu! Like Tuman Bay, Louis XVI and Gorbachev were the last rulers of the empire they presided over, will Tinubu be the last ruler of Nigeria as we know it today?”

Are reformer-rulers jinxed?

I learnt at my “A” Level or Higher School Certificate (HSC) class at Ilesa Grammar School (1978) that it is the rulers who are minded to repair what their successors had ruined that often got caught up in the vortex of popular anger or revolution. They pay for the malevolence of others, despite the benevolence of their own heart. I learnt in the history of the rulers of Egypt called the Mamluks (who ruled between 1250 and 1517 AD) that the sultan who tried to reverse the empire’s decline through reforms, Al-Malik al-Ashraf Tuman Bay the 2nd (born: 1473; died: April 15, 1517), was the most maligned of all the Mamluk rulers, such that history recorded his name with the epithet “the much maligned sultan.” He reigned for less than one year: October 1516 – April 1517.

The trajectory of the Bourbon rulers of France’s “ancient regime” was not different: Emperor Louis XIV, also known as Louis the Great or the Sun King (1638 – 1715), ruled with iron fists, ignoring the pains and suffering of his people. He was credited as saying it would hold during his reign. Let his successors take care of themselves! Of course, things held during his reign! But on his death-bed, this king was said to have admonished his heir with these words: “Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects!” Incredible!

It is not today, then, that rulers started getting wiser after leaving office or on their way out of it; that they set bad examples, acting “do as I say and not as I do.”; or deliberately undertake war lightly, telling blatant and outright lies to justify it! Does that sound familiar? Iraq! Libya! Even our own Nigeria/Biafra civil war! The list is endless!

Louis XV, also known as Louis the Beloved (1710 – 1774), succeeded his great-grandfather at the age of five. Historians generally criticise his reign as being mindlessly corrupt (Does that sound familiar?) and for emptying France’s treasury on wars and frivolities, such that his grandson and successor, Louis XVI, reportedly inherited “a kingdom on the brink of financial disaster and gravely in need of political reform, laying the foundation for the French Revolution” Familiar, not so? But he, too, like his predecessors, escaped the consequences of his ruinous leadership, which, however, caught up with Louis the XVI, the very emperor who tried to bring about reforms.

Louis XVI became the last king of France before the fall of the monarchy during the French Revolution (1789). Historians record that this king tried to reform the French government in accordance with the Age of Enlightenment ideas. Though deemed as necessary, his reforms drew the ire of the nobility as it limited their powers; likewise, the masses protested his economic policies, which deregulated the grains market and led to an increase in the price of bread! Again, does that sound familiar?

The demand for bread was the rallying cry of the French masses as they marched against their king. Ebi n pa wa! We are hungry! What made matters worse was the insensitivity of Queen Marie Antoinette who taunted the protesters: “Why not demand for cake instead?”, she was reported as saying! In those days, cake was a delicacy reserved only for nobles. The revolutionists executed the king by guillotine on 21 January, 1793 and the queen nine months later on 16 October, 1793. Historians record the failures of Louis XVI as indecision and indecisiveness at critical moments. Also, his reforms came too little, too late. An impatient citizenry, long-suppressed, long-abused, long-oppressed, and having their back to the wall, needed far more than he was willing to give. And when he eventually showed the inclination to give more, they had already run out of patience and were baying for blood.

Mikhail Gorbachev suffered a similar fate in the now defunct USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic). His glasnost and perestroika were meant to institute reforms to address age-long grievances, but this, too, came too little, too late. As he opened the door a little, the people, seizing the initiative from him, went ahead to rend the Iron Curtain!

Do rulers learn from history?

History teaches lessons! The people have a huge capacity for long-suffering. Rulers have a tendency to take the people for granted. Reforms usually arrive at the point when the people’s anger is at boiling point. And they often come too little, too late. Once the dam of anger bursts, it is seldom possible to stem the catastrophe that flows out of it.

German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, says: “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history” Aldous Huxley puts it a little bit differently: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history”. This exposes what has been referred to as “humanity’s tragic cycle”, which is the repetition of errors through forgetfulness or willful arrogance. “History teaches; yet, we hardly listen”, says another. And as the Spanish philosopher and essayist, George Santayana, posits, those who fail to learn from history are often condemned to repeating it.

If US President Donald Trump makes good his promise to invade Nigeria, would he have learnt anything from history? And if Nigeria allows any such invasion to happen, would it also have learnt anything from history? Trump has not categorically said he will invade – like Russia invaded Ukraine and Trump is angry with that! – he has only said IF the Nigerian government allows the killing of Christians to continue and does nothing to stop it… However, Trump is a master of ambivalence; moreover, he has already put his country’s military on alert. “If we invade…”, he said. That is ominous enough, especially for a president that changed his country’s Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of War. Trump is a hawk, not a dove. For effect, he added that no more warning will be given if and when he decides to strike.

Why will Trump invade Nigeria?

But what are Trump’s reasons? He alleged that there is ongoing genocide against Christians by Islamic fundamentalists in Nigeria and that the government is not doing enough to stop it. He also complained against the extra-judicial killing of Christians arising from allegations, often false, of blasphemy against Islam’s Prophet Muhammed and the Muslims holy book, the Quran. Is Trump correct? Yes! Christians are being killed in the North and other parts of the country by Islamist fundamentalists; one such atrocity took place in my home town of Owo (Ogho) on 5 June, 2022 at St. Francis Catholic Church where at least 42 worshippers were killed in cold blood by Islamist terrorists.

Trump is also correct that before the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration, the Federal Government as well as many of the state governments in the northern parts of the country turned a blind spot to these atrocities. Notable Islamic leaders, northern traditional authorities, politicians and opinion leaders have been loud in their silence against the genocide walloping the North right under their very nose. “All it takes for evil to triumph”, says British statesman, Edmund Burke, “is for good men to do nothing.” If there are good men left in the Muslim North, they have virtually kept quiet in the face of the genocide wiping out Christians and non-Fulani elements in the North/Middle Belt regions of the country.

Is Muslim/Muslim ticket the culprit?

The Muhammadu Buhari administration is widely believed to have actively and deliberately compromised the efforts of the gallant men and officers of the country’s military to end terrorist incursions in many parts of the country. It is only after the exit of Buhari and the coming of Tinubu that some efforts, even though tepid to many, began to be made to tackle terrorism.

So, it is an egregious fallacy to argue that it is the Muslim-Muslim ticket of Tinubu/Shettima that is SOLELY or MAINLY responsible for ongoing genocide in the North. On the contrary, it was under the Muslim/Christian ticket of Muhammadu Buhari/Pastor Yemi Osinbajo that genocide was birthed, berthed, nurtured, reared, groomed, unleashed, supported and defended. Ironically, it is the Muslim/Muslim ticket of Tinubu/Shettima that is doing something to reverse the ugly trend. Have they succeeded? Not quite! Fifth columnists, remnants of the Buharists inside and outside the government, and the Northern Muslim elites that are in bed with Islamic fundamentalism are cogs in the wheel of progress in the fight against terrorism.

Are Trump’s motives contrived?

“Read my lips” is a famous quip credited to the senior Bush and 41st US president, George H. W. Bush. Understanding Trump, however, may require reading more than his lips or hips.  Is it true that the maverick US president has other motives for wanting to invade Nigeria, with the genocide/blasphemy allegations being convenient excuses? Most probable! Learning from history, America does not go to war except it has core national interests to advance, preserve or protect. It also goes to war to grab resources or cut down immediate or potential threats to its world dominance. Or to satisfy the hubris or eccentricism of its leaders, especially hawkish ones like its 40th president, Ronald Wilson Reagan. It is the viewpoint of some Nigerians that the country’s romance with BRICS; support for Hamas/Iran – which was hare-brained, anyway; and we did say so then! – rejection of gay/lesbian laws as well as the attempt to offload unwanted criminals on us from the US, were the actual reasons for the threatened invasion. Others include: America is jealous and afraid of our potential! The Yankees covet our resources. Having predicted the disintegration of Nigeria to happen in 2015 and it did not, America now seeks to force its prediction on us wily-nily.

Plausible as some of these arguments may seem – and fearful of the outcome of recent US interventions in other countries such as Iraq (Saddam Hussien), and Libya (Moumar Ghaddafi) – the fact of ongoing genocide in Nigeria must neither be overlooked nor swept under the carpet.

Let President Tinubu engage with President Trump and make a strong commitment to arrest the gale of genocide in the country. Let the US help in this regard. Let political Sharia, which is at the roots of Islamist extremism in the North, be abrogated. Nigeria is not a religious state. It is a secular state. Regardless of the majority in any state, the minority has rights that must be protected. No state in Nigeria should lay claim to being a Muslim or Christian state. And there should be no appeasement of or negotiation with terrorists, who must all be brought to book! Fifth columnists impeding the war effort, whoever they are and wherever they are, must be fished out and demobilised. Otherwise…