Date Published: 06/26/09
Nigerian Governors and the MOU with Harvard University: A Contrary View
By Jideofor Adibe
pcjadibe@yahoo.com
For critics, the recent report of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Programme on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution (PICCR) of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, United States, and the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF), was in bad taste. The suspicion is that Nigerian Governors, hiding under NGF, merely wanted to find another avenue for primitive accumulation, and an opportunity to acquire an ego-massaging honorific, perhaps a P.tH (passed through Harvard) in much the same way that the top military brass who passed through Staff College were entitled for life to the exclusive use of the suffix, ‘psc’ after their names.
Bayo Okauru, NGF Director General, was reported as saying that the purpose of the four-day trip to the USA by representatives of NGF during which the MOU was signed with PICCR, was to “to seek partnership with credible institutions in the United States to assist in building the capacity of the NGF Secretariat and exploring avenues for benchmarking global best practices especially in the operation of democracy in a federal system like Nigeria.” Okauru also said the trip was equally aimed at opening up a working relationship with their US counterparts, the National Governors Association (NGA).
While the pernicious behaviour of some Governors give legitimate grounds for suspecting any initiative from them, the near consensus that the deal is scandalous appears rather hasty. The controversial deal however raises a number issues, not only about the level of trust we have on our elected officials but also on our own temperament as ordinary citizens and critics, including possible implications of our intemperate utterances for the future willingness of foreign institutions to partner with public agencies from our country.
One, the formal reasons given for signing the MOU with PICCR should ideally be an opportunity for a sober discussion of the pros and cons of the deal. I believe that some of the critical concerns here ought to be: what benefits should accrue to the states that participate in the programme? What criteria should be used for impact assessment of the programme? How much will this cost? Have quotations been obtained from other credible alternative providers? Where will the training be delivered – in Nigeria or in the USA? How will a possible collaboration between NGF and NGA be used to strengthen the quality of governance in Nigeria and reduce corruption? Is there a way PICCR could include performance benchmarks by Governors as minimum qualifications for participating in the programme?
While the negative attention the trip and the MOU attracted is understandable, it is also in many ways unfortunate. In these days and age, few people will deny the value of continuous capacity building and networking in our extremely fast- changing world. In fact, even conservative institutions such as the police and the army make promotion to certain ranks dependent on an officer attending and passing some capacity-building courses. Similarly many public and private firms have long recognised the value of capacity building through in-service training, both at home and abroad. Academics who fail to constantly refresh their capacity for handling abstract ideas by following changing trends in their disciplines such as through regular participation in seminars and workshops are known to quickly degenerate into what celebrated political scientist Professor Ali Mazrui called ‘ex intellectuals’. Seen from this perspective therefore, a wholesale condemnation of the MOU with PICCR becomes akin to throwing away the baby with the bathwater. The impression is wrongly conveyed that we are a nation that does not understand the value of continuous capacity building or networking.
Two, is the question of whether it was morally wrong of PICCR to have entered the MOU with the NGF. I do not believe so. I also do not think it was necessarily wrong of the governors to have chosen Harvard University, especially if the prestige that is associated with the name of the institution could convince most of the governors to buy into the idea. In fact, the name of the institution could cut both ways – it could convince most of the governors to come on board the programme while Harvard, conscious of its worldwide reputation, is unlikely to lower standard to accommodate the ego of the governors. The institution could in fact be influenced to introduce ‘entry qualifications’, a sort of performance benchmarks that could be used in selecting the states that could qualify to participate in the programme. Using performance benchmarks as ‘entry qualification’ for the programme would in turn increase the attractiveness of the programme and lure the governors into striving harder to qualify to participate. Seen this way, lampooning Harvard, and almost accusing them of conniving to dupe the Nigerian state, seems overdone. As an academic institution, the JFK School of Government and the programmes within it such as PICCR, are there to provide training to those who meet their requirements, including customised training for those who need. It is not their duty to moralise to people who come to buy training about the sources of their funds or how they ought to use the funds under their care. Were these institutions to adopt such an approach, wouldn’t we also accuse them of bias and discrimination? Obviously the excessive negative media attention that this attracted boxed PICCR into a corner, forcing its leader, Professor Robert Rotberg, into rather desperate explanations that were clearly aimed at not allowing the MOU deal to rubbish the image of Harvard.
If we accept we all have an innate desire to obtain our training (including our children’s training) from the best institution we could afford, why should the governors be condemned for striving to obtain the training from one of the best providers available – even before we know the cost of the programme? The idea of criminalizing all public office holders is certainly one of the biggest disincentives to some credible people who would have otherwise made themselves available for public offices.
Three, power can have either a radicalising or de-radicalising effects on people. Among the Governors that reportedly travelled to the USA to sign the MOU with PICCR was ‘Comrade’ Adams Oshiomole. Though I am not necessarily against the MOU with PICCR, it is tempting to speculate on how Oshiomole would have reacted to the deal when he was the leader of the Nigerian Labour Congress? Has he sold out? Or was he really another opportunist who used the visibility provided by his leadership of the Nigerian Labour Congress to position himself to become governor of Delta state? Many people see Oshiomole as representing the constituency of the ‘professional critics’, (also known as the ‘usual suspects’) and they are eager to see what he does with the power that is now entrusted to him.
Jideofor Adibe is editor of the multidisciplinary journal, African Renaissance and publisher of the London-based Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd (www.adonis-abbey.com). He can be reached at: pcjadibe@yahoo.com
