The protests have escalated to a volume that surpasses the usual complaints of marginalization from the north. This situation prompted a closer examination of the appointment list, resulting in further confusion. The question arises: what exactly is the North protesting?
The issue has been framed in various ways; some accuse President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of "Yorubanizing" appointments and governance, while others label it as marginalization or nepotism. But what is the true situation? Do the Yoruba have a greater share of appointments in this administration compared to the North? Or, in the context of Nigeria's political power-sharing, is the South receiving preferential treatment in appointments? The answer appears to be a clear no, leading to further inquiry into the real issue at hand.
Statistics are often reliable, and undeniable facts illuminate the situation. An analysis of appointment distribution under the Tinubu administration reveals that North Central region received the most appointments, followed by North West and then South West, despite the President’s origin from the latter. It seems he aimed for national cohesion, providing more appointments to other regions than his own, likely to ensure a smoother governance that aligns with his plans for the nation.
Delving into the appointment distribution as per the power-sharing understanding, it becomes evident that the North still retains the majority of such positions. With 55 percent of appointments going to the North and 45 percent to the South, the North is still in a more favorable position, despite the ongoing protests.
This prompts a deeper examination and reveals a fundamental issue overlooked by President Tinubu.
In the South, appointments are generally accepted without the demand that they go to specific individuals or groups. However, in the North, this has sparked discontent as a class system or cabal traditionally dictates who receives appointments. Those considered outside this group are not regarded as part of the region’s appointments.
The real grievance of Northern politicians appears to be that appointments are being made to individuals outside their established circles, ignoring the familial and cabalistic rotation expected in the region.
To Tinubu, the essential criterion for appointments is competence, regardless of regional origin, yet this approach has not been well-received among those in the North who feel excluded from the decision-making process.
This backlash indicates a mindset akin to a caste system, where only certain individuals believe they are entitled to positions of power while others are left waiting for their share.
What is particularly surprising about the Northern outcry is its inconsistency; in the previous administration, those who are now vocal were aware of the imbalanced appointments but remained silent. This raises questions about their previous compliance: were the appointments made within their circle the reason for their silence, or did they adopt a principle of turning a blind eye when their own were in power?
Asiwaju seems determined to focus solely on capability and performance, seeking out competent individuals irrespective of their social standing.
In contemporary times, it is disheartening to witness a mindset that deems fellow citizens unworthy of service or appointments. Does this imply a true imbalance in power that must remain confined within certain families or groups in the North?
In reality, the notion of lopsided appointments that disadvantage the North does not hold. The true issue lies in the fact that appointments have not been confined to the established cabals. It is crucial to confront reality and focus on development, instead of being hindered by outdated caste ideologies. Ultimately, we are all equal.
Writing from Abuja, Bamidele Lateef Atoyebi is part of the BAT Ideological and Accountability Group.
