WHEN in a recent Daily Trust (29 July, 2015) opinion Tunde Asaju wrote: “How did a President make and reverse himself so many times on issues of national, and sometimes even global, importance within two months in office”, he forgot that Mr. President was living true to the concept of that very change that swept him to power. Mr. Asaju also forgot to note that the apostle of any gospel is always at liberty to interpret and even re-interpret the notion of his gospel. This is simply what Mr. President is doing.

As it has always been stated, change is a constant feature of man and his environment. Every moment of a man’s life is symptomatic of change, the varying nature of that change notwithstanding. It could be internalised change within the person’s body, soul and spirit, or externalised change in conjunction with his fellow men and his environment. The fact remains that change is change, whatever form it assumes. Change could mean moving backwards as much as it could equally mean moving forward. It could equally mean moving from frying-pan to fire as much as it could mean moving from frying-pan to the dining-table. All is change in the strictest meaning of the word as much as it stands to be applied. Thus, even if former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan had won his second term bid to the Presidency, his victory remains a subject of change much as his defeat has come to signify.

But when change becomes a doctrinal instrument of achieving a given objective, then people are wont to surgically prod into its nature, dimension and most importantly its stated end result. This is the case with the APC slogan of change. Nigerians knew that the administration of Dr  Jonathan brought its notion, feature and vision of change to bear on the populace in difference to those of former Presidents, Umaru  Yar’Adua and Olusegun Obasanjo; but neither of them used the slogan “change” to actualise their mission to power. Thus, none of them could be judged by the change litmus test.

The APC masterfully used with strong salivating political flavour the concept of change to actualise their trip to power and Nigerians are watching through the political kaleidoscope of that change. And one means of watching that change is by resting on the fulcrum of the symbolic functionalism of the broom, the symbol of the party. But before looking at the broom phenomenon within the ideological ambit of the APC, one should first understand the existence within the broad spectrum of Nigeria’s magnetic-field of power politics, of two major poles of change– the “vertical” and the “horizontal” both radiating from the power-point of the Presidency.

The vertical pole of change explains the change of the administrative framework of governance. While horizontal change defines the hand-out of promises of a better life–– free education, mass employment, freedom from crime and security challenges, extermination of corruption, religious bigotry, sustainable power supply, good road network and strong economic base, among others. One fundamental feature of these two poles of change is that they often come with elements of ethno-religious and geo-political icing.

It is on the basis of the nature and dimensions of these elements of icing that one intends to diagnostically examine President Buhari’s notion of change within the broad spectrum of APC notion of change. In other words, how far has President Buhari’s prognosis of change allied with the change as enunciated by the APC manifesto which is symbolically defined by the broom?

Among the Igbo, the broom (Aziza) is one of the least adored household items. In fact, brooms are often kept off the prying eyes of guests in any household. Yet in whatever form it is made, it is picked up whenever the duty of putting the house in clean order calls. It is one household item with the least value in price yet playing a fundamental role as an unavoidable agent of cleanliness. The role of the broom thus presupposes the change of an existing state of filthiness to a new state of cleanliness. However, the most important character of the broom as an agent of cleanliness when properly handled is that it does its duty with equity and without discrimination or selective disposition.

Thus, having the broom as the symbol of the APC presupposes not just the party’s intent to bring a new order but most expectantly an auspicious one. The question here is: how far has APC broom swept in accordance with the dictates of the party’s campaign slogan without discrimination of any kind? What is the nature of its political icing? Is it clad in ethno-religious or geo-political icing? Or is it iced with nationalistic flavor? This is the political riddle before the APC paragons of change today.

But it needs to be told that the broom as presented by the APC as it symbol only represents a form that is only applicable to a section of the country. In other words, the APC broom is geo-politically iced, being the product of the predominantly Southern-based oil palm tree. Thus, among the core-Northern states, the broom as represented by the bundle of oil palm twigs does not apply to them as their own agent of cleanliness. As a rusty little Igbo boy replanted on the rusty terrains of the rusty Hausa towns of Gaya, Ladin Maikwoli, and Wudil in Kano State in 1971 after the Nigerian Civil War, what at all times and for all purposes represented the current APC broom is the tsinsiya, made of a bundle of thick grasses (Ciyawa). To the core-Northerner therefore, using the broom of the palm tree which in one way symbolises the culture and economy of the South not only defines change as seen by the Southern section of the country, but equally seems to instill the wider fear of Southern political domination.

In other words, even though the APC symbol appears physically in the form of oil palm broom, to President Buhari and all his kinsmen, what they see in the symbol is the tsinsiya. To the Yoruba co-travellers in APC therefore, it was like a case of “present your broom as the symbol and means of victory for the party but we’ll use our broom to do the sweeping”. The fact that the tsinsiya is already at work while the aziza is begging for a role remains one of the striking dilemmas of the Yoruba and other groups in APC today.

Beginning with the National Assembly election of officers, it needs not be retold that while the “APC broom” was humbly waiting at the International Conference Centre, Abuja for Presidential orders to commence its sweeping election, the tsinsiya arrogantly went ahead without waiting for Presidential fiat to sweep through both Chambers of the National Assembly. The NNPC, Armed Forces, DSS, INEC, and National Maritime Administration are all undergoing the same tsinsiya change within the vertical podium of change.

Under former President Jonathan, a Southerner, the North produced the Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, National Security Adviser, National Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission, INEC, and even the Principal Secretary to the President. Today, what Nigerians have are a President from the North, a Senate President from the North, a Speaker of the House of Representatives from the North, a National Security Adviser from the North, DG of DSS from the North, the Army Chief of Staff from the North, Chairman of Independent Electoral Commission from the North and still a Principal Secretary to the President from the North.

Nigerians were told that the exalted office of the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria would be abolished once Mr. President Buhari comes to power.

Today, Nigerians are seeing the abolition of this exalted office once popularized by Mrs. Miriam Babangida of blessed memory being transformed into the “Office of the Wife of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” What is the difference and why did Mrs. Aisha Buhari accept the Chairpersonship of African First Ladies from the wife of the President of Sierra Leone? Is this a case of the “Broom (Aziza) said abolish, but the tsinsiya says change?” Nigerians would also wish to know what has become of the Children’s Chapel at Aso Villa built under the tenure of President Goodluck Jonathan? Is it still functioning as such under the supervision of Vice president Yemi Osibajo, or has it been “changed” to something else?

That President Buhari is working in tandem with the functional ideology of the tsinsiya cannot be denied. But if it is conceptually taken that the notion of the broom is that of a change agent, then one may tend to believe that it does not matter which type of broom or style is adopted in impacting that change. The fact is that the broom is broom whatever form it is made, much as change is change, whatever form it assumes.

That Nigerians are reaping the change agenda of the APC is obvious. But that the change they presently see is in tandem with the change the APC dosed out to them during the election is another matter to be determined by the face of the evidence. But one thing Nigerians should understand in this clashing of change is that, that the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria concocted their Southern symbol of broom and handed it down to the APC as its symbol does not make it mandatory that President Buhari must use it the way the Action Congress caucus desired.

One thing is certain, as a Northerner with a clear political agenda before seeking the role of the Chief Executive of this nation, President Buhari is at will to use any type of broom he desires and in his own way in accordance with his desired objectives, and his understanding of the broom as applicable to his people. He cannot therefore be compelled or be stampeded into using the APC broom the way it is used by the Southerners. His option to use the tsinsiya broom rather than the oil palm broom (aziza) should therefore be judged on the scale of his objectives as a President Muhammadu Buhari from the North and not an Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu from the South, even though both belong to the same Islamic faith.

One fact is notable, Nigerians, especially the Southerners and Christians should not deceive themselves by believing that the “I belong to no one” and “I belong to everybody” inaugural slogans of the President will withstand the test of time. The obvious Nigerian position with respect to political spoils of office is likened to the carcass of the elephant­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ –– each man coming to cut his share at the same moment and with equal ferocity. But this definitive pattern of sharing the political spoils of office as far as the present political dispensation is concerned does not appear to carry the day.

The fact that no one group of hunters could have felled the elephant single-handedly is not debatable. What however stands to be debated today is the whole attempt by one group to appropriate the juicy parts of the elephant carcass. But as the Igbo would say, “onye ga anaputa nwa agu anu n’onu?” (who‘ll take the meat out of the mouth of the young tiger?), the Yoruba and their Middle Belt co-travelers in the boat of change are now watching haplessly as the most juicy parts of the elephant carcass are being devoured by the political tiger entrusted with leading the hunting expedition.

As far as the North, defined by the core-Muslim section is concerned, the present political carcass of the elephant is their inalienable right of possession. It does not matter which other people partook in hunting down the elephant. So long as they were at the head of the hunters, they must determine which portion should be apportioned to other hunters. To them, both the South- South/South-East and South-West, have taken their own chunk of the elephant meat. This is their turn, if not stated in words of but is evident by the emerging tsinsiya pattern of change.

But what Nigerians are reminding President Buhari is to take note of his promises in his change agenda. First is the routing of the Boko Haram insurgents within four months of his Presidency; and Nigerians are saddened that for the first time since the upsurge of Boko Haram insurgency, the nation’s Army Chief of Staff was ambushed by the insurgents and this is coming under the present administration. Second is his promise to publicly declare his assets which he has not done and Nigerians are waiting patiently; third, his promise of one free meal daily for every public Primary school pupil in Nigeria; and fourth, his promise to declare free education at all levels from primary to tertiary. Nigerians are also  So Nigerians are saying, whichever type of broom Mr. President decides to used, and in whatever manner, he should first fulfill his campaign promises.

In other words Nigerians are saying, for the records of history let the tsinsiya-tiger notion of change does a bit of concerted sit-in at the horizontal pole, for it is at this pole that Nigerians expect him to build profitably on the evident but unsung horizontal progressive change reminiscent of the sweeping expertise of the Aziza as directed by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan–– particularly in the former’s geo-political/ethno-religious constituency (the Core-North); name it–– the Almajiri Model Schools, thirteen extra-Federal Universities in the North, tethering Boko Haram challenge and enabling environment for the opposition to thrive.

Yet no sitting-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had been so much maligned, insulted and vilified by the North as Goodluck Ebele Jonathan in spite of the fact that he was in fact the only President or Head of State of the Federation that functionally addressed the vexatious issue of educational gap between the North and the South.

To President Muhammadu Buhari therefore, the tsinsiya the people expect from him must be horizontal. In applying his tsinsiya the President should not foreclose the fact that the bane of the Northern political leadership has always been their tendency to focus on the vertical pole of change at the expense of the horizontal, even at the varying stages of Nigeria’s history when they had the entire resources of the Federation at their disposals. If Nigerians would not wish away the eternal fact of history, then it needs to be stated that before the current General Muhammadu Buhari dispensation, the North had produced eight Nigeria’s President/Head of State from the North, thus making President Buhari the ninth. Yet, as the Chairman of Northern States Elders Forum (NOSCEF) Evangelist Matthew Owojaiye once asked, “what did these 8 Heads of State except Sir Ahmadu Bello do for the people? How come the people are poor when their own people have been in power most of the time?”

That the money of what is today defined as the mainstay of Nigeria’s economy–– Petroleum, was first tasted by Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, when he superintended the first oil export from Nigeria’s shores to Rotterdam on February 17, 1958 cannot be disputed. That this first crude oil export was drilled from the present Bayelsa State towns of Oloibiri and Afam cannot also be disputed. Yet it took an indigene of Bayelsa State the frustrating period of 51 years to superintend over the same oil resouces as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and still with unqualified acts of vilification.

That General Muhammadu Buhari has the requisite tsinsiya experience to actualize his vision of change cannot be denied. He has been State Military Governor, Federal Commissioner (Minister) of Petroleum, First Chairman of NNPC, Military Head of State, Executive Chairman of Petroleum Trust Fund, and now President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation. The one fundamental question begging for answer here is, how possible is it for General Buhari to achieve under a democracy with all the appurtenances of checks and balances what he could not achieve under a state of absolute political power. But how far he can go in this change tsinsiya agenda remains a matter for history to judge.

Dr. Tony Nwaezeigwe, Coordinating Research Director, Nigeria Civil War & Genocide Research Group,   wrote from Lagos.