(No, that’s not a typo in the title.) 🙂
Elections are a citizenry’s chance to “treat” their nation: once in four years, Nigeria comes for its regular checkup (at the polls), expecting us to prescribe medicine in the form of leaders.
(Of course, as any doctor in these parts can tell you, patients often come merely to have you ratify their own treatment decision. This time, though, the “patient” has promised to hear us out, and we’re giving her the benefit of doubt.)
Still, I’m a little worried. It turns out some of my “colleagues” (voters) have gotten so used to being overridden they’re not planning to prescribe. They’re willing to go with whatever medicine the patient’s decided on. (Hopefully, there aren’t too many of those).
Others are yet to make up their mind what “treatment” is best. They say the available treatments have too many “side effects”. They’re right, but do we then leave the patient in the lurch? (And I think most of us agree this is a pretty bad case.) Of course, we’ll have to make tough decisions.
And that’s what it boils down to. What’s our diagnosis? What do we think ails our patient? What one thing, if it comes to that, should we address as paramount?
Some say power, others education, technology, health. I disagree. My first diagnosis is “cancer”, aka corruption. If we can address that, we can treat the rest. If we ignore it, nothing else will work. And in picking a treatment, I’m guided by a sole question: what “medicine” will best treat this cancer? Not how nice the medicine smells, or looks, or where it’s from; those are irrelevant. Even the side effects (fearful as they might be) are not the main thing. What matters is if it might work, given the diagnosis.
My treatment of choice? Buhari.