The Bitter Truth About MKO Abiola: Funding Coups for Political Ambition
Moshood Kashimawo Olawale (MKO) Abiola is a name that resonates profoundly in Nigeria’s political and historical landscape. Celebrated by many as the symbol of democracy, especially for his role in the annulled June 12, 1993, presidential election, Abiola's legacy is often portrayed in glowing terms. However, a closer examination reveals a more complex and controversial figure. The bitter truth is that Abiola funded at least two military coups in the 1980s with the expectation that the military leaders would eventually cede power to him, enabling his rise as a democratic president. This revelation casts a shadow on his democratic credentials and prompts a reevaluation of his motivations and methods.
Abiola’s Background and Ambitions
MKO Abiola was a successful businessman before he ventured into politics. His wealth and influence were substantial, thanks to his business acumen and extensive connections both within Nigeria and internationally. Abiola’s aspirations for political power were no secret, and he harbored ambitions of becoming Nigeria’s president. However, the path to power in Nigeria was fraught with complexities, given the nation's history of military coups and political instability.
The Political Climate of the 1980s
The 1980s were a tumultuous period in Nigerian politics, marked by frequent military interventions. The civilian government, which came into power in 1979, was short-lived. Economic difficulties, corruption, and widespread dissatisfaction with the ruling civilian regime created an environment ripe for military coups. During this period, the military's role in politics was significant, often seen as both a stabilizing and destabilizing force. Abiola’s Role in Funding Coups
It is within this context that Abiola's involvement in coup funding becomes apparent. Evidence suggests that Abiola provided financial support for at least two military coups in the 1980s. His objective was not merely to support the overthrow of unpopular regimes but to position himself as a key political figure whom the military would favor and ultimately hand over power to as a civilian president.
1. The 1983 Coup Against Shagari
The first significant instance was the coup against President Shehu Shagari on December 31, 1983. Shagari’s government, plagued by corruption and economic mismanagement, had lost the confidence of many Nigerians, including powerful elites like Abiola. It is alleged that Abiola, disillusioned with Shagari’s leadership and sensing an opportunity, financially backed the coup led by Major General Muhammadu Buhari. While Abiola’s involvement was not overtly publicized, his financial muscle and political influence were critical in the success of the coup.
2. The 1985 Coup Against Buhari
The second instance was the 1985 coup against Major General Muhammadu Buhari, led by Major General Ibrahim Babangida. Despite initially supporting Buhari, Abiola became disenchanted with his austere and disciplinarian approach. Abiola’s expectations of a quick transition to civilian rule under Buhari were dashed, leading him to throw his support behind Babangida, who promised a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to governance. Again, Abiola’s financial resources were instrumental in the orchestration of the coup, reflecting his strategic pivot to align with those who he believed would facilitate his political ambitions.
The Implications of Abiola’s Actions
Abiola’s involvement in funding coups had profound implications for Nigeria’s political landscape and his legacy. While his financial support for military interventions may have been driven by a desire to see better governance, it also highlighted a willingness to circumvent democratic processes to achieve his political objectives. This approach stands in stark contrast to the democratic ideals he later championed during the June 12, 1993, presidential election.
1. Undermining Democracy
By supporting military coups, Abiola contributed to the cycle of instability that plagued Nigeria. Coups, by their nature, undermine democratic institutions and processes. Abiola’s actions suggest a pragmatic, if not cynical, approach to politics where the end justified the means. This undermines his later portrayal as a staunch democrat, raising questions about the consistency and sincerity of his commitment to democratic principles.
2. Political Opportunism
Abiola’s strategy can be seen as a form of political opportunism. His financial backing of coups was not merely about supporting regime change but about positioning himself favorably with the military elite. This opportunism became evident when Babangida annulled the June 12 election, which Abiola won. Babangida’s betrayal was a stark reminder that alliances forged through undemocratic means are inherently unstable and unreliable.
Reassessing Abiola’s Legacy
Given these revelations, it is crucial to reassess Abiola’s legacy. While his role in the struggle for democracy in the 1990s cannot be denied, his earlier actions complicate the narrative. Abiola was a complex figure whose contributions to Nigeria’s political development were both significant and contradictory.
1. Champion of Democracy or Political Manipulator?
Abiola’s later fight for democracy and his ultimate martyrdom for the cause during the annulled June 12 election should be acknowledged. However, this must be balanced against his earlier involvement in undemocratic processes. It raises the question: was Abiola a true champion of democracy or a political manipulator who sought power through any means available?
2. The Need for Nuanced Historical Narratives
History often simplifies complex figures into heroes or villains. Abiola’s story is a reminder that the truth is often more nuanced. His contributions to democracy were real, but so were his attempts to gain power through undemocratic means. A nuanced understanding of his legacy can provide valuable lessons for contemporary Nigerian politics, emphasizing the importance of consistency in the pursuit of democratic ideals.
Conclusion
MKO Abiola remains a pivotal figure in Nigeria’s history, symbolizing both the potential and pitfalls of political ambition. His financial support for coups in the 1980s, motivated by a desire to position himself for presidential power, underscores the complex interplay between political ideals and personal ambition. While his later fight for democracy is commendable, it is essential to recognize the contradictions in his approach. Abiola’s legacy is a testament to the multifaceted nature of political leadership and the importance of pursuing democratic change through consistent and principled means.
