I Just Read Emir Sanusi's Response To The His Critics

I just read Emir Sanusi's response to the his critics, especially the allegations against him from the state government. This is how you respond to your critics: measured, punchy, accessible, and witty. However, as I was reading the response, having followed the opinions supporting and opposing the emir's foray into the realm of public commentary and political critique, it occurred to me that there is an underlying issue that needs to be resolved in Northern Nigeria, nay all of Nigeria.

What role, if any, do we want our emirs to play in public life? Do we want them to vacate the public sphere, suspend their critical thinking faculties and professional competences, and censor themselves? Do we want them to be seen and not heard, and to subordinate their voices to the ceremonial and customary demands of their offices?

We seem not have made up our minds. There is no consensus. Some support a robust, vocal emirship; others do not and consider it a violation of the tenets of the traditional institution. It seems to me that this dilemma has to be resolved, and that this is a more fundamental debate to have than one on the conduct or public commentary of Emir Sanusi.

This is not the first time I've encountered this tension between the conservative demands of the traditional rulership institution and the pressures of politics and punditry in a modern state. Several years ago, I visited a prominent emir in a Northwestern state. A US-educated, well travelled, well read, and deeply intellectual emir, he espoused very progressive views to me on many national issues (Emir Sanusi is not the only "progressive" emir in Northern Nigeria; he's only the most vocal).

He told me that on many occasions he felt like intervening in national debates by publishing op-eds in national newspapers and even considered doing so under a pseudonym. The only thing that kept him from doing so, he said, was that his cover might be blown and that his detractors would latch onto it to undermine him.

He also told me that he had in fact written an entire book analyzing and offering informed opinions and prescriptions on some of the problems of the North and Nigeria as a whole but that he couldn't publish it under his name and that doing so under a pen name might not guarantee him full anonymity.

Besides, he said he would rather own his own voice and be associated with the views in the book, a thing that his position as emir would not allow him to do. I came away from that encounter feeling deeply empathetic to my emir friend. He was wrestling with a dilemma that Emir Sanusi seems to be currently navigating.

I saw a man hungry for ideas, itching to jump into the national discourse, and feeling like he was not ready to retire from the realm of ideas, debate, and professional contributions, a man a little frustrated with and imprisoned by the strictures of his office. I saw a man torn between his desire to represent his people on the terms established by his ancestors and his own desire to contribute to Nigeria in the secular political space.

That's when I began reflecting on this tension between the traditional and the modern, between the nation-state and its urgent challenges on one hand and the protocols of emirship on the other, a tension that now seems to have come to a head in Emir Sanusi's public commentary and reactions to it. A a tension that is now dividing opinion in Northern Nigeria, a tension which Emir Sanusi has come to embody.

I don't know how or if this dilemma/tension will be resolved, but whatever resolution or consensus is reached, it will have ramifications beyond Emir Sanusi and Kano. Unknown to the emir, he may be redefining the role of the traditional emirate institution of Northern Nigeria. He may have broached a debate that will transform the way we see emirs and traditional rulers in Northern Nigeria and all of Nigeria.