Tag: Rishi Sunak

  • Japa: What you should consider before applying for a UK degree

    Japa: What you should consider before applying for a UK degree

    British universities are being accused of exploiting students by offering overpriced courses, and the UK government has unveiled plans to restrict low-quality degrees in an effort to protect students.

    The government insists that these “low value” degrees offer little in the way of job prospects and earning potential but still leave students saddled with debt.

    UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said too many students were being sold a university education that would not get them a decent job, explaining that the crackdown on “rip-off degrees” would boost apprenticeships to ensure students get the best deal possible.

    “The UK is home to some of the best universities in the world and studying for a degree can be immensely rewarding. But too many young people are being sold a false dream and end up doing a poor-quality course at the taxpayers’ expense that doesn’t offer the prospect of a decent job at the end of it.

    “That is why we are taking action to crack down on rip-off university courses, while boosting skills training and apprenticeships provision. This will help more young people to choose the path that is right to help them reach their potential and grow our economy,” Sunak said.

    Under the new policy, courses that do not have a high proportion of graduates getting a professional job, going into postgraduate study or starting a business will be capped.

    However, critics have argued that most of the institutions and courses that will be affected are the ones that have a high proportion of working-class and ethnic minority students.

    Additionally, those working in higher education have said that this will undeniably affect the revenue of some universities as this measure is likely to act as a “red flag” to students who will not want to be enrolled in a course that has been deemed “low value”.

    The shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson, said: “This is simply an attack on the aspirations of young people and their families by a government that wants to reinforce the class ceiling, not smash it.”

    The government has yet to release details on how they are assessing “low value” degrees, but it is likely to be based on the Office for Students B3 framework.

    The framework sets out the conditions that degrees need to meet in order to be considered “high value” and the key metrics are continuation rates, completion rates and graduate outcomes.

    Prime Minister Sunak insists that this new policy is at least partly intended to reinforce the message that “you don’t have to go to university to succeed in life”.

  • Britain’s PM, Rishi Sunak under fire for “not coming out clean”

    Britain’s PM, Rishi Sunak under fire for “not coming out clean”

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is under investigation after facing allegations of a possible failure to declare the shares his wife holds in a childcare agency that was boosted by the Budget.

    Parliament’s standards watchdog opened the inquiry into the prime minister under rules demanding lawmakers are “open and frank” when declaring their interests.

    The investigation relates to the shares Akshata Murty holds in Koru Kids, a government source told the PA news agency on Monday.

    The government said the prime minister will clarify how it was declared as a ministerial interest, rather than to the Commons.

    As lawmakers returned from their Easter break, an update from Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Daniel Greenberg showed he had opened the investigation under the Commons code of conduct on Thursday.

    “Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its committees, and in any communications with ministers, members, public officials or public office holders,” the relevant section reads.

    A government spokeswoman responded: “We are happy to assist the commissioner to clarify how this has been transparently declared as a ministerial interest.”

    Sunak faced demands to “come clean” about his family shares last month after being questioned by lawmakers over why the childcare policy favoured private firms.

    Appearing before the Liaison Committee, he did not mention Ms Murty’s shares in the firm, in which she has been listed as a shareholder on Companies House.

    A fortnight earlier, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced a pilot of incentive payments of £600 ($740) for childminders joining the profession.

    Questioning why the sum doubles to £1,200 if workers sign up through an agency, Labour MP Catherine McKinnell asked if Sunak had any interests to declare.

    “No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way,” Sunak said.

    Koru Kids, which is one of six childminder agencies listed on the Government’s website, welcomed the new incentives in the Budget as “great”.

    At the time the possible conflict of interest emerged, Sunak’s press secretary said the interest would be included in the updated statement of ministers’ interests, due out in May.

    But it seems Greenberg’s investigation appears to centre on whether the prime minister should have declared the interest to lawmakers.

    Sunak wrote to the Liaison Committee earlier this month to say he would like to “clarify for the Parliamentary record that this interest has rightly been declared to the Cabinet Office”.

    He said the new list of ministerial interests, which has not been updated for nearly a year, would be published “shortly”.

    Deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said delay has “left a transparency black hole which is enabling the Prime Minister and those he has appointed to dodge proper scrutiny of their affairs”.

    “If Rishi Sunak has got nothing to hide, he should commit to publishing the register before May’s elections so the public can see for themselves,” she added.

    It was last compiled by Lord Geidt, who resigned as former prime minister Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser after a tumultuous period under the then-prime minister.

    Sunak did not appoint a successor as ministerial interests adviser until December, when Sir Laurie Magnus took on the role.

    The prime minister entered government in October promising “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”.

    He has since been fined by police for not wearing a seatbelt, adding to the fixed-penalty notice he was handed for a lockdown breach alongside Mr Johnson.

    Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said: “Another day and another accusation of a Conservative Prime Minister bending the rules.

    “After months of Conservative sleaze and scandal, the public just want a government which is focused on the country, rather than saving their own skin”.

  • Not a Politics of Who You Know! – By Valentine Anaweokhai

    Not a Politics of Who You Know! – By Valentine Anaweokhai

    By Rev. Fr. Valentine Anaweokhai

    Recently my attention was drawn to an online video where a man remarked that in some other parts of the world, when someone is in search of a job, some questions he may likely be asked include; what is your qualification? What can you do or what do you have to offer? He continued, but in Nigeria, getting that same job will depend majorly on who you know? Who is recommending you? To some extent, this is true. My own personal experiences would further affirm it. 

    A couple of times, people have approached me to assist them reach out to somebody in position of authority for employment or admission into a tertiary institution. They immediately tell you that in Nigeria, it is all about who you know. Worse still, if you have some money to give and bribe your way around, you may likely be fortunate but never always. In other words, it is all about who you know. Getting a contract, appointment, favour, job offer, admission, pass, or approval of any sort, you either need to know somebody or someone who knows someone who is connected or related to the person in charge. It is called the “Politics of Who You Know.” I have been both a victim and beneficiary of this kind of politics too.

    This kind of politics, wherever it is being played, be it in religious organizations, government agencies and ministries, and even in private settings, seems to be the order of the day, while a person’s money, connections, position, status, qualification, and power become an added advantage. Otherwise, you go nowhere and cannot get too far. Sometimes, even to get a Nigerian passport in the USA could take a longer or shorter period depending on who you know. This culture appears to be a Nigerian thing even when the institution is located outside the country. 

    It is rather unfortunate that when people apply for visas, admission, and job opportunities outside the shores of Nigeria, they do not need to know somebody or anybody in the country’s embassy, consulate, university or organization before such applications are honored and granted. Most often, answers are given based on merit, qualification, and prospects of the applicant. I have personal experiences to buttress this point, but that is a story for another day.

    Only recently, the United Kingdom elected a new Prime Minister in the person of Rishi Sunak, a British citizen but of Indian descent. His confirmation as the Prime Minister has been greeted also with racist rebuffs, but the fact remains that for now, he is the man considered most apt, qualified and fit to help the country out of her current economic challenges. He has even promised not to leave behind, any debts for the next generation. If it were to be solely and purely the politics of who you know, then he most probably would not have become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. But that is a society that acknowledges, cherishes and promotes virtue, merit, and qualification in leadership and the beauty of multiculturality over and above banal racial, tribal and ethnic bigotry.

    In the Gospel of St. Mark 10:35-45, we read how the sons of Zebedee, James and John approached Jesus and made a request, saying; Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you… Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory… Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” In Matthew’s gospel, it was their mother who approached Jesus for the request (Matt. 20:20-28). Let us not be oblivious of the fact that Jesus had earlier said, “I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13). This may have pre-informed why they approached him and said, “we want you to do for us, what ever we ask of you.” 

    Whether it was their mother or they themselves who approached Jesus, what were they thinking? That sitting at the right hand and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom was all about who you know? Or how well and fast you can press buttons to have your way into God’s kingdom? Probably, they wanted to play the ‘politics of who you know’, but this time, it backfired. Obviously, Jesus didn’t grant the request, but told them it wasn’t his to grant such, but the privilege was meant for those for whom it has been prepared.

    Did Jesus lack the powers and capacity to grant such requests? Not at all. Didn’t he say whatever is asked in his name he will grant? Surely, he did. Jesus does not, and cannot contradict himself. Can he grant us all that we ask him? Yes, he can. But does he grant us all that we ask him? No, he does not. Then why? Jesus knows that it is not all we ask that is good for our well being and salvation. He also knows that certain things we ask come from impure, insincere, and inordinate desires and motives. Sometimes such motives are for oppressive, domineering, showmanship, and prideful reasons. Such was the motive of James and John. St James reminds us;You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:2-3).

    Jesus’ reply that sitting at his right and left hands was meant for those for whom it has been prepared would imply, on the surface, that such privilege was meant for special people. In other words, it was not meant for everybody. Does not that sound discriminatory, exclusive, and selective? Does it not imply some level of favoritism and self-contradiction? After Peter had returned from the home of Cornelius and was faced with the strict and severe criticisms from the brethren, he explained to them saying: “Now I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is\ right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). So, Jesus cannot be accused of expressing favoritism.

    Meanwhile, earlier on, he had warned: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14). Jesus’ statement could be interpreted to also mean that entering into heaven would not be based on political, religious, ethnic, and socio-cultural considerations, but rather, on one’s commitment and ability to go through the way that leads to eternal life. It will not depend on who you know, who is recommending you, your position and status in society and church, or how much you have got. 

    Rather, it is your faith and good works. It will depend on one’s ability and cooperation with divine grace to shun sin, evil and the distractions of the world, and be able to stand against injustice, favoritism, partiality, discrimination, greed,  corruption, unfair treatment of fellow humans, oppressive regimes and all forms of subjugation and domination. It will depend on ones ability to do good and shun evil. At the end of the day, Jesus gives us a model to adopt: he came to serve, not to be served. He wants us to be at the service of the poor, marginalized, oppressed and unjustly treated, rather than the other way round. I guess James and John eventually got the message. 

    I hope we too also get the message that the Politics of Who You Know may not always fetch a person what he wants, or take him where he wants, especially if he does not work hard, remain focussed and committed to certain core values and virtues of life, and keep doing the right thing. By extension, this might likely be the determinant factor of who wins the forthcoming presidential election in Nigeria, come 2023. Will the politics of who you know that breeds racism, tribalism, bigotry, and nepotism play out this time around? However, yes, the fact remains that the politics of who you know will not take anyone to heaven in the final analysis.

     

    Rev. Fr. Valentine Anaweokhai

    anavalobee@gmail.com

  • Rishi Sunak: Not blackmailing, but whitewashing Britain – By Owei Lakemfa

    Rishi Sunak: Not blackmailing, but whitewashing Britain – By Owei Lakemfa

    Rishi Sunak, 42, walked into 10 Downing Street, London this Tuesday, October 25, 2022 as the youngest Prime Minister of ancient Britain. He is the third occupant of that residence within 51 days. But perhaps the most said about his rise, is not his capability or ability, education or competence, vision or ideas.

    Rather, that he is the first man of colour to take up residence in that famous address. This is quite a slippery road to take. Perhaps it is meant that Sunak is not, at least originally, an Englishman. It is said he is Indian, of Asian origins. Not really.

    Yes, his forbears came from Punjab, but his father, Yashvir was a Kenyan born under colonialism. His mother, Usha, was Tangayikan, before that country merged with Zanzibar to become present day Tanzania. So, his parents were Africans and they met neither in Africa nor Asia, but in England where the new Prime Minister was born British.

    What can be said about Sunak is that unlike one of his predecessors, Boris Johnson, he does not try to be more English than the English. Johnson was the grandson of a Turk, Ali Kemal Bey, from Kalfat and his father, Stanley Kemal, adopted the name of their maternal grandmother, Margaret Johnson.

    A man, who unlike Johnson, does not need to strive to be more English than the English is King Charles III. He is the Monarch who in his first two months on the British throne, has had two Prime Ministers. As I watched the likeable Monarch and Sunak smile, and, against the background of peoples origins, I reflected that King Charles is of Normandy, northern France ancestry.

    That his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, was a descendant of William of Normandy who was the Duke of Normandy from 1035-1087.  In 1066, he crushed the English led by King Harold II in the Battle of Hastings, and, having conquered the English, became known as William the Conqueror or William the Bastard. After his victory, he installed himself on the English throne taking the title, King William I. Until this day, his descendants, including Charles III, sit on the British throne. But, wait a minute, do you know William the Normand was not French? No, he was a Viking, Scandinavian ancestry.

    Before I forget, while Sunak’s father was Kenyan of Indian ancestry, King Charles III’s father, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was a Greek. He came from Corfu, in Greece. His father, Prince Andrew was the younger brother of King Constantine of Greece. The mother of Prince Philip, was German. The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle whose love moved Prince Harry from Britain, has just revealed that she is 43 per cent Nigerian. What does that change? For me, nothing. It is just like President Barack Obama being of African origin, did not change America’s policies towards our continent and did not stop his Presidency deliberately destroying Libya, turning it from a very rich nation into a basket case.

    His administration’s destruction of that beautiful African state, released the waters of the huge dam of terrorists and their weapons which flooded the Sahel. This is mainly responsible for terrorists flooding countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Cameroun, Chad and Nigeria. It is not that the showers of terrorism were not present in these places but I am referring to the huge  volume of terrorists rain and the subsequent floods.

    I have gone through this route to make the point that we all have our origins. So the narrative of the new British Prime Minister should not be primarily his ancestry, but his ideology  and what he represents. The fact that the Tory Party is in disarray and turned to Sunak is not due to his ancestry, or a  blackmail of the British establishment at one of its lowest points. This whitewash was not planned.

    Rather, it is his conservative ideology, which if anything, would be injurious to people of colour. For instance, he pledged to press through the programme of bundling illegal migrants and asylum seekers to detention in  Rwanda. It is an inhuman policy presented as the ‘Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ under which asylum seekers arriving  in Britain are sent on a one-way ticket for “processing” in that African country either to claim asylum there or seek it in a third country. For this, Rwanda is to be paid 120 million pounds apart from the processing fees. Yet, the largest group to be affected are from India.

    This scheme reminds me of the infamous Australian system of sending asylum seekers who attempt to reach the country by boat, to detention in Papua New Guinea. It is not called detention but ‘processing’ and this can take up to seven years after which the victims are ready to sign any agreement thrust in their faces. The war in Ukraine has led to high inflation in some European countries and triggered mass protests in countries, including  the United Kingdom, UK. But Sunak  promises to increase defence spending, redouble spending  on Ukraine and “reinforce our policy of total support for Ukraine that Boris has so ably led”.

    However, the international problem Sunak has is not Russia.  The new poster boy of an integrated, multinational and culturally assimilated Great Britain, sees China as the obstacle to universal peace and prosperity. He declares: “China and the Chinese Communist Party represent the largest threat to Britain and the world’s security and prosperity this century”. Did Brexit cause part of the current economic crises in the United Kingdom? Sunak, who backed Brexit in the 2016 referendum believing it will grow the economy, does not think so. Therefore, he would  further the divide and hopes to make the divorce from the European Union irreversible.

    If a country goes through the severe shocks the UK has undergone and the Conservative Party, which is like the bus conveying the country to its destination, is faulty, it is logical to stop and effect needed repairs to prevent further breakdowns; but the party prefers to change drivers. Two months ago it changed from Boris Johnson to Elizabeth Truss, now to Rishi Sunak.

    Its determination is to drive the country until January 2025 when  new general elections would be held. British democracy is so beautiful that when the people make a choice by voting a political party into power, even if that party becomes an albatross, they are expected to do nothing but grumble and wait for the general elections which holds every  quinquennial.

    Who knows whether Sunak will be lucky enough to drive the Conservative Party bus to the next elections without it breaking down. But these are times Britain needs leaders who are full of ideas, vision, decisive and  pro-people. I miss Jeremy Corbyn.

  • Briturkey, Britaly and fear of Britainistan – By Azu Ishiekwene

    Briturkey, Britaly and fear of Britainistan – By Azu Ishiekwene

    In a widely shared story last week, The Economist likened the political carnage in Britain to the situation in Italy in the 1940s. Italy was a major theatre of the First World War at the end of which the country was in ruins. 

    It is so unstable that in spite of the tenuous hold of the Christian Democrats on power for much of the time, the country has produced 69 governments since 1945, an average of one and a half governments every two years. Italy’s instability is the joke of Europe.

    Britain is not doing badly. With three prime ministers in 50 days, not to mention the execution of four chancellors of the exchequer already, with the fifth barely finding his feet, the UK is the new butt of European jokes, its modern-day Italy – or if you like, Britaly – however much Italians may dislike the comparison.

    But before Britaly there was Briturkey. At the peak of its powers, Turkey, or what was then the Ottoman Empire, controlled much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, stretching to the borders of Egypt.

    Decline set in around the 18th and 19th century as the empire was soon consumed by corruption, inefficiency and instability. Turkey, under the Sultan, became not just an embarrassment to itself but also a huge joke among the powers at the time.

    Russian Czar Nicholas I, fed up with the hubris of the Turkish Empire, famously described Turkey as “the sick man of Europe.” He may well have been speaking of Britain, or if you like, Briturkey – today’s sick man of Europe.

    Perhaps the emergence on Tuesday of Rishi Sunak as Britain’s third Prime Minister would halt the slide into chaos. But before Sunak, let’s go back to Brexit, the moment when the chaos gathered pace and finally unravelled. 

    Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson led the campaign. They cashed in on the growing right-wing sentiment in the country at the time and converted it into a liveried Brexit bus, fuelled with lies, hysteria and empty promises. 

    They forged numbers, exaggerated differences and painted a false picture of the El Dorado that the UK would become if only the country threw off the yoke of Brussels and took back control of its borders and politics again. Freedom was the buzz word. With the rise of Donald Trump and the events in the US at the time, the Bo-Jo frenzy was red meat for the right wing.

    It’s true that Britain, a largely food-importing country, has always been at the receiving end of Europe’s poor trade practices, especially its obsession with farm subsidies and shambolic regulations.

    But the 27 other members of the union, who valued Britain’s membership, were not willing to negotiate, especially in a hugely interdependent and globalised world. Even after Britain’s exit, the benefits of membership have still not been fully dismantled in the tangled mess that the Irish sea border has become. 

    Britain has always been ambivalent about Europe, which was why it formed the spectacularly unsuccessful rival European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1959.

    The French, often impatient, but unfailingly contemptuous of British coyness, kept the UK out of the Common Market (a precursor of the EU) until after the death of General De Gaulle in 1970. After a referendum, the UK joined the EU in 1973. But the same demons which always kept it out, only now compounded by its discovery of oil (the counterweight against the European farm subsidies) and nationalism, stoked its eventual departure in 2020.

    Two years down the road, the return of £350 million on the NHS alone which Boris Johnson and co promised on the Brexit campaign bus is turning out worse than a fantasy: it’s con-artistry! Johnson got Brexit done alright, but he has left British politics in chaos and its economic rating slightly better than junk bonds. Its political reputation has taken a beating reminiscent of Dardanelles and the Suez Canal. 

    Sure, Britain has better flexibility to manage its affairs and its way of life. It is free from the shambolic regulations of Brussels and, let’s face it, managed COVID-19 far better than most European countries, including its traditional ally on the other side of the pond. It even has an unemployment figure lower than that of most countries in Europe and an independent Central Bank.

    But this modest achievement has come at a very high price. European workers have shunned the UK with devastating consequences for services, especially the fishing, agriculture and the health sectors. 

    Britain is broken. Inflation is at a record high, with basic food prices going through the roof and about 33 percent of the population outside fixed mortgage contracts now struggling to pay. 

    Savings have been damaged, pensions are tanking and public services stretched to breaking point. The British economy, which was 90 percent of the German economy six years ago, has shrunken to 70 percent, and could shrink further as another recession looms.

    On top of all of this, the Russia-Ukraine war which has destabilised global supply chains, has also exposed Britain to energy shocks significantly worse than might have been the case in the comfort of the EU zone. 

    This is the difficult job that Sunak has taken. He steps up weeks after the Tory Party nearly exhausted its cardboard list of potential leaders that turned up Liz Truss who will now be remembered for her dizzying flip-flops and disastrous mini-budget.

    Former Lib-Dem-turned-Tory, former Abolitionist-turned-pro-Monarchist, former Remainer-turned-Brexiteer and former Wage-cutter-turned-Spendthrift, the lady, Truss, was always for the turning. And this time, she didn’t disappoint. Yet, as the Tory party rank-and-file contemplates their current misery, “otherness”, in this case the migrant, whether British-born or not, will be the scapegoat.

    There were two main reasons why Tory MPs didn’t want Sunak, and both have little to do with his competence. The first, of course, was his rebellion against Johnson, which opened the floodgates.

    The second, which Britain squirms to discuss, but which nonetheless is rearing its head in radio phone-in programmes, is his race. Having Sadiq Khan, London Mayor of Asian origin was difficult enough, especially at a time when Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle is causing some discomfort in the chemistry of the royal heritage.

    By some accounts, the UK has had at least 11 non-English prime ministers. But never in its over 220-year history as a union has a non-Caucasian, a 42-year-old Hindu of Indian origin, occupied Number 10. 

    The reality of a UK variety of the Obama-moment will spook the conservative base, raising the spectre of Britainistan. But MPs who figured that what the Tory party needed the most to retain power was competence over race, strategically blocked the decision of the new party leader from going back to the base.

    MPs knew that Sunak, a grafter, was their last card. They also knew that he would have lost at a general party conference, which might have thrown up a worse choice whose precipitous exit would have hastened the call for election – an election at which Labour would have been sure to decimate them.  

    But just like it happened in the US after Obama’s election, the UK will likely have its own Tea Party moment, too. A rash of right-wingers who think their country is being stolen from them by “otherness” will push back, perhaps even violently.

    France has struggled to keep this dangerous fringe at bay. As the recent election of Italy’s President, Giorgia Meloni, showed, however, right-wingers who are once again stirring in Europe, may now find their cousins in the UK.

    Yet, if Sunak manages to re-unite his party, calm the markets and stabilise the country – as I believe he can from his COVID-19 record – he might well be poised for the historic role of being more than just a placeholder for the Tory Party; and who knows, get his own mandate.

    It’s Sunak’s moment and I think he will seize it, even though his road will be rough.

     

    Ishiekwene is Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP

  • Not a Politics of Who You Know! – By Valentine Anaweokhai

    Not a Politics of Who You Know! – By Valentine Anaweokhai

    By Rev. Fr. Valentine Anaweokhai

    Recently my attention was drawn to an online video where a man remarked that in some other parts of the world, when someone is in search of a job, some questions he may likely be asked include; what is your qualification? What can you do or what do you have to offer? He continued, but in Nigeria, getting that same job will depend majorly on who you know? Who is recommending you? To some extent, this is true. My own personal experiences would further affirm it. 

    A couple of times, people have approached me to assist them reach out to somebody in position of authority for employment or admission into a tertiary institution. They immediately tell you that in Nigeria, it is all about who you know. Worse still, if you have some money to give and bribe your way around, you may likely be fortunate but never always. In other words, it is all about who you know. Getting a contract, appointment, favour, job offer, admission, pass, or approval of any sort, you either need to know somebody or someone who knows someone who is connected or related to the person in charge. It is called the “Politics of Who You Know.” I have been both a victim and beneficiary of this kind of politics too.

    This kind of politics, wherever it is being played, be it in religious organizations, government agencies and ministries, and even in private settings, seems to be the order of the day, while a person’s money, connections, position, status, qualification, and power become an added advantage. Otherwise, you go nowhere and cannot get too far. Sometimes, even to get a Nigerian passport in the USA could take a longer or shorter period depending on who you know. This culture appears to be a Nigerian thing even when the institution is located outside the country. 

    It is rather unfortunate that when people apply for visas, admission, and job opportunities outside the shores of Nigeria, they do not need to know somebody or anybody in the country’s embassy, consulate, university or organization before such applications are honored and granted. Most often, answers are given based on merit, qualification, and prospects of the applicant. I have personal experiences to buttress this point, but that is a story for another day.

    Only recently, the United Kingdom elected a new Prime Minister in the person of Rishi Sunak, a British citizen but of Indian descent. His confirmation as the Prime Minister has been greeted also with racist rebuffs, but the fact remains that for now, he is the man considered most apt, qualified and fit to help the country out of her current economic challenges. He has even promised not to leave behind, any debts for the next generation. If it were to be solely and purely the politics of who you know, then he most probably would not have become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. But that is a society that acknowledges, cherishes and promotes virtue, merit, and qualification in leadership and the beauty of multiculturality over and above banal racial, tribal and ethnic bigotry.

    In the Gospel of St. Mark 10:35-45, we read how the sons of Zebedee, James and John approached Jesus and made a request, saying; Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you… Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory… Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” In Matthew’s gospel, it was their mother who approached Jesus for the request (Matt. 20:20-28). Let us not be oblivious of the fact that Jesus had earlier said, “I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13). This may have pre-informed why they approached him and said, “we want you to do for us, what ever we ask of you.” 

    Whether it was their mother or they themselves who approached Jesus, what were they thinking? That sitting at the right hand and left hand of Jesus in his kingdom was all about who you know? Or how well and fast you can press buttons to have your way into God’s kingdom? Probably, they wanted to play the ‘politics of who you know’, but this time, it backfired. Obviously, Jesus didn’t grant the request, but told them it wasn’t his to grant such, but the privilege was meant for those for whom it has been prepared.

    Did Jesus lack the powers and capacity to grant such requests? Not at all. Didn’t he say whatever is asked in his name he will grant? Surely, he did. Jesus does not, and cannot contradict himself. Can he grant us all that we ask him? Yes, he can. But does he grant us all that we ask him? No, he does not. Then why? Jesus knows that it is not all we ask that is good for our well being and salvation. He also knows that certain things we ask come from impure, insincere, and inordinate desires and motives. Sometimes such motives are for oppressive, domineering, showmanship, and prideful reasons. Such was the motive of James and John. St James reminds us;You want something and do not have it; so you commit murder. And you covet something and cannot obtain it; so you engage in disputes and conflicts. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:2-3).

    Jesus’ reply that sitting at his right and left hands was meant for those for whom it has been prepared would imply, on the surface, that such privilege was meant for special people. In other words, it was not meant for everybody. Does not that sound discriminatory, exclusive, and selective? Does it not imply some level of favoritism and self-contradiction? After Peter had returned from the home of Cornelius and was faced with the strict and severe criticisms from the brethren, he explained to them saying: “Now I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is\ right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). So, Jesus cannot be accused of expressing favoritism.

    Meanwhile, earlier on, he had warned: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14). Jesus’ statement could be interpreted to also mean that entering into heaven would not be based on political, religious, ethnic, and socio-cultural considerations, but rather, on one’s commitment and ability to go through the way that leads to eternal life. It will not depend on who you know, who is recommending you, your position and status in society and church, or how much you have got. 

    Rather, it is your faith and good works. It will depend on one’s ability and cooperation with divine grace to shun sin, evil and the distractions of the world, and be able to stand against injustice, favoritism, partiality, discrimination, greed,  corruption, unfair treatment of fellow humans, oppressive regimes and all forms of subjugation and domination. It will depend on ones ability to do good and shun evil. At the end of the day, Jesus gives us a model to adopt: he came to serve, not to be served. He wants us to be at the service of the poor, marginalized, oppressed and unjustly treated, rather than the other way round. I guess James and John eventually got the message. 

    I hope we too also get the message that the Politics of Who You Know may not always fetch a person what he wants, or take him where he wants, especially if he does not work hard, remain focussed and committed to certain core values and virtues of life, and keep doing the right thing. By extension, this might likely be the determinant factor of who wins the forthcoming presidential election in Nigeria, come 2023. Will the politics of who you know that breeds racism, tribalism, bigotry, and nepotism play out this time around? However, yes, the fact remains that the politics of who you know will not take anyone to heaven in the final analysis.

     

    By Rev. Fr. Valentine Anaweokhai: anavalobee@gmail.com

  • Sunak to face first prime minister’s questions in British parliament

    Sunak to face first prime minister’s questions in British parliament

    Rishi Sunak will face his first Commons appearance in London as prime minister on Wednesday, as he begins the gruelling task of uniting his party and restoring Britain’s economic credibility.

    The new prime minister will square off against Sir Keir Starmer later, fresh from appointing a new Cabinet that he hopes will bring a measure of political stability to the country.

    It comes after another momentous day in British politics that saw Mr Sunak cull nearly a dozen of Ms Truss’s top-tier ministers, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, while reviving the careers of a host of big names, including Suella Braverman, Dominic Raab and Michael Gove.

    Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday will be the first test of how unified the party is behind its new leader, after Mr Sunak used his first public address on Tuesday to brace the country for “difficult decisions” as he criticised much of the legacy left behind by Liz Truss’s brief tenure.

    “Some mistakes were made. Not born of ill will or bad intentions quite the opposite in fact. But mistakes nonetheless,’’ he said.

    “I have been elected as leader of my party and your Prime Minister in part to fix them and that work begins immediately.’’

    Volodymyr Zelensky and Joe Biden were among the first world leaders Mr Sunak spoke to on Tuesday evening, as he told the Ukrainian president that the UK’s support for the war-torn country would be as “strong as ever under his premiership’’.

    He also made time to speak with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford in a stark contrast with Truss.

    It is expected that the first meeting of Mr Sunak’s new-look Cabinet could come as soon as Wednesday morning, in what would amount to a gathering of Sunak allies, former Truss backers and figures too from the right-wing of the party.

  • British PM Sunak vows to fix mistakes, restore economic stability

    British PM Sunak vows to fix mistakes, restore economic stability

    Britain’s new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, on Tuesday pledged to “fix the mistakes” made by the Truss government and restore the country’s economic stability.

    He, however, warned that there would be “difficult decisions to come.” Adding that “right now, our country is facing a profound economic crisis.”

    Sunak, in his first address to the nation outside 10 Downing Street, said he officially became the prime minister moments ago after King Charles III met him at Buckingham Palace and invited him to form a government.

    Sunak said Liz Truss was not wrong to want to improve growth, which was a “noble aim,” but “mistakes were made.”

    Truss’s attempt of using debt-funded tax cuts to spur economic growth plunged the British pound to a 37-year low against the U.S. dollar, while pushing up the cost of government borrowing and mortgage rates.

    According to Sunak, he was elected the prime minister to “fix” those mistakes.

    “I will place economic stability and confidence at the heart of this government’s agenda. This will mean difficult decisions to come,” he said.

    Sunak, 42, inherits an economy on the brink of recession, with an energy crisis, cost-of-living crisis and runaway inflation that defy any easy fix.

    The prime minister also said he would deliver on the party’s manifesto, including a stronger National Health Service (NHS), better schools, safer streets, leveling up and building an economy that embraced the opportunities of Brexit. 

  • Indians delight in Rishi Sunak’s rise to UK PM on Diwali

    Indians delight in Rishi Sunak’s rise to UK PM on Diwali

    Many Indians are delighted at the prospect of Rishi Sunak becoming the first person of Indian origin to become British prime minister, just as Hindus across the world celebrate Diwali.

    Sunak was set to take the top job after his rivals Boris Johnson and Penny Mordaunt withdrew from the race to replace Liz Truss as leader of the Conservative Party.

    Truss quit after a month and a half as her support evaporated and Sunak was poised to formally take over as prime minister later on Monday or Tuesday.

    Sunak’s expected rise to the premiership had already made it to the front pages of most Indian newspapers – alongside the Indian cricket team’s win over arch-rivals Pakistan in a T20 World Cup match late on Sunday.

    Some Indians said on social media that Sunak becoming prime minister this year would be even more special as India recently celebrated 75 years of its independence from British colonial rule.

    “This (Diwali) is very special for India’s magnificent cricket victory and in all likelihood, Rishi Sunak, a person of Indian origin, a practising Hindu and our own Narayana Murthy’s son-in-law, becoming prime minister of UK,” Chennai resident D. Muthukrishnan wrote on Twitter, referring to the founder of Indian software giant Infosys Ltd.

    “Rishi Sunak took oath as an MP on (Hindu holy book) Bhagavad Gita.

    “If he repeats the same for taking oath as prime minister, what a day it is for India, that too on our 75th year of independence from Britain.”

    Former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, or finance minister, Sunak, 42, is a practising Hindu and is known to celebrate the festival of lights.

    He has also been photographed lighting candles outside No 11 Downing Street to mark the occasion.

  • BREAKING: Rishi Sunak becomes UK’s new Prime Minister

    BREAKING: Rishi Sunak becomes UK’s new Prime Minister

    Rishi Sunak has been elected as the new leader of the Conservative Party and will now be named the UK prime minister.

    Sunak was announced as the new leader of the UK in a tweet on the Conservatives Twitter handle on Monday.

    He will become the UK’s first British Asian PM and at 42, the youngest in more than a century.

    Details to follow…