The institution of Traditional Rulers in Nigeria - of Emirs, Obas, Obis, Eze, and other categories of chiefs, used to be seen and treated as a sacred institution. Traditional rulers appeared to many as representing all that was good, honourable and memorable about our culture and tradition, including, truth, discipline, courage, industry, probity, sacrifice and responsibility. Though the history of our country reveals that various traditional rulers from north to south and from east to west, aided and abetted the notorious trans-continental slave trade and the infamous colonial system that robbed the land of enormous human and material resources, and dealt incalculable damage to the psyche of the surviving generations, many still looked upon the institution with a sense of awe and reverence. Since most of the rulers were also chief priests of the traditional religions, who regularly offered sacrifices on behalf of their people, they often benefited from the reverence and awe due to the gods.

As legitimate representatives of their people, traditional rulers were adept at gauging the feelings of those in their domain, and in situations of conflict the positions they took were hardly controversial. Giving allowance for few exceptions here and there, they were generally not known to betray their people for selfish monetary gains. They owned large farms and livestock that were tended by those over whom they were chiefs. In other words their material well being and that of their large families were generally guaranteed by their "subjects," such that they did not need to play the sycophant in order to make a living. They were not greedy mercenaries. They largely operated from a truly nationalistic or patriotic disposition. Some of them were reputed to have such courage, fortitude and sense of sacrifice that they actually died or lost members of their immediate families in the cause of pursuing the interest of those in their domain.

The above image of the traditional institution was before the neutralizing force of military dictatorship that in the last thirty years has overwhelmed and decimated practically every institution and authority structure in the country. The above image of traditional rulers was before the coming of the petro-naira whose corrupting potential has been the prime instrument of the total subjugation of the Nigerian polity. The above image of our kings and chiefs was before the conquerors acquired the right and prerogative to hire and fire Sultans and Emirs, to install and dethrone Obis and Ezes, and to promote and demote Obas and Bales. When those who seized the key of the national treasury by the force of arms decided to grade the traditional rulers, fix fabulous salaries, build palaces and dole out cars and miscellaneous allowances for them, the chiefs were immediately faced with a crisis of allegiance, since as they say, he who pays the piper dictates the tune. What we witness today among many traditional rulers is the dramatic orchestration of this crisis of allegiance that is soon to transform into an acute crisis of relevance.

Recent activities and pronouncements of individual chiefs and Councils of Traditional Rulers from various parts of Nigeria on such controversial issues as the alleged self-succession bid of the present leadership of the country, and the alleged coup plot of December 21, 1998, begs the question whether traditional rulers now speak on any platform representative of the people. Some of them present the image of government employees or civil servants who must defend the status quo at all costs, and who could be summoned at very short notice to the state capital or to the federal capital for briefing or de-briefing by whoever happens to be in power, no matter the moral credibility of the individual or the legitimacy of the regime. On their own, some of these rulers routinely engage in making solidarity statements and visits where they mortgage their people's political expectations.

What is becoming clear to thinking Nigerians is that many traditional rulers now seem to sway wherever the wind of fortune blows. Lacking a clearly defined ideological thrust, and settled with all manner of inducements, some of them carry sycophancy to a ridiculous extent that tantamount to idolatry. They feel obliged to defend an unwholesome status quo, to lobby one regime after another, and to offer themselves and their exalted positions as rallying points for government support, in exchange for reward and rehabilitation. Thus they unwittingly play into the hands of the ruling force which now regards the traditional institution as the second estate of the realm.

But the danger in their unabashed sycophantic expressions is that they undercut the people's collective will, they perpetrate the cruel dispensation of tyranny that has caused so much distress in the land, they sow the seeds of insecurity and instability, and they cultivate the virus of disintegration. Indeed the conduct of many royal fathers in the last few years is something of an embarrassment for many in their immediate constituencies who hold royalty in high regard. The reaction of the public to the rather unguarded statements of some of these rulers in the last few weeks is very instructive. From Lagos to Enugu, and from Calabar to Kaduna, many Nigerians have expressed shock and outrage at the all too patronizing posture and the unguarded statements of some of these rulers. In the evolving tragedy of greed and avarice, deceit and mischief, betrayal and treachery, manipulation and subterfuge, the combination of which we call Nigerian politics, many traditional rulers, along with some religious prelates and some of those called leaders of thought in our country, seem to betray such gullibility and naivety that they have been too easily conscripted as pall-bearers in the triumph of mediocrity that defines the present day Nigerian governance.

In the past our feudal societies engaged in tribal warfare and skirmishes under a largely illiterate band of traditional rulers who luxuriated the deference and awe of an equally illiterate, ignorant and superstitious population. Now the field is crowded by a growing crop of Nigerian elite, including military retirees with newly acquired titles. One would have thought that the injection of the elite would enhance dignity, prestige and honour for the traditional institution and a new destiny for the common folk. Instead what we have seem to be the enthronement of greed and avarice; what we see appears to be the perpetration of treachery in high places; what we witness is more like the elevation of sycophancy into a royal art. Imperceptively, a new face is being built into the extended feudal system. Abetting this culture of servitude are people with severely short attention span who stoically accept any insulating position, and ignore the distress of the neighbour.

True, from recent developments nation-wide, one begins to wonder if these leaders have not transformed themselves into mercenaries with questionable constituencies and ideological leanings. Beyond influence peddling and the execution of sundry survival strategies, what positive impact have these rulers in the complex politics of our nation? In the changing dynamics of modern political systems, can we carve out a role in our nation's body politic for such traditional institutions? In other words, within the context of the modern democratic society which has developed a heightened sense of popular participation in the running of public affairs, what place really has the feudal structure we refer to as traditional rulers?

Ours is a generation that jealously guards what has come to be known as the Fundamental Human Rights of all persons, which include the right of individuals to equal hearing, the right to equal representation, the right to equal treatment, the right to conscientious objection, and the right to dissent. In the midst of such an enlightened society, has the traditional institution of Emirs, Obas, Obis, Eze and other categories of chiefs in our day become an anachronism? True, the entire institution of Royal Fathers and the context in which the people do set about preserving it, demand periodic appraisal, otherwise those regarded as custodians of culture and tradition will systematically bastardize what should be a sacred responsibility. Perhaps what we have today camouflaging as royal sycophancy in our nation's body politic is indeed a crisis of relevance that must be honestly and courageously addressed.