The left wing have been up in arms so far with every new Obama appointment.
Obama was elected on a clear mandate of change, with the hope the old
guard would be swept away on his election, and subsequently the dissolution of
the pall of partisanship that has clouded Washington the past eight years of the
Bush presidency.

The appointment most notably of Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, the most
high profile Cabinet post, as well as the appointment of prominent Clintonites to
other Cabinet or White house positions has shattered the expectations of not a
few election cycle Obama supporters, who took the Obama mantra for change quite
literally.

But Obama himself has defended his appointments, arguing it is impossible
to rule without the aid of insiders who understand the machinations of Washington.
Such people will better implement his ''change'' policies, better than a Washington
neophyte ever would, whether it be working with Congress to pass legislation or
maneouvering through the bottlenecks of the civil service bureaucracy. Essentially,
loathe them or hate them, the old guard is needed to get things done.

I am especially interested in the implications of this mindset as it applies to the Nigerian
polity. A complaint often heard, especially amongst the so called 'youths', centres on the recycling
of the same old faces responsible for the deplorable state of affairs in Nigeria. Whether it be
those shirking military regalia for the agbada or simply scions of the old guard further cementing
the legacies of their parents.

But surely, there enough parallels to be drawn between the American and Nigerian polity making these
complaints redundant, that is if we apply the Obama rationale. Needless to say, the Nigerian state from
all manner of perspectives is a practical bottleneck. The ethnic minefields, the clash of religions in the North,
the vagaries of geography, the disparities in income and distribution of wealth, the disputes over population
all make ruling the Nigerian state at the bare minimum a daunting challenge, and I would argue, moreso than
leading America.

In the face of these challenges, it would seem superfluous, this argument for the installation of a new guard.
Do we really expect the untried and untested to handle reins laced with such danger? I guess the counter
argument is, hardly anything gets done anyway, and surely a new direction can hardly be worse than this. True
true. Perhaps someone should point that out to Obama as America faces the most '' daunting economic problems
in our history''