The Politics of Autobiographies

 

20^th February, 2025

 By: Amir Abdulazeez

In ancient times and through the Middle ages, people used autobiographies to share hidden truths, make confessions and communicate genuine experiences. Nowadays, they are used by politicians and world leaders for self-justification and self-glorification. Whether in the West, across Africa, or within Nigeria, the pattern remains the same—political figures use autobiographies to rewrite history in their favour, often ignoring their failures or controversies.

Between 1948 to 1954, former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, published multiple volumes of memoirs that portrayed him as the hero of World War II. While Churchill was undeniably a key figure in the war, his narratives downplayed criticisms of his leadership, including his alleged role in the Bengal Famine of 1943, which resulted in the deaths of millions. His autobiographical works cemented his legacy as a wartime leader while sidestepping his more controversial decisions.

Modern political memoirs have increasingly become exercises in selective storytelling, where leaders carefully articulate their narratives to present themselves in the most favourable light possible. Former United States President, Richard Nixon used his autobiography, ‘The Memoirs of Richard Nixon’, to repair his image after the Watergate scandal. After lying about the possession of weapons of mass destruction as a justification to invade, Tony Blair's ‘A Journey’ and George W. Bush's ‘Decision Points’, cruelly and shamelessly attempted to justify their baseless war in Iraq in 2003.

Across Africa, many leaders have also engaged in this practice of using autobiographies to deny or justify their shortcomings. As good as they were, even the likes of Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Zambia’s Kenneth Kaunda, Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere and Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta have all been accused of using autobiographies to exaggerate their legacies, downplay their shortcomings and ignore controversies around their stewardships.

In Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo’s ‘My Watch’, published in 2014 have been widely criticized for being self-serving. While Obasanjo paints himself as a patriot and a visionary leader, he conveniently overlooked the authoritarian tendencies and allegations of corruption and electoral frauds during his tenure.  Despite all the glaring circumstances that led to the decisive defeat of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan in the 2015 Presidential elections, in his 2018 book ‘My Transition Hours’, he tried so hard to justify and downplay the very actions that led to his downfall while also constructing different conspiracy theories that gave the impression he didn’t lose the elections freely and fairly.

Just, when we thought we have had enough of all these politicized autobiographies, former Military President General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida has released his own memoirs. While being often and correctly presented as one of Nigeria’s finest soldiers, strongest leaders and elder statesmen, we can by no means expect his memoirs to be significantly different from that of other Nigerian, African and world leaders. IBB is unlucky to be one of the most studied and documented Nigerian leaders and there are so many controversies, inconsistencies and tactical deceptions associated to his tenure which no autobiography can reconcile.

One major criticism of IBB’s memoir is its timing. The delayed release suggests a strategic waiting period for public emotions to cool and memories to fade. Apart from the main actors, many other people in the position to validate or refute whatever he might say in his book are dead. In fact, majority of the current generation of Nigerians were not even born when he left power in 1993. In a nutshell, while Babangida’s autobiography may attempt to rationalize many of his decisions, the scars left by the events he presided like the Structural Adjustment programme, state executions, public corruption, endless and wasteful transition programme will remain fresh in the country’s memory.

In Nigeria, what have these autobiographies taught us? Many leaders and political actors have left terrible legacies which they cannot risk leaving in the hands of neutral story tellers. While they should spend the rest of their lives in regret and retrospection, they will rather add salt to injury by releasing half-truths and falsehoods as autobiographies. When they do so, they always have other elitist co-conspirators that benefited from their actions and inactions in power that will gather and celebrate them like heroes.

As a former Nigerian leader, once you are alive and influential, you can always find a way of redeeming your image inspite of your atrocities. I always ask people to imagine if General Sani Abacha was still alive, who will dare recover any foreign loot associated to him? Who doesn’t have skeletons in their cupboards? Unfortunately for Abacha, apart from been dead, he had also stepped on most, if not all of the toes that would’ve protected him and again, one of the most affected became President just 11 months after his death.

Not all are the same. There are patriotic Nigerian leaders, statesmen and freedom fighters who deserve to write autobiographies. Unfortunately, when they do, theirs get drowned in the ocean of the negative ones who are richer and more popular. By tradition, you know Nigerians will always promote and accept something that is popular and elegant instead of one that is truthful and honest. This is why you don’t hear trending biographies about Gani Fawehinmi, Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa, etc.

All in all, everyone has a right to his own opinion and narrative of events the way he wants people to view them. While autobiographies provide valuable insights into the minds of world leaders, they must be read with a critical eye. Readers must recognize that these books are not always honest reflections of history but are, more often than not, carefully crafted narratives designed to preserve a leader’s legacy. Memoirs of political leaders often serve more as instruments of image control than as genuine historical accounts. The ultimate judgment of political leaders should rest not in the pages of their autobiographies but rather in the lived experiences of their citizens and the tangible impacts of their policies.

I read three autobiographies recently and I found them to be outstanding and honest; Sir Ahmadu Bello’s ‘My Life’, Nelson Mandela’s ‘Long Walk to Freedom’ and Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘The Stories of My Experiments with Truth’. Sardauna’s was simple, least self-glorifying and occasionally self-critical. Mandela’s was strictly a chronicle of collective struggles, only mentioning but leaving out details about subjective issues and cleverly terminating his story to the point he was inaugurated as President. He left the story of his presidency to be told by others. Gandhi’s was the best; when he was literally forced to write his memoirs in 1925, he rather named it ‘my experiments’, it was the translators that added the word ‘autobiography’. He never wanted to write because he believes if your actions are right, there is nothing to boast about it, for the wrong ones, there will always be many people to help you write them.

 

Twitter: @AmirAbdulazeez