The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP may have survived its worst fears of a public backlash during the last round of elections. Nigeria’s long ruling party is, however, not out of sync with its historical predilection to internal fumbles. The latest crisis hitting the party arose from the zoning of positions after its victories in the presidential and National Assembly elections. The return of zoning as an issue not too long after the party survived internal schism on the issue prior to the presidential elections, has attracted snide remarks from critical segments of the party including Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, erstwhile Military Head of State and PDP presidential aspirant in the 2011 election.
President Jonathan At a recent meeting of its national caucus in Abuja, party elders had resolved to sustain the present zoning arrangement of offices, with the notable exception of the Southeast where it was agreed that the Southeast and the Northeast should swap the positions of National Chairman and Secretary to the Government of the Federation. In agreeing to the status quo, the party elders resolved thus that the offices would be shared in the following manner, President (South-South) Vice-President (Northwest) Senate President (North Central), Speaker of the House of Representatives (Southwest); Deputy Senate President (Southeast); and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives (Northeast).
The resolution of the party elders was immediately flayed by a number of stakeholders particularly those from the Southeast, Northwest and Northeast who believed that they had been shortchanged. If not shortchanged, some stakeholders from those zones said that the Southwest was being rewarded for its failure. The southeast has been particularly vociferous. With an eye to the office of Speaker given to the Southwest, a number of Southeast leaders expressed dissatisfaction that the Southwest where the PDP was nearly wiped out was being rewarded for its failure in delivering the party during the last round of elections. Worthy of note is that out of the 202 seats won by the PDP in the House of Representatives, only 5 seats were won from the Southwest representing less than 3 % of the total seats won by the party.
Most of the seats available were cleared by the Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN with the notable exception of Ondo State where Labour Party, reigned supreme. The party, however, fared better in the Southeast where it claimed more than 40 of the seats and in the North where the party survived the pressures on it from the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC. Where the PDP failed to perform in the Southwest, the PDP was near invincible in the Southeast where the party exceeded its expectations with a near sweep of the House seats. The Southeast caucus of the House of Representatives whose returning members have their eyes on the office of Speaker have been particularly trenchant in the clamour. Either acting directly or through proxies, they have sponsored a campaign to highlight what they claim as the injustice being meted out to Ndigbo. Chief Chukwuemeka Ezeife, former Governor of the Old Anambra State who has been prominent in the campaign told a national newspaper that Ndigbo deserved a place in the first five.
At the beginning of the campaign just after the PDP grandees unveiled the sharing formula, Ezeife, Senator Uche Chukwumerije among others in separate press interviews demanded for the position of Senate President or at least Speaker of the House of Representatives. “We will not protest; if they refuse to give us the Senate President, then we should get Speaker of the House plus, but by all means we must occupy the decision making position, because we have delivered and we have done our best,” Ezeife was quoted as telling a national newspaper at the beginning of the month. Members of the Southeast caucus in the House of Representatives, notably Rep. Emeka Ihedioha from Imo State and Bethel Amadi showed themselves among the advocates. Remarkably, over a period of time, the demand of the Southeast zone was watered down to a demand for the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. While the Southeast was making its demand, PDP elders from the Southwest under the tutelage of former President Olusegun Obasanjo at a meeting in Ota, Ogun State resolved to adopt Rep. Muriana Ajibola for the position of Speaker.
The adoption of somebody regarded as an Obasanjo man as Speaker nominee immediately helped to provoke reaction from other concerned stakeholders in the party. One of such reactions is the brewing campaign by some members of the House of Representatives now canvassing the election of Rep. Aminu Tambuwal from Sokoto State as the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. Tambuwal who is the outgoing Deputy Whip of the House is himself in a difficult position. As the deputy whip with a responsibility of mobilizing party members to toe party decisions, he is now the platform being used to disregard a major party decision.
Remarkably, the momentum behind Tambuwal is coming from across all the geopolitical zones including the Southwest. The majority of lawmakers from the ACN in the Southwest are remarkably uncomfortable having a PDP Speaker at their backyard who would in the near future use the power of his office to disturb the party’s hegemony over the zone. Noting the inconsistence of the party on the issue of zoning, Babangida in a statement issued on his behalf by his spokesman, Kassim Afegbua said: “There will be no hope for the country if those who double-speak are made to preside over certain levels of government in the name of dubious politicking and zoning which they never believed in. The character indices of our leaders must be known at different times and levels.” Noting that “General Babangida’s position on zoning has not wavered,” Afegbua quoted him as saying that “he believes in the efficacy of zoning as a stabilizing instrument of political engagement. Those who shy away from such incontrovertible political requirement to put paid to all cries of marginalization cannot simply wake up overnight to be beneficiaries of what they never believed in. In a democracy, we should learn to play by the rules no matter how painful it might be and no matter whose ox is gored.”
An attempt by Vice-President Nnamadi Sambo to intervene on behalf of the party through pushing the candidacy of Ajibola at a meeting of new members has not seen much success. While there is a riot over the allocation of the position of Speaker, the allocation of the office of Senate President to the North Central has remained largely uncontroversial. The seeming silence is not for anything. The allocation of the office to the zone is a direct award to Senator David Mark who is the outgoing President of the Senate. Mark, who evoked a controversial persona in statecraft before his election as Senate President in 2007, has nearly erased all the negatives drawn to his person during his adventurous career as a military politician. Senator Mark’s role as the unofficial leader of the many insurrections against preceding Senate Presidents is also now conveniently buried. His remarkable efforts in bringing a stability to the Senate to the extent that for the first time since the advent of the fourth republic there has been no turmoil has been largely commended.
Now both foes and friends including those who voted against him in 2007 are now struggling to mobilize support for him. As at press time no opponent has even come out to challenge him. The exceptional performance and attributes of Senator Mark is, however, believed to be at the problem of the PDP. Prior to now, the office of Senate President had always been zoned to the side of the country producing the President. However, the near nationwide unanimity on Mark has made the exception for Mark who is from the North to be Senate President while the President is from another side of the country. Given the stability and other qualities that Mark has brought to bear, the PDP may not have erred in navigating the sharing of other offices around his interest, but the party has failed poorly in managing its dealings with other the Southeast. The emerging riot in the party is evident of the party’s poor management of rewarding success and failure.
Perhaps reflective of the backlash against the party’s decision to zone the Speaker office to the Southwest and the determination of the members_elect to rebel President Goodluck Jonathan was believed to have asked for a meeting with the National Working Committee, NWC of the PDP. The meeting due this Sunday it is believed will rezone the offices to sooth the angst now boiling over.
Friday 20 May 2011
Some reflections on the nation’s political past
There is no doubt that President Goodluck Jonathan is at the moment thinking deeply on the structure of his government for the next four years. His party, the victorious Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as expected now, must have submitted the names of those who would benefit from the spoils of electoral war in the usual selfish tradition of‘winners take all‘. I am sure that the election victory was Jonathan‘s even if the party through which he won is the PDP. While the choice of his ministers and his advisers (subject to constitutional requirement is entirely at his discretion, the ability to prevent a strong team will write his own story after he has left office.
Within the next two weeks, President Jonathan will have the unique opportunity to reflect carefully on the political drama in the past one hundred years. In 2014 (three years in his reign), Nigeria would be one hundred years old as a nation following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Provinces by the British administrators, Lord Luggard and the name Nigeria as given by his mistress. Before amalgamation in 1914, the Caliphate had established its religious and cultural hegemony in the Hausa-Fulani parts of the North, with its tentacles spread into Ilorin (Yoruba West). Its attempt through its hold on Ilorin to subjugate the whole Yorubaland was successfully and finally checked in the Oshogbo War (1840). Later, inter-territorial flourishing trade developed between the North and the West in kola nuts and imported articles through Lagos. Before amalgamation and after the series of internal wars among the Yoruba, British arms had subdued Ijebu_Ode to allow free trade into the interior. The British also bombarded Oyo town to gain total control of Yoruba area. Thus, from Lagos port to the far north, the peaceful atmosphere (pax Britannia) has encouraged profitable trade between the North and the South and it also encouraged movements of people.
In the Eastern part of the country, the sturdy Ibo race had been able to extend its dominance into areas of its neighbors through trade and not arms. Ibos were the dominant tribe in Port_Harcourt (Rivers State) until the Biafran Civil War (1967_70) when Ibo properties were reported ‘captured‘, with the connivance of ravaging Nigerian soldiers. The picture painted was that of a peaceful and prosperous South and a flourishing North (in agriculture) before amalgamation of 1914 (presumably for easy administration). However, for whatever reason, the ‘amalgamation thing‘ was not favoured by the rising elite of the North in the 1940s and the 50s. The various debates in the Northern House of Assembly in the 1940s were on the intrusion of unwanted Southerners in the Northern ways of life, religion and culture.
The closed minds of some Northern leaders led to the formation of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) in the 1950s, based in the North with its concept of One North, one destiny. It is not incorrect to say that the mood in the South towards the North was ambivalent. Many Southerners have settled in the North without molest, had acquired properties and established flourishing businesses before the brutal killings of Easterners before the civil war of the 1960s. The North political interest in the South was mainly through working alliance with parties in the South. Before the civil war, it was the NPC and the faction of Action Group; after the Civil war, it was NPN (Northern dominated) and the NPP of Dr. Azikiwe. In a Government of National Unity (GNU) while the post of Independence Alliance of NPC and NCNC, the effort failed under the crazy boots of army insurgency. It should be remembered that between 1960 and 1999 (with the exception of 1979-1983), general indiscipline and ambition had propelled the military into politics.
The coup of January 1966 portrayed political immaturity of five army majors (majority Ibo) and the callousness of the operation (sectional killing) of senior army officers showed desperate political ambition of the coup leaders. The lesson of the coup is that whatever the South can do, the North can even do it better. Within the period between amalgamation in 1914 and Independence in 1960, some significant political events developed to awaken and deepen democratic principles. Regional Premiers emerged (through elections) who were responsible for day-to-day governance of their regions (under watchful eyes of British Officials - LT Governors). The leaders of the North (NPC) in reacting to the motion of Anthony Enahoro that Nigeria should get Independence in 1953 had issued their 8th Point Programme. The Programme could be described as what could be regarded as True Federalism or Regionalism.
Also, before the civil war, the Eastern leaders (led by Ojukwu) crafted what was regarded as Aburi Declaration – a document which was a form of loose federation. It was agreed to but later repudiated after sober reflection by the then Federal Executive Council. What followed is now a part of the nations sordid past – a damaging civil war and the creation of twelve states which have been increased to thirty six. The present state before President Jonathan is what looks like an amorphous structure, badly designed, precariously managed and costly, by all standards. States have been created but some (except in South-West, South-East and North-West) which are neither cultural nor ethnically homogenous; some contain assertive majorities and restless but often rebellious minorities. All these states (except only a few) are neither economically viable nor politically stable. Inspite of free flow of free funds of monthly allocation from oil revenue, it is a sad tale of poverty and lack of development. There is a need to look at the structure and the historical background (terrain).
True Federalism does not mean political break-ups; it means recognizing structure that could be self sustaining (oil or no oil). The present structure is acceptable to those who see government in sharing of loots or sharing the national cake without baking it. Such is possible under the present method of allocating national revenue. If the centre is over burdened, it becomes ineffective.
The scenario before President Jonathan is: the country‘s structure, the cost and its effective management. The problems of security and killings (mostly Southerners in the North) loom large.
Can he and his party solve the problems alone? The experience in the last twelve years did not give any positive answer.
Within the next two weeks, President Jonathan will have the unique opportunity to reflect carefully on the political drama in the past one hundred years. In 2014 (three years in his reign), Nigeria would be one hundred years old as a nation following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Provinces by the British administrators, Lord Luggard and the name Nigeria as given by his mistress. Before amalgamation in 1914, the Caliphate had established its religious and cultural hegemony in the Hausa-Fulani parts of the North, with its tentacles spread into Ilorin (Yoruba West). Its attempt through its hold on Ilorin to subjugate the whole Yorubaland was successfully and finally checked in the Oshogbo War (1840). Later, inter-territorial flourishing trade developed between the North and the West in kola nuts and imported articles through Lagos. Before amalgamation and after the series of internal wars among the Yoruba, British arms had subdued Ijebu_Ode to allow free trade into the interior. The British also bombarded Oyo town to gain total control of Yoruba area. Thus, from Lagos port to the far north, the peaceful atmosphere (pax Britannia) has encouraged profitable trade between the North and the South and it also encouraged movements of people.
In the Eastern part of the country, the sturdy Ibo race had been able to extend its dominance into areas of its neighbors through trade and not arms. Ibos were the dominant tribe in Port_Harcourt (Rivers State) until the Biafran Civil War (1967_70) when Ibo properties were reported ‘captured‘, with the connivance of ravaging Nigerian soldiers. The picture painted was that of a peaceful and prosperous South and a flourishing North (in agriculture) before amalgamation of 1914 (presumably for easy administration). However, for whatever reason, the ‘amalgamation thing‘ was not favoured by the rising elite of the North in the 1940s and the 50s. The various debates in the Northern House of Assembly in the 1940s were on the intrusion of unwanted Southerners in the Northern ways of life, religion and culture.
The closed minds of some Northern leaders led to the formation of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) in the 1950s, based in the North with its concept of One North, one destiny. It is not incorrect to say that the mood in the South towards the North was ambivalent. Many Southerners have settled in the North without molest, had acquired properties and established flourishing businesses before the brutal killings of Easterners before the civil war of the 1960s. The North political interest in the South was mainly through working alliance with parties in the South. Before the civil war, it was the NPC and the faction of Action Group; after the Civil war, it was NPN (Northern dominated) and the NPP of Dr. Azikiwe. In a Government of National Unity (GNU) while the post of Independence Alliance of NPC and NCNC, the effort failed under the crazy boots of army insurgency. It should be remembered that between 1960 and 1999 (with the exception of 1979-1983), general indiscipline and ambition had propelled the military into politics.
The coup of January 1966 portrayed political immaturity of five army majors (majority Ibo) and the callousness of the operation (sectional killing) of senior army officers showed desperate political ambition of the coup leaders. The lesson of the coup is that whatever the South can do, the North can even do it better. Within the period between amalgamation in 1914 and Independence in 1960, some significant political events developed to awaken and deepen democratic principles. Regional Premiers emerged (through elections) who were responsible for day-to-day governance of their regions (under watchful eyes of British Officials - LT Governors). The leaders of the North (NPC) in reacting to the motion of Anthony Enahoro that Nigeria should get Independence in 1953 had issued their 8th Point Programme. The Programme could be described as what could be regarded as True Federalism or Regionalism.
Also, before the civil war, the Eastern leaders (led by Ojukwu) crafted what was regarded as Aburi Declaration – a document which was a form of loose federation. It was agreed to but later repudiated after sober reflection by the then Federal Executive Council. What followed is now a part of the nations sordid past – a damaging civil war and the creation of twelve states which have been increased to thirty six. The present state before President Jonathan is what looks like an amorphous structure, badly designed, precariously managed and costly, by all standards. States have been created but some (except in South-West, South-East and North-West) which are neither cultural nor ethnically homogenous; some contain assertive majorities and restless but often rebellious minorities. All these states (except only a few) are neither economically viable nor politically stable. Inspite of free flow of free funds of monthly allocation from oil revenue, it is a sad tale of poverty and lack of development. There is a need to look at the structure and the historical background (terrain).
True Federalism does not mean political break-ups; it means recognizing structure that could be self sustaining (oil or no oil). The present structure is acceptable to those who see government in sharing of loots or sharing the national cake without baking it. Such is possible under the present method of allocating national revenue. If the centre is over burdened, it becomes ineffective.
The scenario before President Jonathan is: the country‘s structure, the cost and its effective management. The problems of security and killings (mostly Southerners in the North) loom large.
Can he and his party solve the problems alone? The experience in the last twelve years did not give any positive answer.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
TOP 10 CONTROVERSIAL POPES
1. Stephen VI
Talk about holding a grudge. Pope Stephen VI (also sometimes known as Stephen VII) despised his predecessor, Pope Formosus, so much that even his death could not satisfy him – he wanted defamation. In the Cadaver Synod – what has been called “the strangest and most terrible in papal history” – Stephen VI had Formosus’ rotting nine-month-old corpse dug up, redressed in papal vestments and seated in the throne so that he could be tried. Somehow the corpse hadn’t built much of a defense, and Formosus was found guilty of what were likely bogus charges. As a punishment, three of Formosus’ fingers were cut off (the three fingers on the right hand used to give blessings).
The corpse was then stripped of his sacred vestments, dressed as a layman, dragged through the streets and dumped in the Tiber River – where he was finally able to rest in peace.
2. Boniface VIII
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) didn’t want to save your soul; he wanted to rule your life. Boniface VIII was one of the most ardent supporters of papal authority. What started as a minor squabble with King Philip IV of France over a government’s ability to tax clergy members escalated until Boniface VIII excommunicated the king and released a decree stating the “every human creature [was] subject to the Roman pontiff.” Boniface VIII sent mercenaries to destroy other people’s castles, declared all the prominent Italian Colonna family’s property forfeited and proceeded to parcel their land out among his family members. In September 1303, an army led by the Colonna family kidnapped the Pope and demanded that he abdicate. Held in captivity for multiple days, the Pope refused. He survived the attack and returned to Rome only to die a month later.
Although Boniface VIII was alive when Dante – who had been personally exiled by the pope for supporting papal limitations – wrote his famous Divine Comedy, the Italian writer placed him in his version of Hell anyway.
3. Benedict IX
Pope Benedict IX was not exactly beloved. St. Peter Damian, for one called him a “demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.” In his third book of Dialogues, Pope Victor III wrote of Benedict IX as having a life of a pope so vile, so foul, and so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.” No wonder Benedict IX decided to stick it to all of them, resigning in 1045 – and becoming the first man in history to sell the papacy. The buyer: the priest John Gratian (Pope Gregory VI). Benedict IX later refused to face charges of simony was excommunicated.
4. Pius XII
Quite popular during his time as Pontiff, Pius XII, who served at the Vatican from 1939 to 1958, has been the subject of heated debate in the decades since. As head of the Catholic Church World War II, Pius has been pilloried in some quarters for not doing more to speak out against the atrocities of the Holocaust. In January 2010, the head of Rome’s Jewish community confronted Pope Benedict XVI over Pope Pius’ perceived silence during the war. The church, however, has long held that Pius was active in saving Jews from the Nazis, a claim it says that will be supported when Vatican documents related to the war are released to the public over the next half decade.
5. Alexander VI
Corrupt, controversial and by some account wicked. Alexander VI was not a picture of papal purity. A member of the prominent and wealthy Borgia family, he bought his way into St. Peter’s. Once there, he appointed family members to powerful positions, including his sons and family members of his mistress, Vannozza Catanei. It is well-founded; other scandalous details may just be rumours, like his arranging murders or hosting wild orgies inside the papal palace. He did, however, bear four children by Catanei. He made his daughter Lucrezia into a political pawn – marrying her off three times in the hope of securing alliances and power. Some even speculate that Alexander VI fathered one of Lucrezia’s children
He did have one redeeming quality: his patronage of the arts. He persuaded Michelangelo to draw up plans for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, embellished the Vatican palaces and restored the Castel Sant’Angelo – all of which he is remembered for today.
6. Urban VI
The papacy of Urban VI (Bartolommeo Prignano) got off on the wrong foot. An Italian, he was elected to succeed Pope Gregory XI in April 1378 in a move intended to placate Romans bridling at the decades of French domination in the Papacy. But once installed, Urban VI alienated his followers with a harsh leadership style. Thirteen French Cardinals who feared that their new leader would favour his fellow Italians fled Rome, declaring within months that Urban VI’s election was “null because it was not made freely but under fear”. On September 20, 1378, they chose their own French Cardinal Robert of Geneva, who became Antipope Clement VII. The competing papacies launched the Western Schism that proved a thorn in the Church’s side for four decades.
If only Urban VI had played nice…
7. Nicholas III
It’s always good to be Pope but for the three years of Nicholas III’s reign (1277-1280), it may have been better to be the Pope’s brother, or uncle, or cousin. Nicholas III distributed principalities in the Papal States among members of his family, essentially giving them land and political power. This nepotism earned him a spot in Dante’s eighth circle of Hell.
8. Clement V
Clement V (1305-1314) reversed Boniface VIII’s anti-France decrees and appointed 23 new French Cardinals, but his attempts to make amends were short-lived. When France’s King Philip IV charged the Knights Templar with heresy, Clement V abolished them before the King could ( retaining an appearance of supreme power). He played countries against one another; instituted oppressively high taxes, openly gave land to his supporters and family. Clement V had no qualms about his ability to be bought; for this reason, Dante also placed him in his Hell.
9. Leo X
Pope Leo X had expensive tastes. A true Renaissance man; he built up the Vatican Library, accelerated the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica and poured lavish funds into the arts but his efforts to renew Rome’s position as a cultural center took money. So much money, in fact, that within two years he had drained the papal treasury completely, as well as a great deal of his own fortune. To compensate, Leo X began selling off pieces of the Vatican palace – furniture, dishes, jewels and statues of the apostles. He also issued indulgences as a way to make up lost funds, essentially allowing sinners to buy their way out of damnation.
The indulgences helped, though in the end they would cost Leo X much more. Martin Luther harshly objected to what he saw as buying and selling of salvation, saying, “as soon as a coin in the offer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”. Leo X dismissed Luther’s claims. By failing to take such criticism seriously, he contributed to the dissolution of the Western Church and the rise of the Protestant Reformation.
10. Sergius III
The truth about Sergius III has been lost in the mists of time – he lived more than one millennium ago but he is believed to have the dubious distinction of the being the only Pope to order another Pope’s death: in 904, Antipope Christopher is believed to have been strangled to death on the orders of Sergius III – who took control of the papacy the same year. His shady doings didn’t end there. Sergius III is rumoured to have dallied with Marozia – the daughter of Theophylactus, a powerful count who helped the Pope expand into more territory – and to have fathered a son. That son, incidentally, went on to become Pope John IX.
Talk about holding a grudge. Pope Stephen VI (also sometimes known as Stephen VII) despised his predecessor, Pope Formosus, so much that even his death could not satisfy him – he wanted defamation. In the Cadaver Synod – what has been called “the strangest and most terrible in papal history” – Stephen VI had Formosus’ rotting nine-month-old corpse dug up, redressed in papal vestments and seated in the throne so that he could be tried. Somehow the corpse hadn’t built much of a defense, and Formosus was found guilty of what were likely bogus charges. As a punishment, three of Formosus’ fingers were cut off (the three fingers on the right hand used to give blessings).
The corpse was then stripped of his sacred vestments, dressed as a layman, dragged through the streets and dumped in the Tiber River – where he was finally able to rest in peace.
2. Boniface VIII
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) didn’t want to save your soul; he wanted to rule your life. Boniface VIII was one of the most ardent supporters of papal authority. What started as a minor squabble with King Philip IV of France over a government’s ability to tax clergy members escalated until Boniface VIII excommunicated the king and released a decree stating the “every human creature [was] subject to the Roman pontiff.” Boniface VIII sent mercenaries to destroy other people’s castles, declared all the prominent Italian Colonna family’s property forfeited and proceeded to parcel their land out among his family members. In September 1303, an army led by the Colonna family kidnapped the Pope and demanded that he abdicate. Held in captivity for multiple days, the Pope refused. He survived the attack and returned to Rome only to die a month later.
Although Boniface VIII was alive when Dante – who had been personally exiled by the pope for supporting papal limitations – wrote his famous Divine Comedy, the Italian writer placed him in his version of Hell anyway.
3. Benedict IX
Pope Benedict IX was not exactly beloved. St. Peter Damian, for one called him a “demon from hell in the disguise of a priest.” In his third book of Dialogues, Pope Victor III wrote of Benedict IX as having a life of a pope so vile, so foul, and so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.” No wonder Benedict IX decided to stick it to all of them, resigning in 1045 – and becoming the first man in history to sell the papacy. The buyer: the priest John Gratian (Pope Gregory VI). Benedict IX later refused to face charges of simony was excommunicated.
4. Pius XII
Quite popular during his time as Pontiff, Pius XII, who served at the Vatican from 1939 to 1958, has been the subject of heated debate in the decades since. As head of the Catholic Church World War II, Pius has been pilloried in some quarters for not doing more to speak out against the atrocities of the Holocaust. In January 2010, the head of Rome’s Jewish community confronted Pope Benedict XVI over Pope Pius’ perceived silence during the war. The church, however, has long held that Pius was active in saving Jews from the Nazis, a claim it says that will be supported when Vatican documents related to the war are released to the public over the next half decade.
5. Alexander VI
Corrupt, controversial and by some account wicked. Alexander VI was not a picture of papal purity. A member of the prominent and wealthy Borgia family, he bought his way into St. Peter’s. Once there, he appointed family members to powerful positions, including his sons and family members of his mistress, Vannozza Catanei. It is well-founded; other scandalous details may just be rumours, like his arranging murders or hosting wild orgies inside the papal palace. He did, however, bear four children by Catanei. He made his daughter Lucrezia into a political pawn – marrying her off three times in the hope of securing alliances and power. Some even speculate that Alexander VI fathered one of Lucrezia’s children
He did have one redeeming quality: his patronage of the arts. He persuaded Michelangelo to draw up plans for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, embellished the Vatican palaces and restored the Castel Sant’Angelo – all of which he is remembered for today.
6. Urban VI
The papacy of Urban VI (Bartolommeo Prignano) got off on the wrong foot. An Italian, he was elected to succeed Pope Gregory XI in April 1378 in a move intended to placate Romans bridling at the decades of French domination in the Papacy. But once installed, Urban VI alienated his followers with a harsh leadership style. Thirteen French Cardinals who feared that their new leader would favour his fellow Italians fled Rome, declaring within months that Urban VI’s election was “null because it was not made freely but under fear”. On September 20, 1378, they chose their own French Cardinal Robert of Geneva, who became Antipope Clement VII. The competing papacies launched the Western Schism that proved a thorn in the Church’s side for four decades.
If only Urban VI had played nice…
7. Nicholas III
It’s always good to be Pope but for the three years of Nicholas III’s reign (1277-1280), it may have been better to be the Pope’s brother, or uncle, or cousin. Nicholas III distributed principalities in the Papal States among members of his family, essentially giving them land and political power. This nepotism earned him a spot in Dante’s eighth circle of Hell.
8. Clement V
Clement V (1305-1314) reversed Boniface VIII’s anti-France decrees and appointed 23 new French Cardinals, but his attempts to make amends were short-lived. When France’s King Philip IV charged the Knights Templar with heresy, Clement V abolished them before the King could ( retaining an appearance of supreme power). He played countries against one another; instituted oppressively high taxes, openly gave land to his supporters and family. Clement V had no qualms about his ability to be bought; for this reason, Dante also placed him in his Hell.
9. Leo X
Pope Leo X had expensive tastes. A true Renaissance man; he built up the Vatican Library, accelerated the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica and poured lavish funds into the arts but his efforts to renew Rome’s position as a cultural center took money. So much money, in fact, that within two years he had drained the papal treasury completely, as well as a great deal of his own fortune. To compensate, Leo X began selling off pieces of the Vatican palace – furniture, dishes, jewels and statues of the apostles. He also issued indulgences as a way to make up lost funds, essentially allowing sinners to buy their way out of damnation.
The indulgences helped, though in the end they would cost Leo X much more. Martin Luther harshly objected to what he saw as buying and selling of salvation, saying, “as soon as a coin in the offer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”. Leo X dismissed Luther’s claims. By failing to take such criticism seriously, he contributed to the dissolution of the Western Church and the rise of the Protestant Reformation.
10. Sergius III
The truth about Sergius III has been lost in the mists of time – he lived more than one millennium ago but he is believed to have the dubious distinction of the being the only Pope to order another Pope’s death: in 904, Antipope Christopher is believed to have been strangled to death on the orders of Sergius III – who took control of the papacy the same year. His shady doings didn’t end there. Sergius III is rumoured to have dallied with Marozia – the daughter of Theophylactus, a powerful count who helped the Pope expand into more territory – and to have fathered a son. That son, incidentally, went on to become Pope John IX.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
