kdrop ofelection riots and the downfall of the government. Yet Achebe portrays Odili as moving towards a state of bitter cynicism,rather than towards any positive hope for meaningful change. To say that the people have been moved to anger by thecorruption of the politicians, Odili thinks is "sheer poppycock." Rather, it is a case of the people having become more cynicalthan their leaders, and apathetic too. This is not a popular, idealistic revolt: No, the people had nothing to do with the fall of our Government. What happened was simply that unruly mobs and private armies having tasted blood and power during the election had got out of hand and ruined their masters and employers. And they had no public reason for doing it. Let's make no mistake about that. (p. 162)The overthrow of the government is projected (through Odili) as basically an opportunist manoeuvre of no real lasting benefit inthe resolution of the vast socio-political contradictions that are nationally present. Achebe presents, with deliberate emphasis,what is essentially a stalemate situation. The "fat-dripping, gummy, eat-and-let-eat regime" disappears in the face of a militarycoup.It can be seen as no mere coincidence that the novel's publication coincided with the military takeover in Nigeria in January1966. On the contrary, the striking parallel between the limited resolution that is projected in A Man of the People and thenature of historical events can be seen as a vindication of Achebe's 'realist' presentation. To the extent that any possibleresolution is suggested (albeit a deliberately minimal one), it would appear to be based on the liberal humanist ideals of personalhonesty and individual integrity. But Achebe's novel gives no indication that these values will be sufficient to shelter the Nigerianpeople from the rain on the horizon. Nor does it (can it) draw, with any clarity, the future lines of battle.While the presented world of A Man of the Peo...
