Baba and the 23 Traitors
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Was anyone disappointed when twenty-three governors endorsed President Obasanjo’s request for a review of the Nigerian Constitution? To be frank, I was among those disappointed. There were some governors whom I thought will never betray their people or trade them off for the pittance of an additional tenure. Now, awakened by the stupidity of their resolve, I have joined other Nigerians to abandon our naivety and see the 23 governors who supported Obasanjo as a bunch of self-centred traitors who care more for their pockets than for the nation and its people.
The reader may be interested in knowing who they are. I will give you the list of those who voted NO: Bafarawa, Kure, Boni, Kalu, Shekarau, Tinibu and Dariye. If your governor is not among these seven and he has attended the meeting or sent his representative, then be certain that he is among the selfish folks I am talking about.
Obviously, people alone are too little to attract our attention. And events for their sake are too small to warrant our reflection on this page. What we must focus on are the ideas behind them. We should be interested to know why the Obasanjo wanted to wrap in the governors; why he is now reluctant to handover power, unlike in 1979; why in spite of our condemnation, the 23 governors have chosen to gang up with the President in defiance of our will.
It is not difficult to understand the reasons why the President wanted to get the commitment of the gover nors. The first is mathematical. All along he is made to alone bear the brunt of our criticisms, when we know very well that the benefit of a constitutional review will also be enjoyed by incumbent governors. Let them join me in the ring and receive the punches too, the President must have thought wisely. In this way, we are compelled to distribute the blame appropriately.
The second reason is strategic. No constitutional review will succeed without gaining two-thirds yes votes in the Houses of Assembly of two-thirds of the states in the country. Getting the commitment of the governors now will tantamount to a vow which none will dare violate without provoking the dangerous anger of the President and the ruling party. And the anger of Mr President is one catastrophe that they have learnt to avoid, particularly after it has ravaged many party ch airmen, senate presidents and governors alike.
Three, having committed themselves that much, the governors are compelled by fear of sanctions to start work in earnest. Each of them will be given a target to hit: he must convince the majority of national and state assembly members from his state, and possibly beyond. Failure to do so means he has deceived the President; and deceiving the President is an offence that will instantly incite EFCC to dust a governor’s dossier for immediate impeachment and prosecution. Someone is trying to play with the intelligence of their master, the “role model that we should copy.”
In order to understand the present mind frame of the President, we must look back and note that be fore him, other leaders have shown indomitable reluctance to handover power. In 1979 the will of Murtala was still alive; there was little Obasanjo could do. But Obasanjo has criticised both Babangida and Abacha over their attempt to stay put on the presidential seat. Yet, after swearing to protect the constitution, he is now playing the same game which they once played to extend their tenure.
There could be many reasons but for brevity we will mention the three most important ones. First, I suspect that there is a virus at Aso Rock which infects Presidents and make them defiant of history, principles and conscience. Obasanjo’s conscience has become infected by the same political virus that destroyed Babangida and Abacha. Anenih and Jerry Gana are strains of this virus. They were with the two dictators before; with them every plan was hatched and executed. Shamelessly, these parasites who cannot survive politically on their own have infected Obasanjo and made him believe that he can extend his tenure unlimited; that Nigerians are the dogs that will jump at any meat thrown at them; that they have infinite tolerance level. This group of pests, including all beneficiaries of the regime, will employ every weapon possible to extend their El Dorado. They have antagonised everyone so much that they feel Obasanjo is their last host.
Secondly, the auctioning of Nigeria under the disguise of privatisation is not yet over. Obasanjo is mad about its snail’s speed. He is still not done with the privatisation of NITEL, NEPA, Ports, Ajaokuta, and man y other assets of the federal government which he and his friends would like to appropriate. A third tenure, he and other beneficiaries calculate, will buy them the time necessary for the realisation of their dream: owning Nigeria Plc.
Thirdly, the President has come out of prison filled with vendetta. I think he is not done yet with his plans. The people he wanted to see impoverished are still surviving. His policy of alienation and marginalisation have not achieved their goals in full. More time, he thinks, is required to turn these folks into complete slaves, to reduce them into effectual minority in the political equation of Nigeria.
The fourth is inspired by the practice of rotation which compels the President to handover power to someone among those he did everything to alienate in the past seven years. He sacked their sons from the army, government ministries and Parastatals, underdeveloped their regions and betrayed their trust. He is hunted by his mischief that the political risk of returning power to them in 2007 appears dreadful
So much for the President, on whom we are never exhausted of writing at length.. What of the 23 governors who backed him? Actually, the President must have expected little resistance from those governors. He must have predicted that Bafarawa, Kure, Kalu, Shekarau, Boni, Tinubu and Dariye will not be on his side. These are people who have either publicly derided the i dea of a third tenure or they are already at logger heads with the President and thus have lost the hope of getting a nomination for any third term.
From the remaining 23 who vowed to support the President, he could not have hoped for anything less. Almost all of them have cases to answer with the EFCC. These guys have very deep cuts of corruption in their flesh. A third term not only accords them another brief moratorium, but it also grants them the opportunity to steal more. They have built mansions in Nigeria and bought many abroad; they have accumulated hard currencies overseas; that is why they cannot spend a month in the country. They have turned out to be small lords over their subjects. None and nothing, not even the law, can stop their plunder.
Certainly, they would not like the multi-billion naira theft to be over soon. Here are people who spent their last kobo to become governors in 2003; they also wielded all the power at their disposal to rig 2003 elections to win a second term, thinking that it will take ages before 2007 arrives.. An opportunity to shift the post is dangled at them, and what will they do but grab it. They know very well that EFCC is just waiting for 29 May 2007 before many of them are arrested and put behind bars.
There is also a geo-political angle to my disappointment. I am not in the least bothered with the support which governors from the Southern part of the country gave the President, including those of Igbo extraction. Recently, the President has sounded the possibility of a confederation if they concede a constitutional review. The ‘Biafran’ governors readily conceded because a confederation is akin to their long dream of independent Biafra. Here, the Igbo governors have adhered to the Arab principle that you don’t turn down a portion of what you cannot get complete. Confederation also serves the vanity of the South-South which wants to have a complete control over its resources. These people are so deaf that they are unaware of the shifting emphasis in energy technology that will soon reduce the relevance of petroleum to nothing. Then as for the South-west, confederation reduces their risk of injury which a long stay of power in other regions might inflict on their ‘race’.
The people whom I did not expect to support the President, e xcept on selfish grounds, are the Northern governors. I am tired of the dishonesty of these pests. These are the people who not long ago, in their forum, passed a resolution that in 2007 power must shift to the North. How does it shift to the North when they have now signed a contract that it remains with Obasanjo? They are traitors who deserve every humiliating treatment. In the last seven years, as their assets and accounts continue to grow, they have seen the degree of poverty of their people rise to over 70%, unashamed; they have seen how their states were excluded from vital national development projects; etc. Yet, since they are only commanded by their desire and never persuaded by the noble spirit of collective interest, they will never sacrifice their gluttony for the survival of their people.
The ball is now set rolling. Soon, we will wit ness our governors holding secret meetings with their state legislators, and I bet you that it will be a walkover. The legislators are awaiting the millions with which the Presidency will buy their votes. If we cannot trust the governors, I doubt if we can trust the state legislators who were handpicked and sustained by the governors. We will be glad, though, if they defy our prediction.
Northern senators and members of the House of Representatives have vowed to frustrate the President’s effort at the National Assembly. I hope they do so, that is if they do not fall off the same way that the Governors did. In addition, with the support of southern members, the President needs only to play the card of ethnicity and religion to get the number he requires from the North to pass the bill with a majority vote.
What is our way out? The surest way remains with the population. We must wake up from our slumber and walk away from our complacent positions. We must confront these treacherous governors head on. No treatment will be too inhuman and no humiliation will be grave for a traitor. Resistance is the answer. Let us storm the venues of such treachery where the Mantu committee will sit. If reason does not work, for God’s sake, let us employ other tools, anywhere, anytime.
Finally, I will be very glad if Nigerians prove me wrong on a forecast I made a month after the 2003 elections. In The Monster Ahead, an article which I published in my Thisday newspaper column, I noted that “with a total control over his party, and the party having majority in national and state assemblies, nothing, practically nothing, can stop the President from amending the constitution to limit the number of parties in the country and review his tenure beyond 2007.” We have the duty to disprove this prediction. But it is not possible unless the elite among us damn the consequences and abandon the culture of complacency and silence. Or do we through the challenge as Dan Anache once put it, saying: Ina mazan suke?
Showing posts with label Democracy in Nigeria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy in Nigeria. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Democracy or Hypocrisy
Democracy or Hypocrisy
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Our discussion today has to do with democracy in the Middle East, the subject of two debates that I watched two weeks ago, one on the BBC and the other on Al-Jazeerah.
The BBC debate which took place before an Arab audience in Doha, United Arab Emirates, and sponsored by Carter Foundation was moderated by Tim Sabastian of the popular BBC program Hardtalk. It proposed that George W. Bush has kicked-started democratic movement in the Arab world. Two Arabs were called to support the motion. One of them was Fouad Ajami, an Egyptian-American, who for decades has been teaching at John Hopkins University. Now he is an American and throughout the debate he identified himself as “we Americans.” Ajami is undoubtedly versed in Arab affairs as I remember reading his seminal work on Muslim fundamentalism twenty years ago. His supporter in the debate was the Editor of the popular Al-Hayat newspaper.
Ajami did not hesitate to express his support for the recent American adventure in the Middle East. He praised Bush’s invasion of Iraq, saying that it has yielded democracy. He tried to establish an emerging democratic trend in the region, citing what happened recently in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon. He might have added Saudi Arabia. He even justified the American violations of human rights in Iraqi prisons, claiming that the victims are people who themselves brutalized Iraqis under Saddam Hussein.
The American supervised elections that were conducted three months ago were the strongest point of Ajami and his Al-Hayat supporter. They correctly pointed out that it was the first genuine election in an Arab country. Ajami also cited the ongoing change in Egypt, the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon and the Palestinian elections in the occupied territories. In Egypt, if we remember, Mubarak has asked the national assembly to amend the constitution such that, for the first time, more than a candidate can contest the presidential election. Prior to this time it was only Mr. Mubarak. That is all the progress there. In Lebanon, Ajami is happy that the protests have driven Syria out of the country, just as he is delighted with the exclusion of Yaser Arafat from Palestinian politics, as if Arafat was not an elected leader. In Saudi Arabia, local council elections have taken place, though without the participation of women.
All in all, what the supporters of the motion have shown is their understanding that the Arab world has been a subject of despotism. According to them, it does not matter if that freedom is achieved through the assistance of a foreign power. As the Editor aptly put it, “when someone is sitting on your chest, it does not matter if who removes him is the devil himself.”
I think there is no doubt that the Arab world has been under despotic regimes for decades. What is in dispute is the motion that America is responsible for kick-starting democratic reforms in the region. The second bone of contention is whether America is sincerely interested in democratising the region. In the first place, prior to the invasion of Iraq, America has never claimed that its war in Iraq would be for democracy. Its direction was completely different. The pretext given by both Washington and its London surrogate was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Even Fouad Ajami accepted that America stumbled on democracy in Iraq after its failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, like Columbus, to quote Ajami, who discovered the Americas while looking for a route to India.
The ‘discovery’ of democracy in Iraq could not be avoided by America; in fact, it boxed itself into that corner. America, nay, the Western world, has never been sincerely interested in democracy anywhere in the developing world. Its interest in democracy, where it occurs, is dictated by opportunism. After invading Iraq it found it impossible to win the tranquillity that is necessary for economic exploitation, as 21st century is too advanced to recognize legitimacy based on military occupation by a foreign power as it happened in the late 19th century. Elections are the only answer, hence the democratic rhetoric. This point was clearly proved by the opposing participants in the Doha BBC debate.
The elections that were held in the end of January could hardly be credible even by the standard of George Bush. As one of the opposing participants said in the debate, Bush made free elections as one of the reasons why Syria should leave Lebanon, saying there cannot be free and fair elections under occupation! How could elections held in Iraq under American occupation then be regarded as free and fair?
Now it is clear that the weapons of that mass destruction pretext was a sham. The real motive was the economic exploitation of Iraq. America went there for oil because it is the cheapest to drill in the world. Can people who are politically free allow their economic subjugation and exploitation by a foreign power? No. That is why people must accept that America’s commitment to democracy is mere rhetoric, a smokescreen, or at best a vehicle for installing puppets who will guarantee Anglo-American interest. When the BBC debate was over, a vote from the Arab audience was sought. No wonder that at the end of the count, 73% of the audience discredited America’s credentials in the Arab World. Only 27% agreed with Ajami and the Editor of Al-Hayat.
Whatever the outcome of that debate the fact that democracy is yet to take hold in the Arab world cannot be dismissed. That section of the globe is the most lagging, the most despotic, authoritarian and undemocratic, where economic and political participation is dependent either on basis of inheritance like in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Syria and Morocco, or in the hands of a brutal clique as in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The ruthlessness of these regimes is beyond description and their brutality is well known to the West for decades. The question is why the delay in the democratisation of the region? Has it got something to do with the region or with the regimes?
This brings us to the second debate in which Sheikh Jaafar Idris, a renowned Sudanese Islamic cleric and activist living in the Gulf, was the guest of Shariah wal-Hayat in Al-Jazeerah. The issues in the discussion were two. One of them was the seemingly generic contradiction between Islam and democracy. Both Idris and Ismat, the contributor to the discussion from Egypt and who is a leading member of Muslim Brotherhood, agreed on the need to democratise the Arab world. Where they differed was that Idris, the cleric, seemed to disagree with western style of democracy where people take the place of God. In Islam, as he correctly said, sovereignty belongs to God, not the people; so the basis of legislation must be the Shariah – the revealed provisions of Islam regarding fundamental aspects of belief and life. For example, God has prohibited loan with interest. It is therefore impossible for any Islamic government to legalize interest simply because it is the wish or interest of its people. The same thing applies to adultery, capital punishment, bribery, hoarding, alcohol, narcotics, etc.
Thus, while Islam has made consultation and people’s welfare the pillars of governance, prior to that it made Shariah the foundation. Once the foundation is not altered, anything can be built on it to achieve the egalitarian gaols of social justice. That is why Idris insisted that if democracy simply means representative government based on consultation, election, etc, then it is simply a variant of the principle of shura which Islam has recommended since its inception in the 7th century. If, on the other hand, democracy means transfer of sovereignty from God to People, then it will be difficult to find it accommodation in Muslim societies.
Dr. Ismat, the contributor from Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood which is the main opposition party in Egypt was more pragmatic than Idris. In Egypt, he said, all parties, including the Socialists Party, have agreed that Shariah is the basis of legislation, meaning that no legislation can be valid if it contradicts Islamic precepts. The constitution, he said, has even given the Supreme Court in Egypt the power to annul any legislation that contradicts Shariah. But Idris was not convinced that any true socialist will accept Shariah as the fundamental basis of legislation as Marxism is a contradiction of Islam. The acquiescence of the socialists is simply a ploy not to run against the current of Islamic revival in the country.
I agree with Dr. Ismat that Muslim countries can fashion a democratic government that can make Shariah the foundation of its legislation. The details of the political process and structures, like elections and form of government, can then be left to the peculiarities of each nation. This understanding, simple as it is, is not acceptable to Western political establishment. Democracy in the developing world, to the West, must have two principal properties: One, it must come through a corrupt process, never transparent; two, its values and form must be Western.
The above requirements – corruption and Westernisation – must be met not only by the Arab and Muslim nations but by all developing countries. While corruption ensures economic subjugation of a developing country, adoption of Western values guarantees the perpetual mental enslavement of its people. Corruption allows room for the CIA and other organs of Western imperialism to manipulate the electoral process and allow its puppets to surface as winners. Adoption of western values, which now includes free market and the ascendancy of capitalism as an ideology, limits the capacity of the brain to locate solutions to problems of under-development outside the Western capitalist horizon. Once the two conditions are met, by Western standards, a democracy is invented and, behold, it is hailed by Western governments and their mass media. If it is nationalistic in outlook and has values that contradict or threaten the superiority of Western economic or military domination, then it is evil and dictatorship.
Thus, Zimbabwe is not a democracy even if Mugabe holds elections regularly and is supported by the majority of peasants. His sin is in returning to the native population land that was stolen by “white” thieves with colonial conspiracy. The opposition in Zimbabwe backed by imperialist forces in London, New York and Washington can appeal only to brainwashed elite in cities. China is not a democracy even if its government is representative. It requires a presidential or parliamentary system before it could be so qualified.
On the other hand, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt is regarded as practicing democracy even if only the candidate of his – The National Party – is allowed to contest the presidential elections. In addition, while Zimbabwe is subjected to sanctions, Egypt receives for over two decades a grant of over $2billion annually from the United States alone. And where is the Western value of human rights when America supports this most brutal regime on earth after Saddam? In the same vein, President Obasanjo of Nigeria was quickly congratulated by George Bush after the April 19 election that were globally recognised as a sham. But who can win elections and protect American economic interests better than a director of Africa Leadership Forum, a CIA outfit, as many have written previously?
Algerian and Iranian experiences in democracy have uncovered the hypocrisy of the West regarding democracy. After the Iranian revolution of 1978 that terminated American exploitation under the Shah, citizens of Iran went to referendum and approved an Islamic constitution. Based on the constitution a government was formed which has been holding elections as prescribed by the constitution. Iran has therefore fulfilled all conditions of democracy as a representative government. But because the values of Iranian democracy are not derived from the imperialistic values of the West, Iran is described today as evil, in line with the dictatorship of Syria and South Korea. What freedom then did the American President mean when in the last State of the Union Address he said to the Iranians: “As you stand for your freedom, America stands with you.” Where was this rhetoric when Iran was under the Pehlavi monarchy? We are waiting for the invasion of Iran to institute ‘democracy’, though, as it was the case with Iraq, the pretext now is nuclear weapons.
In Algeria we saw the shameless and brutal suppression of democracy by France and the CIA. When FIS, an Islamic party, won the majority in local government elections, the military were promptly recruited to topple the democracy and execute one of the most inhuman crackdowns on leaders and followers of FIS. Their crime is simple: why should they form a political party, contest and win elections when their heads are filled with notions of Islam, not of American imperialism?
Curious enough, Saudi Arabia is not under pressure on democracy from United States and Britain as is Zimbabwe. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that makes leadership the exclusive preserve of House of Saud. Hardly do we hear Bush or Blair speak about democracy in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Why should they, when the Houses of Saud and Sabah are allowing them unfettered access to oil wealth? Why should even Bin Laden be arrested, in spite of the advancement in positioning technology, when his family, like the House of Saud, is a business relation of the House of Bush?
It is therefore difficult to ascribe the failure of democracy in Arab countries to the ideological difference between Islam and Western values or to a myth peculiar to the region. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for example has been proponents of democracy since the 1940s. But with the support of the former Soviet Union during Naser and of America since Sadat, they have been frustrated consistently through proscription, massive arrests, most severe tortures kangaroo trials, mass executions and other forms of inhuman abuse for over sixty years now. What is happening is therefore clear: It is not in the interest of the West for any developing country to become truly independent to the extent of granting its citizens the freedom they need to advance their development. This policy will never change as long as western economic and military supremacy survives.
In conclusion, it is apt to quote for the third time in this column Democratization of Professor Nwabueze to support the view that Western concern about democracy in our countries is mere hypocrisy. Nwabueze quoted John Stuart Mill who in 1859 said: “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually affecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar of Charlemange, if they are so fortunate to have one.” Ya kobsa.
Nwabueze also added: “Lord Bryce, writing in 1920… (said) democracy and free government were not suitable nor meant for, and should not be embarked upon by ‘backward peoples’ among whom he classified the rest of mankind apart from Britain, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan; despotism, he said is what is good for them, and the democratic ‘experiments that are now being tried might have been better left untried.’ And if at all “the working of fitting’ such peoples for self-government is to be attempted, it should be done by slow degrees.”
Some people hardly change.
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Our discussion today has to do with democracy in the Middle East, the subject of two debates that I watched two weeks ago, one on the BBC and the other on Al-Jazeerah.
The BBC debate which took place before an Arab audience in Doha, United Arab Emirates, and sponsored by Carter Foundation was moderated by Tim Sabastian of the popular BBC program Hardtalk. It proposed that George W. Bush has kicked-started democratic movement in the Arab world. Two Arabs were called to support the motion. One of them was Fouad Ajami, an Egyptian-American, who for decades has been teaching at John Hopkins University. Now he is an American and throughout the debate he identified himself as “we Americans.” Ajami is undoubtedly versed in Arab affairs as I remember reading his seminal work on Muslim fundamentalism twenty years ago. His supporter in the debate was the Editor of the popular Al-Hayat newspaper.
Ajami did not hesitate to express his support for the recent American adventure in the Middle East. He praised Bush’s invasion of Iraq, saying that it has yielded democracy. He tried to establish an emerging democratic trend in the region, citing what happened recently in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon. He might have added Saudi Arabia. He even justified the American violations of human rights in Iraqi prisons, claiming that the victims are people who themselves brutalized Iraqis under Saddam Hussein.
The American supervised elections that were conducted three months ago were the strongest point of Ajami and his Al-Hayat supporter. They correctly pointed out that it was the first genuine election in an Arab country. Ajami also cited the ongoing change in Egypt, the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon and the Palestinian elections in the occupied territories. In Egypt, if we remember, Mubarak has asked the national assembly to amend the constitution such that, for the first time, more than a candidate can contest the presidential election. Prior to this time it was only Mr. Mubarak. That is all the progress there. In Lebanon, Ajami is happy that the protests have driven Syria out of the country, just as he is delighted with the exclusion of Yaser Arafat from Palestinian politics, as if Arafat was not an elected leader. In Saudi Arabia, local council elections have taken place, though without the participation of women.
All in all, what the supporters of the motion have shown is their understanding that the Arab world has been a subject of despotism. According to them, it does not matter if that freedom is achieved through the assistance of a foreign power. As the Editor aptly put it, “when someone is sitting on your chest, it does not matter if who removes him is the devil himself.”
I think there is no doubt that the Arab world has been under despotic regimes for decades. What is in dispute is the motion that America is responsible for kick-starting democratic reforms in the region. The second bone of contention is whether America is sincerely interested in democratising the region. In the first place, prior to the invasion of Iraq, America has never claimed that its war in Iraq would be for democracy. Its direction was completely different. The pretext given by both Washington and its London surrogate was the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Even Fouad Ajami accepted that America stumbled on democracy in Iraq after its failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, like Columbus, to quote Ajami, who discovered the Americas while looking for a route to India.
The ‘discovery’ of democracy in Iraq could not be avoided by America; in fact, it boxed itself into that corner. America, nay, the Western world, has never been sincerely interested in democracy anywhere in the developing world. Its interest in democracy, where it occurs, is dictated by opportunism. After invading Iraq it found it impossible to win the tranquillity that is necessary for economic exploitation, as 21st century is too advanced to recognize legitimacy based on military occupation by a foreign power as it happened in the late 19th century. Elections are the only answer, hence the democratic rhetoric. This point was clearly proved by the opposing participants in the Doha BBC debate.
The elections that were held in the end of January could hardly be credible even by the standard of George Bush. As one of the opposing participants said in the debate, Bush made free elections as one of the reasons why Syria should leave Lebanon, saying there cannot be free and fair elections under occupation! How could elections held in Iraq under American occupation then be regarded as free and fair?
Now it is clear that the weapons of that mass destruction pretext was a sham. The real motive was the economic exploitation of Iraq. America went there for oil because it is the cheapest to drill in the world. Can people who are politically free allow their economic subjugation and exploitation by a foreign power? No. That is why people must accept that America’s commitment to democracy is mere rhetoric, a smokescreen, or at best a vehicle for installing puppets who will guarantee Anglo-American interest. When the BBC debate was over, a vote from the Arab audience was sought. No wonder that at the end of the count, 73% of the audience discredited America’s credentials in the Arab World. Only 27% agreed with Ajami and the Editor of Al-Hayat.
Whatever the outcome of that debate the fact that democracy is yet to take hold in the Arab world cannot be dismissed. That section of the globe is the most lagging, the most despotic, authoritarian and undemocratic, where economic and political participation is dependent either on basis of inheritance like in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Syria and Morocco, or in the hands of a brutal clique as in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The ruthlessness of these regimes is beyond description and their brutality is well known to the West for decades. The question is why the delay in the democratisation of the region? Has it got something to do with the region or with the regimes?
This brings us to the second debate in which Sheikh Jaafar Idris, a renowned Sudanese Islamic cleric and activist living in the Gulf, was the guest of Shariah wal-Hayat in Al-Jazeerah. The issues in the discussion were two. One of them was the seemingly generic contradiction between Islam and democracy. Both Idris and Ismat, the contributor to the discussion from Egypt and who is a leading member of Muslim Brotherhood, agreed on the need to democratise the Arab world. Where they differed was that Idris, the cleric, seemed to disagree with western style of democracy where people take the place of God. In Islam, as he correctly said, sovereignty belongs to God, not the people; so the basis of legislation must be the Shariah – the revealed provisions of Islam regarding fundamental aspects of belief and life. For example, God has prohibited loan with interest. It is therefore impossible for any Islamic government to legalize interest simply because it is the wish or interest of its people. The same thing applies to adultery, capital punishment, bribery, hoarding, alcohol, narcotics, etc.
Thus, while Islam has made consultation and people’s welfare the pillars of governance, prior to that it made Shariah the foundation. Once the foundation is not altered, anything can be built on it to achieve the egalitarian gaols of social justice. That is why Idris insisted that if democracy simply means representative government based on consultation, election, etc, then it is simply a variant of the principle of shura which Islam has recommended since its inception in the 7th century. If, on the other hand, democracy means transfer of sovereignty from God to People, then it will be difficult to find it accommodation in Muslim societies.
Dr. Ismat, the contributor from Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood which is the main opposition party in Egypt was more pragmatic than Idris. In Egypt, he said, all parties, including the Socialists Party, have agreed that Shariah is the basis of legislation, meaning that no legislation can be valid if it contradicts Islamic precepts. The constitution, he said, has even given the Supreme Court in Egypt the power to annul any legislation that contradicts Shariah. But Idris was not convinced that any true socialist will accept Shariah as the fundamental basis of legislation as Marxism is a contradiction of Islam. The acquiescence of the socialists is simply a ploy not to run against the current of Islamic revival in the country.
I agree with Dr. Ismat that Muslim countries can fashion a democratic government that can make Shariah the foundation of its legislation. The details of the political process and structures, like elections and form of government, can then be left to the peculiarities of each nation. This understanding, simple as it is, is not acceptable to Western political establishment. Democracy in the developing world, to the West, must have two principal properties: One, it must come through a corrupt process, never transparent; two, its values and form must be Western.
The above requirements – corruption and Westernisation – must be met not only by the Arab and Muslim nations but by all developing countries. While corruption ensures economic subjugation of a developing country, adoption of Western values guarantees the perpetual mental enslavement of its people. Corruption allows room for the CIA and other organs of Western imperialism to manipulate the electoral process and allow its puppets to surface as winners. Adoption of western values, which now includes free market and the ascendancy of capitalism as an ideology, limits the capacity of the brain to locate solutions to problems of under-development outside the Western capitalist horizon. Once the two conditions are met, by Western standards, a democracy is invented and, behold, it is hailed by Western governments and their mass media. If it is nationalistic in outlook and has values that contradict or threaten the superiority of Western economic or military domination, then it is evil and dictatorship.
Thus, Zimbabwe is not a democracy even if Mugabe holds elections regularly and is supported by the majority of peasants. His sin is in returning to the native population land that was stolen by “white” thieves with colonial conspiracy. The opposition in Zimbabwe backed by imperialist forces in London, New York and Washington can appeal only to brainwashed elite in cities. China is not a democracy even if its government is representative. It requires a presidential or parliamentary system before it could be so qualified.
On the other hand, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt is regarded as practicing democracy even if only the candidate of his – The National Party – is allowed to contest the presidential elections. In addition, while Zimbabwe is subjected to sanctions, Egypt receives for over two decades a grant of over $2billion annually from the United States alone. And where is the Western value of human rights when America supports this most brutal regime on earth after Saddam? In the same vein, President Obasanjo of Nigeria was quickly congratulated by George Bush after the April 19 election that were globally recognised as a sham. But who can win elections and protect American economic interests better than a director of Africa Leadership Forum, a CIA outfit, as many have written previously?
Algerian and Iranian experiences in democracy have uncovered the hypocrisy of the West regarding democracy. After the Iranian revolution of 1978 that terminated American exploitation under the Shah, citizens of Iran went to referendum and approved an Islamic constitution. Based on the constitution a government was formed which has been holding elections as prescribed by the constitution. Iran has therefore fulfilled all conditions of democracy as a representative government. But because the values of Iranian democracy are not derived from the imperialistic values of the West, Iran is described today as evil, in line with the dictatorship of Syria and South Korea. What freedom then did the American President mean when in the last State of the Union Address he said to the Iranians: “As you stand for your freedom, America stands with you.” Where was this rhetoric when Iran was under the Pehlavi monarchy? We are waiting for the invasion of Iran to institute ‘democracy’, though, as it was the case with Iraq, the pretext now is nuclear weapons.
In Algeria we saw the shameless and brutal suppression of democracy by France and the CIA. When FIS, an Islamic party, won the majority in local government elections, the military were promptly recruited to topple the democracy and execute one of the most inhuman crackdowns on leaders and followers of FIS. Their crime is simple: why should they form a political party, contest and win elections when their heads are filled with notions of Islam, not of American imperialism?
Curious enough, Saudi Arabia is not under pressure on democracy from United States and Britain as is Zimbabwe. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that makes leadership the exclusive preserve of House of Saud. Hardly do we hear Bush or Blair speak about democracy in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Why should they, when the Houses of Saud and Sabah are allowing them unfettered access to oil wealth? Why should even Bin Laden be arrested, in spite of the advancement in positioning technology, when his family, like the House of Saud, is a business relation of the House of Bush?
It is therefore difficult to ascribe the failure of democracy in Arab countries to the ideological difference between Islam and Western values or to a myth peculiar to the region. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for example has been proponents of democracy since the 1940s. But with the support of the former Soviet Union during Naser and of America since Sadat, they have been frustrated consistently through proscription, massive arrests, most severe tortures kangaroo trials, mass executions and other forms of inhuman abuse for over sixty years now. What is happening is therefore clear: It is not in the interest of the West for any developing country to become truly independent to the extent of granting its citizens the freedom they need to advance their development. This policy will never change as long as western economic and military supremacy survives.
In conclusion, it is apt to quote for the third time in this column Democratization of Professor Nwabueze to support the view that Western concern about democracy in our countries is mere hypocrisy. Nwabueze quoted John Stuart Mill who in 1859 said: “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually affecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar of Charlemange, if they are so fortunate to have one.” Ya kobsa.
Nwabueze also added: “Lord Bryce, writing in 1920… (said) democracy and free government were not suitable nor meant for, and should not be embarked upon by ‘backward peoples’ among whom he classified the rest of mankind apart from Britain, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan; despotism, he said is what is good for them, and the democratic ‘experiments that are now being tried might have been better left untried.’ And if at all “the working of fitting’ such peoples for self-government is to be attempted, it should be done by slow degrees.”
Some people hardly change.
For Single-Term Tenure
For Single Term Tenure
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
The 1999 constitution, like its 1999 ancestor, has provided for the maximum of two terms for any elected president, state governor or local government chairman. For about a year now, and perhaps even before, there have been appeals for the contraction of such tenures to a single term only. Such voices have concluded that two consecutive terms could be deleterious to the survival of democracy in Nigeria.
The calls for a maximum of single tenure are largely informed by the fear that a sitting executive will be obliged by his desire for a second term to “stand up” and use whatever is at his disposal to ensure that he succeeds himself, no matter how popular is the desire to unseat him. During every civilian-civilian transition, the political entropy rises, the atmosphere becomes charged and the fear of a shutdown comes to govern the minds of the privileged and the destitute alike. Nigerians look back at the ugly experience of 1966 and 1983 when election fraud formed the major ground for military takeover.
There was the general fear that 2003 would be the same. Supporters of two terms, if any, will now, with the benefit of hindsight, assert that since there was no unrest that followed the last 4-19 elections and neither is there any significant apprehension of a coup, Nigerians have now accepted democracy as an eternal value to preserve at all cost, regardless of the electoral fraud that might be committed by a sitting president. Therefore, they will urge us to stop looking backwards. Instead, we should look forward by appreciating and exploiting the advantages of granting an executive a maximum of two terms.
The advantages of allowing a second term, they would claim, are many. One, it consolidates the gains of the first. Two, the executive is accorded the chance to learn and perfect the art of governance by having the chance to correct his mistake and discover better ways of handling issues. Three, he is given enough time to plan and execute development projects; single term, they will argue, is too short to allow serious projects to mature. Four, the lesser the frequency of changing leadership of a country, the more is its political stability. Finally, the more dreaded reason: single term will exacerbate corruption, since elected executives know that they have only one term to loot the economy.
From Libya to Egypt, from Malaysia to Indonesia, examples could be cited to illustrate the gains of according an executive a several terms. Some may even argue that America would have been better had Clinton continued as its president than what it is today under George W. Bush. The longer the tenure, the better for the country, they may claim.
However, when speaking of single term, we are talking about its necessity, not its advantages. It is necessary to protect democracy by liberating it from the destructive penchant of a man bent on retaining power longer than the duration desired by his people. There was no form of malpractice or fraud that was not committed during the last 4-19 elections. The fact that people are silent over it has nothing to do with the their convictions over democracy, just as Mobuto and Mugabe were not toppled as a result of election unrest. Tenacity does not confer legitimacy to any regime; if anything, it is more associated with despotism than with democracy. In any case, another president in future may not enjoy the ethnic and sectarian interests that were used to gloss over the 4-19 fraud. Therefore, the likelihood of unrest as a result of such fraud when committed in future by another president from a different background, as we had it in 1983, remains high.
Even the supposedly plausible arguments about development and the fear of pervasive corruption canvassed in support of two terms are suspect. Two terms in a country like ours are detrimental to development because during the first term the incumbent concentrates on appeasing people and securing their support for his second term. And since in Nigeria politics is largely about money, the incumbent cannot secure a second term without greasing the palms of party officials and delegates at the party convention, or without spending stupendous amounts of money during the national elections. This vanishes the perceived difference in vulnerability of the treasury to plunder between a single term and double term. The only difference is that the latter is driven by hope, while the former is pushed by avarice.
We can also question the issue of increased political stability supposedly engendered by a second term. Instability has more to do with internal discontent than with the frequency with which governments come and go. If any government treats its people with justice and manages their resources transparently for their common good, there will be little ground for acrimony or unrest. Such governments will undoubtedly be popular, regardless of the basis of their legitimacy, whether monarchical, military or democratic. But so long as injustice prevails and people are governed more by expedience than by rule of law, so long will discontent, rancor and unrest become their lot. Across the world there have been many regimes that lasted for decades but their countries are still far from being regarded as stable.
The same logic stands against the issue of development. It is easy to think that a second tenure will consolidate the gains of the first or it will afford the correction of past mistakes. The reality in Nigeria, however, points to the contrary. A president or governor who knows that he has only one term and desiring to leave a good record will face development with the greatest commitment possible. That commitment will be reduced or even delayed when he knows that the possibility of a second tenure exists. On the other hand, an executive who believes government is an avenue for making “business” will mismanage it even if he were allowed hundred tenures. Of course, we will lament the departure of a leader committed to social justice, any time we are lucky to have one; we may even shed tears when listening to his valedictory speech. But we are assured that, as a father, he must have arranged for a successor that will continue with his good work.
We have people who have ruled this country for years with little to show except wasting our resources, destruction of our institutions and pervasive corruption. Today, they are under the illusion of returning, claiming that they have realized their mistakes. In the same vein, Obasanjo and most governors are spending their second terms. Going by the arguments canvassed in support of more than one term, we expect them to have a better vision of their task and show signs that they intend to correct their past mistakes. But over 100 days now, each of them is continuing with his previous style and repeating the same mistakes. Only the number of the president’s overseas trips, not that of the governors, appears to have reduced; the rest remains the same. The vision of Murtala Mohammed, on the other hand, was clear right from his first speech and, though he spent only six months in office, that vision is still with us, crystal clear. For four years now, not even Obasanjo can honestly tell the world the vision of our present “democratically” elected government.
I strongly feel that democracy in Nigeria will be served better by a single term. Apart from what is said above, a single term will reduce the influence of money in our politics. The need for an incumbent to loot the treasury to finance his return bid will be absent. He only needs to finance the bid of another person. Since men are less committed to the success of others than they are to their own, the appetite of an incumbent to devour the treasury for election purposes on behalf of his successor is lessened.
When an incumbent is contesting elections, the electoral process will usually come under his heavy influence. Elections will be more transparent if he is not returning because INEC, the police and the judiciary will be less compelled by the persuasion of an aspiring successor than by the fear of vengeance from the incumbent. In addition, in spite of the support an incumbent may lend to a ruling party candidate, the gap between latter and his contender will be reduced.
For those who believe in power shift, their whims are better served by adopting single term. And since power is likely to shift from one zone to another, the transition will be attended more by the optimism for change than by the boring continuity of a returning incumbent.
If only to grant us the cause of that optimism once every five years, not even for the more formidable risk of a total shut down that is the backbone of our argument, the National Assembly committee on constitutional reforms of the should limit tenures of our local government chairmen, governors, and presidents to just one term. It should quickly do so before supporters of the president come pressing for a third term with gifts that its members could not resist.
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
The 1999 constitution, like its 1999 ancestor, has provided for the maximum of two terms for any elected president, state governor or local government chairman. For about a year now, and perhaps even before, there have been appeals for the contraction of such tenures to a single term only. Such voices have concluded that two consecutive terms could be deleterious to the survival of democracy in Nigeria.
The calls for a maximum of single tenure are largely informed by the fear that a sitting executive will be obliged by his desire for a second term to “stand up” and use whatever is at his disposal to ensure that he succeeds himself, no matter how popular is the desire to unseat him. During every civilian-civilian transition, the political entropy rises, the atmosphere becomes charged and the fear of a shutdown comes to govern the minds of the privileged and the destitute alike. Nigerians look back at the ugly experience of 1966 and 1983 when election fraud formed the major ground for military takeover.
There was the general fear that 2003 would be the same. Supporters of two terms, if any, will now, with the benefit of hindsight, assert that since there was no unrest that followed the last 4-19 elections and neither is there any significant apprehension of a coup, Nigerians have now accepted democracy as an eternal value to preserve at all cost, regardless of the electoral fraud that might be committed by a sitting president. Therefore, they will urge us to stop looking backwards. Instead, we should look forward by appreciating and exploiting the advantages of granting an executive a maximum of two terms.
The advantages of allowing a second term, they would claim, are many. One, it consolidates the gains of the first. Two, the executive is accorded the chance to learn and perfect the art of governance by having the chance to correct his mistake and discover better ways of handling issues. Three, he is given enough time to plan and execute development projects; single term, they will argue, is too short to allow serious projects to mature. Four, the lesser the frequency of changing leadership of a country, the more is its political stability. Finally, the more dreaded reason: single term will exacerbate corruption, since elected executives know that they have only one term to loot the economy.
From Libya to Egypt, from Malaysia to Indonesia, examples could be cited to illustrate the gains of according an executive a several terms. Some may even argue that America would have been better had Clinton continued as its president than what it is today under George W. Bush. The longer the tenure, the better for the country, they may claim.
However, when speaking of single term, we are talking about its necessity, not its advantages. It is necessary to protect democracy by liberating it from the destructive penchant of a man bent on retaining power longer than the duration desired by his people. There was no form of malpractice or fraud that was not committed during the last 4-19 elections. The fact that people are silent over it has nothing to do with the their convictions over democracy, just as Mobuto and Mugabe were not toppled as a result of election unrest. Tenacity does not confer legitimacy to any regime; if anything, it is more associated with despotism than with democracy. In any case, another president in future may not enjoy the ethnic and sectarian interests that were used to gloss over the 4-19 fraud. Therefore, the likelihood of unrest as a result of such fraud when committed in future by another president from a different background, as we had it in 1983, remains high.
Even the supposedly plausible arguments about development and the fear of pervasive corruption canvassed in support of two terms are suspect. Two terms in a country like ours are detrimental to development because during the first term the incumbent concentrates on appeasing people and securing their support for his second term. And since in Nigeria politics is largely about money, the incumbent cannot secure a second term without greasing the palms of party officials and delegates at the party convention, or without spending stupendous amounts of money during the national elections. This vanishes the perceived difference in vulnerability of the treasury to plunder between a single term and double term. The only difference is that the latter is driven by hope, while the former is pushed by avarice.
We can also question the issue of increased political stability supposedly engendered by a second term. Instability has more to do with internal discontent than with the frequency with which governments come and go. If any government treats its people with justice and manages their resources transparently for their common good, there will be little ground for acrimony or unrest. Such governments will undoubtedly be popular, regardless of the basis of their legitimacy, whether monarchical, military or democratic. But so long as injustice prevails and people are governed more by expedience than by rule of law, so long will discontent, rancor and unrest become their lot. Across the world there have been many regimes that lasted for decades but their countries are still far from being regarded as stable.
The same logic stands against the issue of development. It is easy to think that a second tenure will consolidate the gains of the first or it will afford the correction of past mistakes. The reality in Nigeria, however, points to the contrary. A president or governor who knows that he has only one term and desiring to leave a good record will face development with the greatest commitment possible. That commitment will be reduced or even delayed when he knows that the possibility of a second tenure exists. On the other hand, an executive who believes government is an avenue for making “business” will mismanage it even if he were allowed hundred tenures. Of course, we will lament the departure of a leader committed to social justice, any time we are lucky to have one; we may even shed tears when listening to his valedictory speech. But we are assured that, as a father, he must have arranged for a successor that will continue with his good work.
We have people who have ruled this country for years with little to show except wasting our resources, destruction of our institutions and pervasive corruption. Today, they are under the illusion of returning, claiming that they have realized their mistakes. In the same vein, Obasanjo and most governors are spending their second terms. Going by the arguments canvassed in support of more than one term, we expect them to have a better vision of their task and show signs that they intend to correct their past mistakes. But over 100 days now, each of them is continuing with his previous style and repeating the same mistakes. Only the number of the president’s overseas trips, not that of the governors, appears to have reduced; the rest remains the same. The vision of Murtala Mohammed, on the other hand, was clear right from his first speech and, though he spent only six months in office, that vision is still with us, crystal clear. For four years now, not even Obasanjo can honestly tell the world the vision of our present “democratically” elected government.
I strongly feel that democracy in Nigeria will be served better by a single term. Apart from what is said above, a single term will reduce the influence of money in our politics. The need for an incumbent to loot the treasury to finance his return bid will be absent. He only needs to finance the bid of another person. Since men are less committed to the success of others than they are to their own, the appetite of an incumbent to devour the treasury for election purposes on behalf of his successor is lessened.
When an incumbent is contesting elections, the electoral process will usually come under his heavy influence. Elections will be more transparent if he is not returning because INEC, the police and the judiciary will be less compelled by the persuasion of an aspiring successor than by the fear of vengeance from the incumbent. In addition, in spite of the support an incumbent may lend to a ruling party candidate, the gap between latter and his contender will be reduced.
For those who believe in power shift, their whims are better served by adopting single term. And since power is likely to shift from one zone to another, the transition will be attended more by the optimism for change than by the boring continuity of a returning incumbent.
If only to grant us the cause of that optimism once every five years, not even for the more formidable risk of a total shut down that is the backbone of our argument, the National Assembly committee on constitutional reforms of the should limit tenures of our local government chairmen, governors, and presidents to just one term. It should quickly do so before supporters of the president come pressing for a third term with gifts that its members could not resist.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Fallacy of Rotational Presidency
The Patriots and the Fallacy of Rotational Presidency
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
info@fridaydiscourse.com
This page has maintained an important prophesy over the past six months regarding the return bid of Obasanjo in 2003. We still insist that there will be a national consensus that Obasanjo should not run for a second term. This is a fact that his team must come into terms with, and the earlier the better because it is getting late for them. That consensus is quickly building up, as we approach the primaries of the two most contending parties, the PDP and the ANPP.
As a recap, we have seen how he lost the largest part of his supporters by the time he was halfway through the first term. Now he has lost almost all, except of course those who are still lurking around him for the material benefits that the remaining days of his tenure could afford them. His party is ‘bed-evilled’ with his insistence to re-contest, in spite of his monumental unpopularity. The national assembly has resolved to impeach him, after realizing that he is an ‘evil’ lying on the PDP ‘bed’, raping the party of its popularity among the masses. PDP governors are regaining their freedom; their vociferous support for Obasanjo’s second bid has given way to silence, especially as the interest of Atiku in the presidency becomes increasingly clear. At least Kwankwaso and Makarfi are silent. Gari ya yi tsit, wai ruwa ya ci makadi.
All zones, except the southwest, have become victims of Obasanjo’s vendatta. Politicians from the southwest, however, have since the inception of the administration identified with Obasanjo and worked hard to reap the best, or say all, benefits of his administration. As a result, they pledged to support him in 2003. We then replied that their pledge is a clear sign that Obasanjo will be defeated since they have never elected a winning president.
The Patriots
But there are sufficient indications to prove that the southwest too has changed its mind about 2003. They have dumped Obasanjo after knowing that there is no way he can win the election this time. The most recent indication of this shift is the call by The Patriots, a conglomeration of ethnic intellectuals and politicians largely from the south. Last week they called on Obasanjo to retreat from his 2003 battlefront. In their press statement they said,
“It is our considered view that in order to promote the objective of ensuring that no cultural, ethnic or linguistic group is accorded preferential treatment, we ought to develop a convention of ensuring that the top and most important political office in this nation goes round in a way that manifest our conviction that no particular ethnic, cultural or linguistic group is accorded preferential treatment over others. On this ground alone, the rotation of the office of the President every five years among the geopolitical zones is likely to be a more effective demonstration of the equality of the nationalities in each zone if no one person from a particular geopolitical group stays in the office for more than one term. This is why we consider that in the interest of peace and unity in Nigeria, Mr. President ought to reconsider his decision to stand for a second term. We very strongly suggest to him to make this gesture in the interest of national unity.”
The press briefing by The Patriots was headed by Chief Rotimi Williams and in attendance were other members of the group, according to list provided by Thisday, including the leader of Afenifere, Pa Abraham Adesanya; Secretary-General of Ohaneze, Prof. Ben Nwabueze; and Chieftain of Union of Niger Delta, Chief M. T. Mbu. The fifth, Dan Suleiman, representative of the Middle Belt Forum, was absent because he was overseas, according to Williams. There were many other distinguished senior citizens, mostly in their seventies and eighties, few in their late sixties, who blessed the occasion.
Let us right away mention that we welcome The Patriots to the club of those who believe that Obasanjo must not continue. We only differ on the ground for the appeal. While they based their own on ethnic considerations, we based ours on universal rules of democracy, human right, rule of law and reason. Mr. President, they said, should not run in 2003 because he is from the southwest; he has done their turn within the paradigm of the single five-year term rotational presidency they purport to support.
On our part, we said, no, the President should not contest 2003, though he has every constitutional right to do so, not because of the colour of his skin or the diameter of his nostrils and the width of his nose, but on proven facts of the colossal failure of his administration. In other words, while The Patriots based their conception of national unity on what they call “cultural, ethnic or linguistic” considerations, we based ours on merit of the individual irrespective of his “culture, ethnic or linguistic” identity. Their conception of the presidency is parochial, ours universal. They are persuaded by sentiments; we are compelled by reason.
Doubt
One really has every reason to wonder whether these patriots are really what they call themselves. First of all, their identity is not national in outlook. We must admit that the members, except Dan Suleiman and Abraham Adesanya (who I cannot recall excelling in anything positive), have excelled in their areas of specialization. Professors Nwabueze and Sagay have written extensively on various aspects of law and democracy. They are leading authors in Nigerian Law. Chief Rotimi Williams is even called ‘Timi the Law’ for the successful carrier he had in practice. He led the 1977 Constituent Assembly that saw the formulation of the best constitution ever documented in the history of our democracy.
However, we wonder how these scholars failed to live up to the esteem we, their students, hold them at. They are supposed to abandon the sewage of every parochial tendency and drink from the pure and natural spring of nationhood. For in a nation with over 250 ethnic groups, no intellectual worth his salt will resort to configuring the unity of the country on sentiments of culture, ethnicity or language. They should adopt the nationalistic stand of northern intellectuals like Dr. Ibrahim Tahir who even before an imminent threats and actions of ethnic cleansing and other injustices, they continued to remain within the waveband of nationalist politics. But here were The Patriots, the cream of southern scholarship, profession and politics, hinging national unity on the delicate joint of cultural, ethnic and linguistic identity.
This point is clear from the membershi. Williams, the Thisday report concluded, said at the conference: “So we make it clear to you gentlemen of the press that The Patriots comprise four principal groups – Afenifere, Ohaneze, the Union of Niger Delta and the Middle Belt Forum.” Why are the Northeast, Northwest and North Central zones not represented in the organization? Is it that the Patriots have surveyed the two regions and they could not find the Ibrahim Tahirs and Bala Usmans to join them?
The answer really is that if their organization were truly concerned with the unity of the country, not promotion of any sectional interest or holding a disdain against the zones it chose to exclude, it would have found, on first request, thousands of people ready to join them in their objective. But it appears that The Patriots at the final days of their lives have yielded to gravity; it has pulled them down from the lofty position of universal values and ideals to the lowly positions of ethnic parochialism. They have gone full cycle.
This is the danger of gerontocracy. People at old age lose their intellectual balance and bearing and start a return journey to the positions they once held at youth or childhood. Gerontocracy is certainly one of the present problems of Nigeria. We have people who have been in the limelight of politics since pre-independence, growing and returning to the same positions they held at independence. Recycling in nature is good, in politics bad. They have disallowed the nation the liberty to grow out of the parochial politics of ethnicity and blossom with the clover of universal value of merit. In aging and death, there is certainly some relief for families and nations alike. But a further danger is posed where the aged lives to pass the same sentiments as gospel truth to their children and grandchildren. It is left to the children to revolt, at a stage, and tell these grandparents that our age is a global with no space at all for primordial sentiments to hold sway.
Merit
The surprising contradiction is how the southern elite, typified by The Patriots, are the most vehement proponents of merit in positions other than the presidency, because it serves as a convenient tool to maintain their hegemony over the civil service and the economy, including the service sector. We have once argued on this page that we will accept rotational presidency if other parts of the country will also rotate their fortunes. Let us rotate bank managers, managing directors, access to loans and other facilities, every position in the civil service, contracts, consultancy and even dealership in spare parts, export of prostitutes to Italy, and so on.
Our argument for merit is not, on the other hand, based on the advantage of one ethnic group – the so called Hausa-Fulani – having two and a half zones and a fourth traditional ally, the south-south. Whatever political fortune the northerners have is due to merit in many ways. One, by the rules of democracy itself, they are blessed with the population, something that make them the most important variable in any political computation in the country.
Two, they have worked hard to reach out to other regions and they have succeeded in so doing better than others. We recall the efforts and achievements of the NPN, of Yaradua, Ciroma, Shinkafi during the third republic, and of Buhari currently.
Three, they have shown the greatest degree of political tolerance, pragmatism and support for merit. They were ready to vote for Abiola over their own, Tofa. They have also supported the candidature of Obasanjo when it was clear that, within the waveband of the choice given them and for the sake of national reconciliation, he was the lesser evil.
Obasanjo
Even today, in their open preference for Muhammadu Buhari over Obasanjo or Babangida, the majority of northerners, especially the masses, have shown that they would favour merit over any other thing. Otherwise, Buhari does not have the offices that Obasanjo could promise their sons; nor does he have the money that Babangida would spend on every vote if he were to be given the chance.
Northerners today reject Obasanjo for no reason other than his inability to play fairly and execute his job as the president with the credibility and achievements expected by Nigerians. He has allowed lawlessness to go unpunished, as exemplified in the OPC and other ethnic crises each of which has left the Hausa-Fulani the most brutalized. He has failed to fight corruption; failed to rehabilitate or expand our infrastructure; failed to initiate reforms that would make the economy vibrant once more, in spite of our unimagined high foreign earnings since he assumed office; he has failed to operate within the ambit of the law, committing over thirty already verified impeachment offences; and finally he has failed even to meet the basic requirements of nurturing the democratic process that brought him to power. He cannot even allow his party to run its elections impartially; nor could he finance the national electoral commission or register voters, things that previous military and civilian regimes did successfully without any headache. How then do we expect him to conduct elections? There is every indication that as we are having local government caretaker councils, we will also have a federal caretaker government. INEC is still unable to release voters register as it promised because, according to it, it has discovered monumental discrepancies that it cannot reconcile.
These are the reasons why majority of people in the North decided not to support Obasanjo anymore to the extent that his campaign coordinators cannot even show their faces. In his place, we are ready to support anyone who will do exactly what he failed to do. In Buhari we have found one such person. Now, is it after The Patriots and their supporters in Ohaneze and Afenifere have discovered that there is no way Obasanjo could win even his party primaries that they are reintroducing the issue of rotational presidency, saying it is a “gesture in the interest of national unity?”
Fallacy
Nigerians must stand up and reject the issue of rotational presidency for many reasons. One, it does not allow the nation the best leader at any given moment. Once the presidency is restricted to a zone, we may never have the best president. Instead of each of the six zones having at least a presidential candidate each, we are confined to only the two or more who are presented by a single zone. At best the probability that we can have the best president has shifted from a whole as guaranteed by the constitution to only one-sixth if rotational presidency is adopted. Why should a nation of 120 million people descend to this level of mediocrity?
Two, rotational presidency is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it disenfranchises people of the right to contest any position or vote for a candidate of their choice, rights enshrined in the constitution.
Three, rotational presidency will subvert national security and promote nepotism since every zone will interpret its chance as a golden opportunity to maximize its benefits to the detriment of others. At every time therefore five of the six zones, or say 83.33%, of the country will be living under perpetual subjugation and retrogression. There will be no end to civil unrests like the ones happening under the present administration. This is the correct interpretation of what is happening under the present administration. We have had enough.
Four, rotational presidency will lead to the dangerous inculcation and accentuation of our differences rather than promote their dissolution. It will reach a level where every ethnic group among the over 250 in the country will cry for a turn. The northerner and indeed any other Nigerian, for example, should be allowed to vote an Abiola or a Tunde Idiagbon or support an Alex Ekwueme if at any given moment he is convinced that Nigeria needs a man of such calibre. Likewise now, he should be allowed to vote for Buhari if he believes that in this moment of corruption and dishonesty in the country, Buhari will enthrone rule of law, transparency and fairness to all.
There are many reasons we can proffer against rotational presidency but we think the above are enough for a short discourse like this. We have at least proved, albeit briefly, that, contrary to what The Patriots claim, rotational presidency will only promote ethnic chauvinism rather than foster national unity.
Conclusion
It is surprising how even some intellectuals, largely in the Babangida camp, are ready to be lured into eating the poisonous fruit of rotational presidency. They are busy trying, at every forum, with little success though, to make northerners buy the idea of an Igbo president. Along this line, Alex Ekwueme was featured in Thisday of last Sunday as one of the beneficiaries of this skewed political thought. Others are Ike Nwachukwu and John Nwodo. People are saying, ha, that was the trick used to bring Obasanjo to power in 1999 and he has not lived to our expectations. We would not like to taste another forbidden fruit. Kan mage ya waye. The Igbo should believe in their ability, cross over the Niger and try their luck based on merit. I pity people who repeatedly allow others to deceive them.
Lest we be misconstrued, we are not against the candidature of an Igbo, or anybody for that matter. What we are against is democracy by unconstitutional “conventions” based on false propaganda like that of The Patriots or the one rooted in the psyche of some of us since during the failed transitions of the Babangida era and when, in 1999, the nation was only allowed to choose between two candidates, both of them by no coincidence coming from the same zone. We are free; democracy has promised us freedom; so let us be allowed to express that freedom. If anybody wants to contest in 2007 he should allow others do so today, free of any egocentric calculation portrayed in the name of national unity.
As for The Patriots they should own up and say categorically that Obasanjo has failed. They should exhibit readiness to accept that no single ethnic group has monopoly over failure and, as it will be abundantly proved after 2003, looting the treasury. The presidency must remain at any election period open to every Nigerian who is willing to contest. Nigerians must be allowed to vote for him on the basis of merit, irrespective to his “cultural, ethnic or linguistic” background. This is the best guarantee to national unity. Nothing else.
As for northerners, they should know that the greatest enemy against the realization of their political rights is the enemy within, people who would continue to trade off their political rights for their selfish ends. We must check them. Da dan gari akan ci gari.
By
Dr. Aliyu Tilde
info@fridaydiscourse.com
This page has maintained an important prophesy over the past six months regarding the return bid of Obasanjo in 2003. We still insist that there will be a national consensus that Obasanjo should not run for a second term. This is a fact that his team must come into terms with, and the earlier the better because it is getting late for them. That consensus is quickly building up, as we approach the primaries of the two most contending parties, the PDP and the ANPP.
As a recap, we have seen how he lost the largest part of his supporters by the time he was halfway through the first term. Now he has lost almost all, except of course those who are still lurking around him for the material benefits that the remaining days of his tenure could afford them. His party is ‘bed-evilled’ with his insistence to re-contest, in spite of his monumental unpopularity. The national assembly has resolved to impeach him, after realizing that he is an ‘evil’ lying on the PDP ‘bed’, raping the party of its popularity among the masses. PDP governors are regaining their freedom; their vociferous support for Obasanjo’s second bid has given way to silence, especially as the interest of Atiku in the presidency becomes increasingly clear. At least Kwankwaso and Makarfi are silent. Gari ya yi tsit, wai ruwa ya ci makadi.
All zones, except the southwest, have become victims of Obasanjo’s vendatta. Politicians from the southwest, however, have since the inception of the administration identified with Obasanjo and worked hard to reap the best, or say all, benefits of his administration. As a result, they pledged to support him in 2003. We then replied that their pledge is a clear sign that Obasanjo will be defeated since they have never elected a winning president.
The Patriots
But there are sufficient indications to prove that the southwest too has changed its mind about 2003. They have dumped Obasanjo after knowing that there is no way he can win the election this time. The most recent indication of this shift is the call by The Patriots, a conglomeration of ethnic intellectuals and politicians largely from the south. Last week they called on Obasanjo to retreat from his 2003 battlefront. In their press statement they said,
“It is our considered view that in order to promote the objective of ensuring that no cultural, ethnic or linguistic group is accorded preferential treatment, we ought to develop a convention of ensuring that the top and most important political office in this nation goes round in a way that manifest our conviction that no particular ethnic, cultural or linguistic group is accorded preferential treatment over others. On this ground alone, the rotation of the office of the President every five years among the geopolitical zones is likely to be a more effective demonstration of the equality of the nationalities in each zone if no one person from a particular geopolitical group stays in the office for more than one term. This is why we consider that in the interest of peace and unity in Nigeria, Mr. President ought to reconsider his decision to stand for a second term. We very strongly suggest to him to make this gesture in the interest of national unity.”
The press briefing by The Patriots was headed by Chief Rotimi Williams and in attendance were other members of the group, according to list provided by Thisday, including the leader of Afenifere, Pa Abraham Adesanya; Secretary-General of Ohaneze, Prof. Ben Nwabueze; and Chieftain of Union of Niger Delta, Chief M. T. Mbu. The fifth, Dan Suleiman, representative of the Middle Belt Forum, was absent because he was overseas, according to Williams. There were many other distinguished senior citizens, mostly in their seventies and eighties, few in their late sixties, who blessed the occasion.
Let us right away mention that we welcome The Patriots to the club of those who believe that Obasanjo must not continue. We only differ on the ground for the appeal. While they based their own on ethnic considerations, we based ours on universal rules of democracy, human right, rule of law and reason. Mr. President, they said, should not run in 2003 because he is from the southwest; he has done their turn within the paradigm of the single five-year term rotational presidency they purport to support.
On our part, we said, no, the President should not contest 2003, though he has every constitutional right to do so, not because of the colour of his skin or the diameter of his nostrils and the width of his nose, but on proven facts of the colossal failure of his administration. In other words, while The Patriots based their conception of national unity on what they call “cultural, ethnic or linguistic” considerations, we based ours on merit of the individual irrespective of his “culture, ethnic or linguistic” identity. Their conception of the presidency is parochial, ours universal. They are persuaded by sentiments; we are compelled by reason.
Doubt
One really has every reason to wonder whether these patriots are really what they call themselves. First of all, their identity is not national in outlook. We must admit that the members, except Dan Suleiman and Abraham Adesanya (who I cannot recall excelling in anything positive), have excelled in their areas of specialization. Professors Nwabueze and Sagay have written extensively on various aspects of law and democracy. They are leading authors in Nigerian Law. Chief Rotimi Williams is even called ‘Timi the Law’ for the successful carrier he had in practice. He led the 1977 Constituent Assembly that saw the formulation of the best constitution ever documented in the history of our democracy.
However, we wonder how these scholars failed to live up to the esteem we, their students, hold them at. They are supposed to abandon the sewage of every parochial tendency and drink from the pure and natural spring of nationhood. For in a nation with over 250 ethnic groups, no intellectual worth his salt will resort to configuring the unity of the country on sentiments of culture, ethnicity or language. They should adopt the nationalistic stand of northern intellectuals like Dr. Ibrahim Tahir who even before an imminent threats and actions of ethnic cleansing and other injustices, they continued to remain within the waveband of nationalist politics. But here were The Patriots, the cream of southern scholarship, profession and politics, hinging national unity on the delicate joint of cultural, ethnic and linguistic identity.
This point is clear from the membershi. Williams, the Thisday report concluded, said at the conference: “So we make it clear to you gentlemen of the press that The Patriots comprise four principal groups – Afenifere, Ohaneze, the Union of Niger Delta and the Middle Belt Forum.” Why are the Northeast, Northwest and North Central zones not represented in the organization? Is it that the Patriots have surveyed the two regions and they could not find the Ibrahim Tahirs and Bala Usmans to join them?
The answer really is that if their organization were truly concerned with the unity of the country, not promotion of any sectional interest or holding a disdain against the zones it chose to exclude, it would have found, on first request, thousands of people ready to join them in their objective. But it appears that The Patriots at the final days of their lives have yielded to gravity; it has pulled them down from the lofty position of universal values and ideals to the lowly positions of ethnic parochialism. They have gone full cycle.
This is the danger of gerontocracy. People at old age lose their intellectual balance and bearing and start a return journey to the positions they once held at youth or childhood. Gerontocracy is certainly one of the present problems of Nigeria. We have people who have been in the limelight of politics since pre-independence, growing and returning to the same positions they held at independence. Recycling in nature is good, in politics bad. They have disallowed the nation the liberty to grow out of the parochial politics of ethnicity and blossom with the clover of universal value of merit. In aging and death, there is certainly some relief for families and nations alike. But a further danger is posed where the aged lives to pass the same sentiments as gospel truth to their children and grandchildren. It is left to the children to revolt, at a stage, and tell these grandparents that our age is a global with no space at all for primordial sentiments to hold sway.
Merit
The surprising contradiction is how the southern elite, typified by The Patriots, are the most vehement proponents of merit in positions other than the presidency, because it serves as a convenient tool to maintain their hegemony over the civil service and the economy, including the service sector. We have once argued on this page that we will accept rotational presidency if other parts of the country will also rotate their fortunes. Let us rotate bank managers, managing directors, access to loans and other facilities, every position in the civil service, contracts, consultancy and even dealership in spare parts, export of prostitutes to Italy, and so on.
Our argument for merit is not, on the other hand, based on the advantage of one ethnic group – the so called Hausa-Fulani – having two and a half zones and a fourth traditional ally, the south-south. Whatever political fortune the northerners have is due to merit in many ways. One, by the rules of democracy itself, they are blessed with the population, something that make them the most important variable in any political computation in the country.
Two, they have worked hard to reach out to other regions and they have succeeded in so doing better than others. We recall the efforts and achievements of the NPN, of Yaradua, Ciroma, Shinkafi during the third republic, and of Buhari currently.
Three, they have shown the greatest degree of political tolerance, pragmatism and support for merit. They were ready to vote for Abiola over their own, Tofa. They have also supported the candidature of Obasanjo when it was clear that, within the waveband of the choice given them and for the sake of national reconciliation, he was the lesser evil.
Obasanjo
Even today, in their open preference for Muhammadu Buhari over Obasanjo or Babangida, the majority of northerners, especially the masses, have shown that they would favour merit over any other thing. Otherwise, Buhari does not have the offices that Obasanjo could promise their sons; nor does he have the money that Babangida would spend on every vote if he were to be given the chance.
Northerners today reject Obasanjo for no reason other than his inability to play fairly and execute his job as the president with the credibility and achievements expected by Nigerians. He has allowed lawlessness to go unpunished, as exemplified in the OPC and other ethnic crises each of which has left the Hausa-Fulani the most brutalized. He has failed to fight corruption; failed to rehabilitate or expand our infrastructure; failed to initiate reforms that would make the economy vibrant once more, in spite of our unimagined high foreign earnings since he assumed office; he has failed to operate within the ambit of the law, committing over thirty already verified impeachment offences; and finally he has failed even to meet the basic requirements of nurturing the democratic process that brought him to power. He cannot even allow his party to run its elections impartially; nor could he finance the national electoral commission or register voters, things that previous military and civilian regimes did successfully without any headache. How then do we expect him to conduct elections? There is every indication that as we are having local government caretaker councils, we will also have a federal caretaker government. INEC is still unable to release voters register as it promised because, according to it, it has discovered monumental discrepancies that it cannot reconcile.
These are the reasons why majority of people in the North decided not to support Obasanjo anymore to the extent that his campaign coordinators cannot even show their faces. In his place, we are ready to support anyone who will do exactly what he failed to do. In Buhari we have found one such person. Now, is it after The Patriots and their supporters in Ohaneze and Afenifere have discovered that there is no way Obasanjo could win even his party primaries that they are reintroducing the issue of rotational presidency, saying it is a “gesture in the interest of national unity?”
Fallacy
Nigerians must stand up and reject the issue of rotational presidency for many reasons. One, it does not allow the nation the best leader at any given moment. Once the presidency is restricted to a zone, we may never have the best president. Instead of each of the six zones having at least a presidential candidate each, we are confined to only the two or more who are presented by a single zone. At best the probability that we can have the best president has shifted from a whole as guaranteed by the constitution to only one-sixth if rotational presidency is adopted. Why should a nation of 120 million people descend to this level of mediocrity?
Two, rotational presidency is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it disenfranchises people of the right to contest any position or vote for a candidate of their choice, rights enshrined in the constitution.
Three, rotational presidency will subvert national security and promote nepotism since every zone will interpret its chance as a golden opportunity to maximize its benefits to the detriment of others. At every time therefore five of the six zones, or say 83.33%, of the country will be living under perpetual subjugation and retrogression. There will be no end to civil unrests like the ones happening under the present administration. This is the correct interpretation of what is happening under the present administration. We have had enough.
Four, rotational presidency will lead to the dangerous inculcation and accentuation of our differences rather than promote their dissolution. It will reach a level where every ethnic group among the over 250 in the country will cry for a turn. The northerner and indeed any other Nigerian, for example, should be allowed to vote an Abiola or a Tunde Idiagbon or support an Alex Ekwueme if at any given moment he is convinced that Nigeria needs a man of such calibre. Likewise now, he should be allowed to vote for Buhari if he believes that in this moment of corruption and dishonesty in the country, Buhari will enthrone rule of law, transparency and fairness to all.
There are many reasons we can proffer against rotational presidency but we think the above are enough for a short discourse like this. We have at least proved, albeit briefly, that, contrary to what The Patriots claim, rotational presidency will only promote ethnic chauvinism rather than foster national unity.
Conclusion
It is surprising how even some intellectuals, largely in the Babangida camp, are ready to be lured into eating the poisonous fruit of rotational presidency. They are busy trying, at every forum, with little success though, to make northerners buy the idea of an Igbo president. Along this line, Alex Ekwueme was featured in Thisday of last Sunday as one of the beneficiaries of this skewed political thought. Others are Ike Nwachukwu and John Nwodo. People are saying, ha, that was the trick used to bring Obasanjo to power in 1999 and he has not lived to our expectations. We would not like to taste another forbidden fruit. Kan mage ya waye. The Igbo should believe in their ability, cross over the Niger and try their luck based on merit. I pity people who repeatedly allow others to deceive them.
Lest we be misconstrued, we are not against the candidature of an Igbo, or anybody for that matter. What we are against is democracy by unconstitutional “conventions” based on false propaganda like that of The Patriots or the one rooted in the psyche of some of us since during the failed transitions of the Babangida era and when, in 1999, the nation was only allowed to choose between two candidates, both of them by no coincidence coming from the same zone. We are free; democracy has promised us freedom; so let us be allowed to express that freedom. If anybody wants to contest in 2007 he should allow others do so today, free of any egocentric calculation portrayed in the name of national unity.
As for The Patriots they should own up and say categorically that Obasanjo has failed. They should exhibit readiness to accept that no single ethnic group has monopoly over failure and, as it will be abundantly proved after 2003, looting the treasury. The presidency must remain at any election period open to every Nigerian who is willing to contest. Nigerians must be allowed to vote for him on the basis of merit, irrespective to his “cultural, ethnic or linguistic” background. This is the best guarantee to national unity. Nothing else.
As for northerners, they should know that the greatest enemy against the realization of their political rights is the enemy within, people who would continue to trade off their political rights for their selfish ends. We must check them. Da dan gari akan ci gari.
Discourse 186 The Hidden Agenda of a Monologue
Monday Discourse 186
The Hidden Agenda of a Monologue
Last week Obasanjo inaugurated what he dubbed as National Political Reform Conference. In his inaugural address, the President, or his speech writer, to be precise, did his best to allay fears and reply his critics.
He has won some converts, one of whom is my brother, Dr. Ibrahim Tahir, a delegate representing Muslims. The Daily Trust of 22nd February reported Tahir saying, “I am ashamed of what I’ve said in the past about this conference. I should have been silent on some issues because as you can see from the President’s opening speech, most of my fears have been allayed… I do not think any serious minded person should be afraid of the leadership composition or anything. People like me have no fears…” In rejecting the fears expressed by the North, Tahir was reported advising northerners to “maintain calm and sobriety we are known for and forget our fears so that we can have a good conference.”
Contrary to people like Tahir, I have been taught, like most other Nigerians, to believe what I did not hear, if what I heard is coming from President Obasanjo. That is because going by his performance in the past six years, Obasanjo has on most occasions proved to be very economical with the truth and, thus, Nigerians prefer to locate the truth not in what he said but in what he did not say, just as they did to all their leaders since 1985.
Pushed by the President to this brink of cynicism, I am compelled in this article to think like those Nigerians: to look for the truth by reading what the President did, not what he said. I am glad that there are other writers with whom I share this cynicism. Last week in his Wednesday Column, Muhammed Haruna eloquently reminded us of Obasanjo’s past by digging his archives and finding out what he said and did previously under similar circumstances.
From his speech last week, the President wants us to believe four things: one, that the conference is an opportunity “to reassess, refocus, redefine and redesign our political landscape in a direction that would strengthen the bonds of unity, enhance the processes of democratic consolidation, strengthen the structures so as to solidly those values that promote democracy, good governance and good neighbourliness; and open boundless opportunities for all Nigerians to be, and to feel that they are part of the evolving political process and socio-economic advancement.”
The above mission statement of the conference is a repetition of the rhetoric that we are accustomed to and which has been repeated by every dictator in this country. Which democratic consolidation can a person who rigged millions of votes during the last election talk about? This is a president who walked every path and length to ensure that he won the last election. He knew very well that the most important force that consolidates democracy is allowing the people to express their wishes through free and fair election. The President had the unimpeded opportunity to demonstrate this but he took every step in the opposite direction including forging the electoral law. His party did not campaign in most states but won moonslide victories by employing police brutality, the complicity of the electoral commission and the judiciary. (Meanwhile, what is going on about the N5billion which Tafa Balogun made from the Obasanjo regime?) Can the same person be believed if he talks now – when he is leaving at the end of his eight year tenure – about consolidating democracy? Are we the idiots to believe him, even in the aftermath of startling revelations regarding what was done in Anambra during and after the election where agents of the President used the police and bandits to forge election results, destroy every symbol of democracy and walk the streets and the presidency as free citizens? Not even after they and the President has confessed their sins?
What structures is Obasanjo calling us to strengthen? Is he not the same executive President who removed every Senate President and imposed on it, now, a person who even did not stand for elections? What has Obasanjo shown in the past six years to make us believe that he has respect for the principle of separation of power? The most recent of his abuse of democratic ethics and norms was the arrest of the Chairman of his party, at gun point, and forcing him, under duress, to resign his seat. Could such a leader has the temerity to call for strengthening any instrument of democracy? Should we not read Obasanjo as the leader who has abused the best opportunity to build a viable democracy after fifteen years of dictatorship?
Two, Obasanjo wants us to believe that there is no hidden agenda behind organizing the conference. He said: “The federal government has no hidden agenda in this exercise. This effort is the product of widespread consultations with salient stakeholders including the leadership of the National Assembly and the National Council of State. We have paid attention to and insisted on integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues. We are not at war with any constituency or interest group…”
Events in the past few weeks have completely refuted the assertions of Mr. President. Which National Assembly is he talking about? Is it not the National Assembly that declared to the world its complete distrust on the intention of the president regarding the conference and which passed a resolution never to support or fund it? How could the National Assembly be a party to the conceptualization of the conference and now turn around to query its Senate President for violating its earlier stand and attending the inauguration ceremony?
In the same vein, I cannot understand the President when he talks about the delegates as people with “integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues.” Except for the few members from civil societies I cannot see such qualities in most of the delegates to the conference. To begin with, they are ALL nominees of the President and governors most, if not all, of whom have shown sufficient contempt for merit. Let us look at the cabinet list of the President and of each Governor. Can we see merit? Has the president chosen the best material – people of integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues – from Borno, Kano, Benue, Anambra or Enugu to ministerial positions? And what guided the list of commissioners in states other than mediocrity and sycophancy in most cases?
Let us be honest on these matters. We know that one of the biggest problems impeding our progress in this country is the desecration of merit. The best way for anybody to reduce his chances of attaining any position of standing in this country is by proving his difference meritoriously; the quickest way of rising, paradoxically, is by falling into the abyss of sycophancy, incompetence, corruption and lawlessness. Once he can do this, even the house of the President will be open for him 24 hours as it is to Chris Uba.
And where is the merit, looking at the list of representatives from the states. Most of the nominees are above 60, and are people who in one capacity or another have contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves today. What suggestion will they give other than repeating whatever they knew or did previously? I wonder what new people like Jerry Gana can discover to benefit children yet unborn which they have not discovered in the past 20years of being in every regime, serving the terrible, the bad and the ugliest. And the state delegates are not better. While some states have truly managed to include one or two people of substance, many have patronized only their associates in the power game of their state, including those who do not even have the capacity or strength to say anything or follow the proceedings of the conference.
We better believe what Obasanjo did not say. His ‘no hidden agenda’ is an attempt to refute three accusations coming from three groups. The CNPP has accused him of organising the conference to realize his self-succession; the North is saying that it is a forum intended to find a constitutional legitimacy to Afenifere agenda; Muslims are accusing him of under-representation as they counted only 150 against 220 Christians. But if we read what the President did not say – his actions and the antics of his predecessors – it will become clear that Obasanjo is guilty of all the three accusations. It is like going to bed after listening to his assurances of free and fair elections and waking up to notice what happened on 419, 2003. The President needs to take his market women calculator and compute the statistics of the projects and monies he spend in the North and Southwest, how many of his policies have benefited the North and which, if any, have worked to the detriment of the Southwest? And let him also check the list of his appointments: how many are Muslim and how many are Christians? Nigerians should not allow themselves to be placated with rhetoric in the face of concrete statistics of misdeeds perpetrated by the new advocate of one Nigeria.
Thirdly, the President wants us to believe that he has parted road with advocates of a sovereign national conference. Reading through his speech, Wole Soyinka and the like will quickly feel that his diatribe is directed against them. On that the President became lengthy: “We must begin to see the Nigeria cup as half full rather than half empty and that the best way to express maturity, patriotism and relevance is not to stick to a culture of perpetual attacks, cynicism, aloofness, arrogance, ego-centricism and bad politics. Rather it is more profitable to join the process, make contributions, educate the public positively, and stop the unhelpful culture of attempting to throw away the baby with the bath water all the time. Our country has grown far beyond these opportunistic grandstanding strategies that rely on ideologies, methods, language and ideas of the past that have been transcended all over the world.”
To debunk the approach of PRONACO specifically, the President said, “Our goal is to strengthen the oneness and unity of Nigeria on the basis of the most important asset to our nation – the people who are the subject and object of all our endeavours.” Mhm.
“Fellow compatriots,” he continued, “we believe that the idea of representation at the conference solely by ethnic configuration is rather unrealistic, inequitable and unworkable. We do not need to and must not deny our ethnic origins because we do share more in common than we are often willing to admit. However, given that Nigeria has well over 350 ethnic or so-called nationality groups, how do we seriously balance the larger and smaller, even micro-ethnic groups? What are the guarantees that by some unexpected alignment and realignment of interests the major groups would not come together to preserve the status quo? What about those that do not wish to be represented on ethnic, but on other forms of identification – class identity, profession, and gender, for instance?
“It is my view that our country has gone beyond the antics and narrow interests of ethnic entrepreneurs. We have to move far away from those that do not want to face realities that most Nigerians may have a permanent address in their villages but survive on the basis of other identities at the places of work, business, leisure and other interaction and engagement. We should consolidate these positive webs and networks of solidarity, compassion, tolerance, inclusion, organization, mobilization and collective dedication to the common good rather than reifying ethnicity in a notion and world that is changing rapidly.” Nice talk. Believe him.
In contrast to the above assertions, I do not believe that Obasanjo is not working in pursuit of the ethnic agenda of Afenifere; also, his diatribe against the PRONACO camp is a mere gimmick aimed at buying our naivety and endorsing his hidden tribal antics. As we shall see in our discourse next week, the conference, I believe, has everything to do with the preservation of Southwest hegemony in the economy and Politics in the post-2007 Nigeria. The Southwest has sought for the presidency for four decades without success, until it was handed to it over a platter of gold in 1999. After messing up the economy and playing foul on democracy for six years, it is afraid of what its fate would be after 2007 before the presidency rotates back to it many decades later. The region is eager to secure constitutional guarantees that will retain its enormous theft it perpetrated and consolidate the gains it made during the eight years of Obasanjo misrule, knowing fully well that the mistake of 1999 is not likely to be repeated in history.
Well, we are getting short of space and must stop here before continuing next week. Until then, let us ponder more on what the President did not say through reading his actions in the past six years than believing the rhetoric he delivered at the inauguration of the conference last week.
The Hidden Agenda of a Monologue
Last week Obasanjo inaugurated what he dubbed as National Political Reform Conference. In his inaugural address, the President, or his speech writer, to be precise, did his best to allay fears and reply his critics.
He has won some converts, one of whom is my brother, Dr. Ibrahim Tahir, a delegate representing Muslims. The Daily Trust of 22nd February reported Tahir saying, “I am ashamed of what I’ve said in the past about this conference. I should have been silent on some issues because as you can see from the President’s opening speech, most of my fears have been allayed… I do not think any serious minded person should be afraid of the leadership composition or anything. People like me have no fears…” In rejecting the fears expressed by the North, Tahir was reported advising northerners to “maintain calm and sobriety we are known for and forget our fears so that we can have a good conference.”
Contrary to people like Tahir, I have been taught, like most other Nigerians, to believe what I did not hear, if what I heard is coming from President Obasanjo. That is because going by his performance in the past six years, Obasanjo has on most occasions proved to be very economical with the truth and, thus, Nigerians prefer to locate the truth not in what he said but in what he did not say, just as they did to all their leaders since 1985.
Pushed by the President to this brink of cynicism, I am compelled in this article to think like those Nigerians: to look for the truth by reading what the President did, not what he said. I am glad that there are other writers with whom I share this cynicism. Last week in his Wednesday Column, Muhammed Haruna eloquently reminded us of Obasanjo’s past by digging his archives and finding out what he said and did previously under similar circumstances.
From his speech last week, the President wants us to believe four things: one, that the conference is an opportunity “to reassess, refocus, redefine and redesign our political landscape in a direction that would strengthen the bonds of unity, enhance the processes of democratic consolidation, strengthen the structures so as to solidly those values that promote democracy, good governance and good neighbourliness; and open boundless opportunities for all Nigerians to be, and to feel that they are part of the evolving political process and socio-economic advancement.”
The above mission statement of the conference is a repetition of the rhetoric that we are accustomed to and which has been repeated by every dictator in this country. Which democratic consolidation can a person who rigged millions of votes during the last election talk about? This is a president who walked every path and length to ensure that he won the last election. He knew very well that the most important force that consolidates democracy is allowing the people to express their wishes through free and fair election. The President had the unimpeded opportunity to demonstrate this but he took every step in the opposite direction including forging the electoral law. His party did not campaign in most states but won moonslide victories by employing police brutality, the complicity of the electoral commission and the judiciary. (Meanwhile, what is going on about the N5billion which Tafa Balogun made from the Obasanjo regime?) Can the same person be believed if he talks now – when he is leaving at the end of his eight year tenure – about consolidating democracy? Are we the idiots to believe him, even in the aftermath of startling revelations regarding what was done in Anambra during and after the election where agents of the President used the police and bandits to forge election results, destroy every symbol of democracy and walk the streets and the presidency as free citizens? Not even after they and the President has confessed their sins?
What structures is Obasanjo calling us to strengthen? Is he not the same executive President who removed every Senate President and imposed on it, now, a person who even did not stand for elections? What has Obasanjo shown in the past six years to make us believe that he has respect for the principle of separation of power? The most recent of his abuse of democratic ethics and norms was the arrest of the Chairman of his party, at gun point, and forcing him, under duress, to resign his seat. Could such a leader has the temerity to call for strengthening any instrument of democracy? Should we not read Obasanjo as the leader who has abused the best opportunity to build a viable democracy after fifteen years of dictatorship?
Two, Obasanjo wants us to believe that there is no hidden agenda behind organizing the conference. He said: “The federal government has no hidden agenda in this exercise. This effort is the product of widespread consultations with salient stakeholders including the leadership of the National Assembly and the National Council of State. We have paid attention to and insisted on integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues. We are not at war with any constituency or interest group…”
Events in the past few weeks have completely refuted the assertions of Mr. President. Which National Assembly is he talking about? Is it not the National Assembly that declared to the world its complete distrust on the intention of the president regarding the conference and which passed a resolution never to support or fund it? How could the National Assembly be a party to the conceptualization of the conference and now turn around to query its Senate President for violating its earlier stand and attending the inauguration ceremony?
In the same vein, I cannot understand the President when he talks about the delegates as people with “integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues.” Except for the few members from civil societies I cannot see such qualities in most of the delegates to the conference. To begin with, they are ALL nominees of the President and governors most, if not all, of whom have shown sufficient contempt for merit. Let us look at the cabinet list of the President and of each Governor. Can we see merit? Has the president chosen the best material – people of integrity, tract record, capacity and ability to articulate relevant issues – from Borno, Kano, Benue, Anambra or Enugu to ministerial positions? And what guided the list of commissioners in states other than mediocrity and sycophancy in most cases?
Let us be honest on these matters. We know that one of the biggest problems impeding our progress in this country is the desecration of merit. The best way for anybody to reduce his chances of attaining any position of standing in this country is by proving his difference meritoriously; the quickest way of rising, paradoxically, is by falling into the abyss of sycophancy, incompetence, corruption and lawlessness. Once he can do this, even the house of the President will be open for him 24 hours as it is to Chris Uba.
And where is the merit, looking at the list of representatives from the states. Most of the nominees are above 60, and are people who in one capacity or another have contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves today. What suggestion will they give other than repeating whatever they knew or did previously? I wonder what new people like Jerry Gana can discover to benefit children yet unborn which they have not discovered in the past 20years of being in every regime, serving the terrible, the bad and the ugliest. And the state delegates are not better. While some states have truly managed to include one or two people of substance, many have patronized only their associates in the power game of their state, including those who do not even have the capacity or strength to say anything or follow the proceedings of the conference.
We better believe what Obasanjo did not say. His ‘no hidden agenda’ is an attempt to refute three accusations coming from three groups. The CNPP has accused him of organising the conference to realize his self-succession; the North is saying that it is a forum intended to find a constitutional legitimacy to Afenifere agenda; Muslims are accusing him of under-representation as they counted only 150 against 220 Christians. But if we read what the President did not say – his actions and the antics of his predecessors – it will become clear that Obasanjo is guilty of all the three accusations. It is like going to bed after listening to his assurances of free and fair elections and waking up to notice what happened on 419, 2003. The President needs to take his market women calculator and compute the statistics of the projects and monies he spend in the North and Southwest, how many of his policies have benefited the North and which, if any, have worked to the detriment of the Southwest? And let him also check the list of his appointments: how many are Muslim and how many are Christians? Nigerians should not allow themselves to be placated with rhetoric in the face of concrete statistics of misdeeds perpetrated by the new advocate of one Nigeria.
Thirdly, the President wants us to believe that he has parted road with advocates of a sovereign national conference. Reading through his speech, Wole Soyinka and the like will quickly feel that his diatribe is directed against them. On that the President became lengthy: “We must begin to see the Nigeria cup as half full rather than half empty and that the best way to express maturity, patriotism and relevance is not to stick to a culture of perpetual attacks, cynicism, aloofness, arrogance, ego-centricism and bad politics. Rather it is more profitable to join the process, make contributions, educate the public positively, and stop the unhelpful culture of attempting to throw away the baby with the bath water all the time. Our country has grown far beyond these opportunistic grandstanding strategies that rely on ideologies, methods, language and ideas of the past that have been transcended all over the world.”
To debunk the approach of PRONACO specifically, the President said, “Our goal is to strengthen the oneness and unity of Nigeria on the basis of the most important asset to our nation – the people who are the subject and object of all our endeavours.” Mhm.
“Fellow compatriots,” he continued, “we believe that the idea of representation at the conference solely by ethnic configuration is rather unrealistic, inequitable and unworkable. We do not need to and must not deny our ethnic origins because we do share more in common than we are often willing to admit. However, given that Nigeria has well over 350 ethnic or so-called nationality groups, how do we seriously balance the larger and smaller, even micro-ethnic groups? What are the guarantees that by some unexpected alignment and realignment of interests the major groups would not come together to preserve the status quo? What about those that do not wish to be represented on ethnic, but on other forms of identification – class identity, profession, and gender, for instance?
“It is my view that our country has gone beyond the antics and narrow interests of ethnic entrepreneurs. We have to move far away from those that do not want to face realities that most Nigerians may have a permanent address in their villages but survive on the basis of other identities at the places of work, business, leisure and other interaction and engagement. We should consolidate these positive webs and networks of solidarity, compassion, tolerance, inclusion, organization, mobilization and collective dedication to the common good rather than reifying ethnicity in a notion and world that is changing rapidly.” Nice talk. Believe him.
In contrast to the above assertions, I do not believe that Obasanjo is not working in pursuit of the ethnic agenda of Afenifere; also, his diatribe against the PRONACO camp is a mere gimmick aimed at buying our naivety and endorsing his hidden tribal antics. As we shall see in our discourse next week, the conference, I believe, has everything to do with the preservation of Southwest hegemony in the economy and Politics in the post-2007 Nigeria. The Southwest has sought for the presidency for four decades without success, until it was handed to it over a platter of gold in 1999. After messing up the economy and playing foul on democracy for six years, it is afraid of what its fate would be after 2007 before the presidency rotates back to it many decades later. The region is eager to secure constitutional guarantees that will retain its enormous theft it perpetrated and consolidate the gains it made during the eight years of Obasanjo misrule, knowing fully well that the mistake of 1999 is not likely to be repeated in history.
Well, we are getting short of space and must stop here before continuing next week. Until then, let us ponder more on what the President did not say through reading his actions in the past six years than believing the rhetoric he delivered at the inauguration of the conference last week.
Discourse 176 The 2007 Milestone
Friday Discourse (186)
The 2007 Milestone
We were all apprehensive of 2003. The nation was afraid that what happened to the First and Second Republics would happen to the present one: the incumbents will rig elections, there will be mass unrest leading the military to eventually take over. The fear was realized but the consequences did not follow. Instead, a new culture has emerged: the incumbent, henceforth, is allowed the licence of misconduct by the indolence of Nigerians; that whatever he does to succeed himself, things will sort themselves out, one way or the other, especially if the scenario resembles that of 2003 in all its major respects.
Presently, 2007 is approaching with great speed, confronting us with new challenges. In 2003 the problem was self-succession through rigging elections; we did not cross the hurdle, we bent down and passed through it. In 2007 we will be battling with five hurdles of different heights. To continue as a nation we just have to cross over some, knock down some, and for the final one at least, as in 2003, bend down a bit and pass through it.
First, there is the allegation that Obasanjo is contemplating being a life-president. It is a widespread fear engendered by our recent history both as Africans and as Nigerians.
Second, the doctrine of power shift will be put to test: will it prove to be a genuine device of fostering national unity which can stand the test of time or a deceitful tool that was expeditiously employed to exclude a section of the population from power?
Third is relocation of contention from its previous province of inter-party contest to the destructive intra-party battle for the PDP presidential ticket. That is working on the assumption that the allegation regarding the self-succession of Obasanjo is false.
Four is the roles of ethnicity and religion which often overlap in most part of the country. Will the a Yoruba and Christian President be allowed by ethnic chauvinists of his zone and fundamentalists in his religion to hand over power to, say, a Muslim candidate from the North?
Five is the obvious: after the issue of PDP presidential ticket is settled, the next thing will be elections which will certainly be rigged with greater degree of impunity than in 419, 2003. Its certainty has already cultivated a level of apathy never witnessed in the history of our political development. We now feel that 2007 elections will be decided in 2006 – at the point when the ruling party concludes its primary elections. Fewer Nigerians will come out to vote than in 2003 for the foreknowledge of the rigging that will take place.
In the above five respects, 2007 will be another formidable milestone to pass. Let us take the issues one after another. Regarding the self-succession of Obasanjo, though I have once written on its possibility, there is still a substantial amount of doubt. It is normal for any person in power to come under pressure at then end of his tenure, both from his psyche and from beneficiaries of his position, both persuading him to yield to the survival instinct. Thus, he is pushed to make the mistake of sitting tight, like did many African leaders, until he dies or forced to step aside, for welcoming a decline in their fortune is not among the habits of men. And what fortune could be bigger than sitting at the helm of the second, sorry the third, most corrupt government on earth and a member of OPEC for eight consecutive years?
But the 1999 constitution has limited the emperorship of Mr. President to a maximum of two terms. In spite of the great incompetence he successfully demonstrated and the willingness of Nigerians to vote him out of power at the end of his first tenure, he was able to device means of securing a second tenure. The requirement of amending the constitution to ensure his life presidency, as I once said, is an easier task than rigging 2003 election.
Look at it this way: the Senate is largely, though not thoroughly, a horde of people selected – not elected – the PDP. That takes care of the 2/3 requirement at the national level. In the states, the President will only need to conscript the governors into the amendment, extending their tenures indefinitely. They will in turn prevail on their houses of assembly, the members of which, like the senators, were largely selected during the last elections. PDP already has the 2/3 requirement of states of the federation. All it takes to effect the amendment at both levels is Ghana must go which the government has unlimited quantities. Once the deal is good, I doubt if the legislators will hesitate to grant the indulgence of the President and his governors.
The President will be under pressure to extend his tenure not only from the individuals surrounding him but also from his ethnic and religious constituency. They may not like to forfeit unlimited access to, or tenancy in, Aso Rock. What will determine their fate will not be the constitution but strength of Mr.President’s character. Will he be foolish, like his predecessors, to succumb to such primordial pressures or will he, in consultation with history and conscience, disobey their precepts and follow the examples of statesmen in other parts of world? It is too early to say whether the president would cave in. Rather, one would prefer to remain within the prefecture of naivety and anticipate that he will behave like a gentleman; that despite the clear possibility of changing the constitution easily to his benefit, he will renounce the arguments of such interest groups and, instead, abide by the belief that Nigeria is more than his personality, that it will not cease to exist once he leaves Aso Rock.
Now based on this optimism, we can go further to speculate on who Obasanjo may allow to succeed him. The Vice-President is a natural candidate and so far the strongest aspirant within the PDP. He will contest the primaries but his success will depend on winning the minds of four people: the person of the president, his ethnic group, his religious denomination, then persuading the South-South to abandon the same ambition. If the Vice President can gurarantee the interests of the four – and I wonder what morality will prevent him from doing so – he will have little headache with other groups.
Former President Ibrahim Babangida is widely believed to be the chief contestant against the Vice-President. However, I do not share the belief that he indeed wants to contest for reasons I mentioned in some of my previous writings. All he is interested in, as would be any person in his position and record, is to maintain his relevance in politics such that his privileges are assured, his person secured, and his interests protected. And the best way to ensure those is not by keeping quiet but by winning a bargain using his influence. One of the ways is supporting people like Marwa or tacitly expressing interest in the Presidency himself, simply to rattle the Vice-President and achieve a handsome bargain.
As I said earlier power shift as a viable tool for fostering national unity will be on trial. It is 2007 that will tell the North whether it was deceived into trumpeting its doctrine since 1993 or it was a genuine formula of sharing power between our federating units. Both the Southeast and the South-south are expressing their desire to secure the presidency in 2007. This is expected in a democracy. I am in fact surprised that nobody from the southwest is making such noise so far. What I find difficult to fathom is whether the two regions are basing their desire on the premise of power shift doctrine or what the parties in Nigeria call zoning. It is clear that the power shift doctrine is based on the conventional bipolar taxonomy of the country into North and South.
The South-South may go as far as using oil as a weapon to capture the presidency. The zone may step up campaign of economic sabotage, making it difficult for oil companies to operate and hoping that the country will yield as the North did to the media onslaught from Southwest before 1999. How the North will reclaim power based on the conviction of the South is thus a major hurdle in 2007.
Finally comes the hurdle that was skipped in 2003, mass rigging of election using various devices that included, but not limited to the following:
1) deliberately poor compilation of voters register
2) delayed registration of political parties
3) incapacitating INEC through under funding
4) murder of opposition candidates
5) appointment of PDP stalwarts as resident commissioners
6) sponsoring campaign of calumny using religion and ethnicity
7) reshuffling of police commissioners and security directors
8) printing and usage of fake ballot papers and election result sheets
9) calculated scarcity of ballot papers
10) outright thuggery on election day
11) ceaseless campaign of terror on voters
12) murder of innocent citizens
13) arrest of opposition candidates and leaders on election day and thereafter until election results are announced
14) using billions of public fund to bribe agents of opposition candidates and purchase their votes
15) bribing INEC officials, police, etc.
16) arm-twisting INEC to announce results different from the ones registered or to rescind its earlier declaration of result
17) silence over the rigging from constituencies of the incumbent
18) connivance of the international community and their haste to recognize the elections as free and fair
19) decline of the masses and opposition leaders to employ mass action as done in Ukraine
20) hypocritical appeal to seek redress in court
21) debilitating delay in concluding the case against the malpractice until the incumbent who perpetrated the rigging has completed his tenure or until he dies as it once happened in an appeal in a gubernatorial election,
22) etc.
These are the five hurdles that we must cross before 2007. The reader may pause and think of the future of democracy if the nation fails to cross over them in a convincingly scrupulous manner. If we have the time next week, such implications willld be the subject matter of our discussion next week.
The 2007 Milestone
We were all apprehensive of 2003. The nation was afraid that what happened to the First and Second Republics would happen to the present one: the incumbents will rig elections, there will be mass unrest leading the military to eventually take over. The fear was realized but the consequences did not follow. Instead, a new culture has emerged: the incumbent, henceforth, is allowed the licence of misconduct by the indolence of Nigerians; that whatever he does to succeed himself, things will sort themselves out, one way or the other, especially if the scenario resembles that of 2003 in all its major respects.
Presently, 2007 is approaching with great speed, confronting us with new challenges. In 2003 the problem was self-succession through rigging elections; we did not cross the hurdle, we bent down and passed through it. In 2007 we will be battling with five hurdles of different heights. To continue as a nation we just have to cross over some, knock down some, and for the final one at least, as in 2003, bend down a bit and pass through it.
First, there is the allegation that Obasanjo is contemplating being a life-president. It is a widespread fear engendered by our recent history both as Africans and as Nigerians.
Second, the doctrine of power shift will be put to test: will it prove to be a genuine device of fostering national unity which can stand the test of time or a deceitful tool that was expeditiously employed to exclude a section of the population from power?
Third is relocation of contention from its previous province of inter-party contest to the destructive intra-party battle for the PDP presidential ticket. That is working on the assumption that the allegation regarding the self-succession of Obasanjo is false.
Four is the roles of ethnicity and religion which often overlap in most part of the country. Will the a Yoruba and Christian President be allowed by ethnic chauvinists of his zone and fundamentalists in his religion to hand over power to, say, a Muslim candidate from the North?
Five is the obvious: after the issue of PDP presidential ticket is settled, the next thing will be elections which will certainly be rigged with greater degree of impunity than in 419, 2003. Its certainty has already cultivated a level of apathy never witnessed in the history of our political development. We now feel that 2007 elections will be decided in 2006 – at the point when the ruling party concludes its primary elections. Fewer Nigerians will come out to vote than in 2003 for the foreknowledge of the rigging that will take place.
In the above five respects, 2007 will be another formidable milestone to pass. Let us take the issues one after another. Regarding the self-succession of Obasanjo, though I have once written on its possibility, there is still a substantial amount of doubt. It is normal for any person in power to come under pressure at then end of his tenure, both from his psyche and from beneficiaries of his position, both persuading him to yield to the survival instinct. Thus, he is pushed to make the mistake of sitting tight, like did many African leaders, until he dies or forced to step aside, for welcoming a decline in their fortune is not among the habits of men. And what fortune could be bigger than sitting at the helm of the second, sorry the third, most corrupt government on earth and a member of OPEC for eight consecutive years?
But the 1999 constitution has limited the emperorship of Mr. President to a maximum of two terms. In spite of the great incompetence he successfully demonstrated and the willingness of Nigerians to vote him out of power at the end of his first tenure, he was able to device means of securing a second tenure. The requirement of amending the constitution to ensure his life presidency, as I once said, is an easier task than rigging 2003 election.
Look at it this way: the Senate is largely, though not thoroughly, a horde of people selected – not elected – the PDP. That takes care of the 2/3 requirement at the national level. In the states, the President will only need to conscript the governors into the amendment, extending their tenures indefinitely. They will in turn prevail on their houses of assembly, the members of which, like the senators, were largely selected during the last elections. PDP already has the 2/3 requirement of states of the federation. All it takes to effect the amendment at both levels is Ghana must go which the government has unlimited quantities. Once the deal is good, I doubt if the legislators will hesitate to grant the indulgence of the President and his governors.
The President will be under pressure to extend his tenure not only from the individuals surrounding him but also from his ethnic and religious constituency. They may not like to forfeit unlimited access to, or tenancy in, Aso Rock. What will determine their fate will not be the constitution but strength of Mr.President’s character. Will he be foolish, like his predecessors, to succumb to such primordial pressures or will he, in consultation with history and conscience, disobey their precepts and follow the examples of statesmen in other parts of world? It is too early to say whether the president would cave in. Rather, one would prefer to remain within the prefecture of naivety and anticipate that he will behave like a gentleman; that despite the clear possibility of changing the constitution easily to his benefit, he will renounce the arguments of such interest groups and, instead, abide by the belief that Nigeria is more than his personality, that it will not cease to exist once he leaves Aso Rock.
Now based on this optimism, we can go further to speculate on who Obasanjo may allow to succeed him. The Vice-President is a natural candidate and so far the strongest aspirant within the PDP. He will contest the primaries but his success will depend on winning the minds of four people: the person of the president, his ethnic group, his religious denomination, then persuading the South-South to abandon the same ambition. If the Vice President can gurarantee the interests of the four – and I wonder what morality will prevent him from doing so – he will have little headache with other groups.
Former President Ibrahim Babangida is widely believed to be the chief contestant against the Vice-President. However, I do not share the belief that he indeed wants to contest for reasons I mentioned in some of my previous writings. All he is interested in, as would be any person in his position and record, is to maintain his relevance in politics such that his privileges are assured, his person secured, and his interests protected. And the best way to ensure those is not by keeping quiet but by winning a bargain using his influence. One of the ways is supporting people like Marwa or tacitly expressing interest in the Presidency himself, simply to rattle the Vice-President and achieve a handsome bargain.
As I said earlier power shift as a viable tool for fostering national unity will be on trial. It is 2007 that will tell the North whether it was deceived into trumpeting its doctrine since 1993 or it was a genuine formula of sharing power between our federating units. Both the Southeast and the South-south are expressing their desire to secure the presidency in 2007. This is expected in a democracy. I am in fact surprised that nobody from the southwest is making such noise so far. What I find difficult to fathom is whether the two regions are basing their desire on the premise of power shift doctrine or what the parties in Nigeria call zoning. It is clear that the power shift doctrine is based on the conventional bipolar taxonomy of the country into North and South.
The South-South may go as far as using oil as a weapon to capture the presidency. The zone may step up campaign of economic sabotage, making it difficult for oil companies to operate and hoping that the country will yield as the North did to the media onslaught from Southwest before 1999. How the North will reclaim power based on the conviction of the South is thus a major hurdle in 2007.
Finally comes the hurdle that was skipped in 2003, mass rigging of election using various devices that included, but not limited to the following:
1) deliberately poor compilation of voters register
2) delayed registration of political parties
3) incapacitating INEC through under funding
4) murder of opposition candidates
5) appointment of PDP stalwarts as resident commissioners
6) sponsoring campaign of calumny using religion and ethnicity
7) reshuffling of police commissioners and security directors
8) printing and usage of fake ballot papers and election result sheets
9) calculated scarcity of ballot papers
10) outright thuggery on election day
11) ceaseless campaign of terror on voters
12) murder of innocent citizens
13) arrest of opposition candidates and leaders on election day and thereafter until election results are announced
14) using billions of public fund to bribe agents of opposition candidates and purchase their votes
15) bribing INEC officials, police, etc.
16) arm-twisting INEC to announce results different from the ones registered or to rescind its earlier declaration of result
17) silence over the rigging from constituencies of the incumbent
18) connivance of the international community and their haste to recognize the elections as free and fair
19) decline of the masses and opposition leaders to employ mass action as done in Ukraine
20) hypocritical appeal to seek redress in court
21) debilitating delay in concluding the case against the malpractice until the incumbent who perpetrated the rigging has completed his tenure or until he dies as it once happened in an appeal in a gubernatorial election,
22) etc.
These are the five hurdles that we must cross before 2007. The reader may pause and think of the future of democracy if the nation fails to cross over them in a convincingly scrupulous manner. If we have the time next week, such implications willld be the subject matter of our discussion next week.
Discourse 96 Sharing Power in Democracy
Friday Discourse (96)
Sharing Power in Democracy
In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the most celebrated historian on the ancient empire, Edward Gibbon, started his discussion in 1776 on the constitution of the empire during the Antonines with the fol-lowing paragraph:
“The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state, in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be dis-tinguished, is intrusted with the execution of laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army. But unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despot-ism. The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince.”
The above analysis of Gibbon presents three observations regarding the preserva-tion of freedom and rights of people in a society. One is entrusting it to a monarch, which has been the commonest practice in history. Abuse of power in this case became irresistible and such nations quickly became attended by the evil of despotism. The Prince who would come to the throne with the approval of the people and amidst their jubilation has transformed into a formidable enemy. At home he would violate their rights; and abroad he would turn them into subjects of hardship and danger of war in service of his ever-growing ambition to cap-ture and control the treasures of other na-tions.
It became necessary to therefore regulate the behaviour of these princes and religion was the chief instrument. With its emphasis on piety, service to God and the concept of Hereafter, religion has on many occasions helped to daunt the ambitions of rulers, par-ticularly when they became inclined more to piety than to iniquity. Mankind under such circumstances would breath the air of free-dom.
But the breath was usually short. For the fact that it emphasizes piety as a cardinal requisite for successful leadership – and few men are given to piety – governments led by pious people hardly live long after their founders without being embraced by the wicked. The fight put against the tyranny of the Prince by the clergy has in most occa-sions failed. In the history of Europe in par-ticular, the church has left much to be de-sired: it chose to become a collaborator so much so that Gibbon could find the courage to assert that “the church has seldom been on the side of the people.”(Please do not waste your time writing a rejoinder to Ed-ward Gibbon: one, he is already dead; two, the clergy among his contemporaries have already done that by calling him an ‘un-believer’ desiring to write not only about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire but ‘the decline and fall of Christianity’! Yet, among the people and historians of his age, he enjoyed the celebrity of being the ‘His-torian of the Roman Empire.’ How distant were the people from their church!)
This failure of people to find protection in absolute monarchy or in the one regulated by the clergy, they were compelled to trust no one but themselves. The struggle to do so has preoccupied the history of Europe in the last four centuries.
Not withstanding all we said about the ills of monarchy – where power is entrusted in a single individual – and the possible prospects of a republic – where power is shared between the executive and the senate, the choice could best be left to circumstance. Each of them has its advantages and disad-vantages.
In people not used to freedom and inde-pendence, or in periods of civil discord and decline of affairs of a nation, history has preferred to forego the luxury of fragment-ing power. It opts for empowering the Prince with more power to enable the restoration of law and order necessary for reform and de-velopment.
It is an irony that the above passage of Gibbon was the first paragraph on the emer-gence of Augustus (63 B.C. – 14 A.D.) as the first Emperor of the Roman Empire. The empire witnessed prolonged civil strife and social degeneration. Augustus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, strongly felt that a strong leadership is the only guarantee to the opportunities of reform and reclamation of the dignity and prosperity of the Empire. The achievements of Augustus were calcu-lated from the onset of his rule. He started by modifying the composition of the senate to suit his purpose. He made his Roman citi-zens receptive of his idea for reform with him at the helm. On this Gibbon said: “It was dangerous to trust the sincerity of Au-gustus; to seem to distrust it was still more dangerous. The respective advantages of monarchy and a republic have often divided speculative inquirers; the present greatness of the Roman state, the corruption of man-ners, and the license of the soldiers, supplied new arguments to the advocates of mon-archy; and these general views of gov-ernment were again warped by the hopes and fears of each individual…
“After a decent resistance the crafty ty-rant submitted to the orders of the senate; and consented to receive the government of the provinces and the general command of the Roman armies, under the well-known names of Proconsul and Imperator. But would receive them only for ten years. Even before the expiration of that period, he hoped that the wounds of civil discord would be completely healed, and that the republic, restored to its pristine health and vigour, would no longer require the danger-ous interposition of so extraordinary a magi-strate.”
Even today similar things happen when the constitution of a nation is suspended or a state of emergency is declared. Sometimes, military takes over when it is evident that politicians are leading the nation to water-loo.
However, the overwhelming fashion to-day is for powers to be separated – or frag-mented, as the Americans would call it – further than what the ancients practiced. In the 17th century, the English Philosopher John Lock (1632-1704) dismissed the divine right of kings to rule and argued vehemently in support of civil governments. He, as later did the French philosopher Charles-Louis Monstesquieu, advanced the concept of separation of powers as a guarantee against reincarnation of despotism. Power in this doctrine is to be shared between the exec-utive and the representatives of the people with the judiciary as the arbitrator.
Nowhere were the thoughts of the two philosophers profoundly expressed than in the American constitution. Though the world seemed to be running away from the tyranny of the Prince, it was clear to them that unless checks were introduced, the legislature may usurp power and make re-publics difficult to govern by the executive. Two hundred years after the Philadelphia convention where the doctrine of separation of powers was adopted, the balance of power between the executive and the legisla-ture is still attained only with great caution and manifest labour. The separation is most threatened when the same party controls the executive and the legislature.
Constitutional governments based on the doctrine of separation of powers do not seem to be yielding the desired results in most developing countries. In Nigeria par-ticularly, three (or say two and a half) repub-lics were lost to military coups. While the first could hardly be justified, the second and third could not be condemned as lacking merit. As long as they lasted, different arms of government in the second and third re-publics failed to ensure good governance through checking the excesses of one an-other. Contrarily, the pitch was divided into two, with the legislature and the executive on one side and the people they claim to rep-resent on the other. The result of this col-laboration was the proliferation of corrup-tion and rigging of elections to sustain lead-ership.
At the level of states, there was little to show that the legislature has ever tried to check the excesses of the executive. Once their material demands were met, lawmakers were always ready to grant the executive the position of an emperor. Our ‘emperors’ however, were not like Augustus, for instead of working towards higher ideals in leader-ship and governance, they stooped down to the bestial level of material gratification. This tantamount to the death and burial of merit and accountability leading to the logi-cal conclusion of retaining power in order to perpetuate the ongoing injustice.
That was where the executive collabor-ated with the legislature. There were occa-sions, very few though, when the governor would stand his ground on principle, per-haps belonging to a different ideology from the legislature that was hell-bent on continu-ing with the old practice of squander and theft. The result was that such governors got kicked out of their position, using the im-peachment clause in the constitutional that was meant to safeguard the interest of the people. The impeachment of the first exec-utive governor of Kaduna State was a lead-ing example. That event alone did the great-est damage to the cause of the common man in a democracy. It has proved that little hope is there in our wholesale adoption of the American constitution.
From then, the legislature has become powerful a monster dreaded by the exec-utive. A compromise with evil has become necessary if the executive desires any achievement, no matter how small. ‘Serve us and remain, or challenge us and go’ became the maxim that defined the relationship be-tween the legislature and the executive. Thus was the transformation of the legisla-ture from restraint to constraint.
In this republic, the fourth in our experi-ment, we have enough examples to cite. Apart from the experience of the President and the National Assembly or that of each state governor with his legislature, at the local government level, crisis are daily em-erging between the chairmen and their coun-cillors. Last Tuesday we learnt the disband-ment of Hong Local Government council the Governor of Adamawa State for the deterio-ration of law and order in the area arising from the seemingly unending strife within local council. The truth of such acrimony is always one: the chairmen, who in many cases may not be as pious as Balarabe Musa, might have failed to tow the line of the legislature on matters of allowances or con-tracts though different excuses may be given to cover the actual cause.
If such acrimony breeds hindrance, co-operation and compromise breeds corruption and maladministration. We remember that last year when it was under a leadership of Okadigbo, the National Assembly was more critical of the budget; they were able to ask questions and to insist on getting clarifica-tions. This year, under the ongoing peace treaty, few questions, if any, were asked. Perhaps, the executive have become more competent in preparing budgets so much so that the 2001 bill could pass without much fuss at the assembly or the legislature has agreed, in pursuit of our common good, to cooperate with the executive and overlook its errors. No one should be deceived about what is going on.
Conclusion
Despite these shortcomings and others which we have been discussing about in the past two weeks, we do not feel that solutions should be sought outside the province of the civil government as it happened in the past, unless if the situation becomes really critical – something very far, though Rawlings has started singing the coup song in Ghana. We believe, especially with how the last three military governments run the country to standstill, the third option of Edward Gibbon is our best guarantee to freedom and devel-opment. It is important however to suggest that the constitution needs review such that the realities of our society will be taken into cognisance. Our suggestions may be few but they are fundamental to the success of the republic. Briefly, they are:
1. Transfer of power to impeach an executive from the legislature to the judiciary
2. Further assertion of the independence of the judiciary to enable it the courage required of impartial umpire.
3. Raising the educational standard of political office holders.
4. Revisiting an earlier suggestion of reducing tenures to a single term.
5. Rejection of zoning, power shift and other rubbish.
6. Enforcement of lifetime ban on citizens proved of corrupt practices from participating in politics.
These suggestions, and perhaps few more, will, God willing, be the topic of our dis-course next week.
1 August 2001
Sharing Power in Democracy
In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the most celebrated historian on the ancient empire, Edward Gibbon, started his discussion in 1776 on the constitution of the empire during the Antonines with the fol-lowing paragraph:
“The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state, in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be dis-tinguished, is intrusted with the execution of laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army. But unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despot-ism. The influence of the clergy, in an age of superstition, might be usefully employed to assert the rights of mankind; but so intimate is the connection between the throne and the altar, that the banner of the church has very seldom been on the side of the people. A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince.”
The above analysis of Gibbon presents three observations regarding the preserva-tion of freedom and rights of people in a society. One is entrusting it to a monarch, which has been the commonest practice in history. Abuse of power in this case became irresistible and such nations quickly became attended by the evil of despotism. The Prince who would come to the throne with the approval of the people and amidst their jubilation has transformed into a formidable enemy. At home he would violate their rights; and abroad he would turn them into subjects of hardship and danger of war in service of his ever-growing ambition to cap-ture and control the treasures of other na-tions.
It became necessary to therefore regulate the behaviour of these princes and religion was the chief instrument. With its emphasis on piety, service to God and the concept of Hereafter, religion has on many occasions helped to daunt the ambitions of rulers, par-ticularly when they became inclined more to piety than to iniquity. Mankind under such circumstances would breath the air of free-dom.
But the breath was usually short. For the fact that it emphasizes piety as a cardinal requisite for successful leadership – and few men are given to piety – governments led by pious people hardly live long after their founders without being embraced by the wicked. The fight put against the tyranny of the Prince by the clergy has in most occa-sions failed. In the history of Europe in par-ticular, the church has left much to be de-sired: it chose to become a collaborator so much so that Gibbon could find the courage to assert that “the church has seldom been on the side of the people.”(Please do not waste your time writing a rejoinder to Ed-ward Gibbon: one, he is already dead; two, the clergy among his contemporaries have already done that by calling him an ‘un-believer’ desiring to write not only about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire but ‘the decline and fall of Christianity’! Yet, among the people and historians of his age, he enjoyed the celebrity of being the ‘His-torian of the Roman Empire.’ How distant were the people from their church!)
This failure of people to find protection in absolute monarchy or in the one regulated by the clergy, they were compelled to trust no one but themselves. The struggle to do so has preoccupied the history of Europe in the last four centuries.
Not withstanding all we said about the ills of monarchy – where power is entrusted in a single individual – and the possible prospects of a republic – where power is shared between the executive and the senate, the choice could best be left to circumstance. Each of them has its advantages and disad-vantages.
In people not used to freedom and inde-pendence, or in periods of civil discord and decline of affairs of a nation, history has preferred to forego the luxury of fragment-ing power. It opts for empowering the Prince with more power to enable the restoration of law and order necessary for reform and de-velopment.
It is an irony that the above passage of Gibbon was the first paragraph on the emer-gence of Augustus (63 B.C. – 14 A.D.) as the first Emperor of the Roman Empire. The empire witnessed prolonged civil strife and social degeneration. Augustus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, strongly felt that a strong leadership is the only guarantee to the opportunities of reform and reclamation of the dignity and prosperity of the Empire. The achievements of Augustus were calcu-lated from the onset of his rule. He started by modifying the composition of the senate to suit his purpose. He made his Roman citi-zens receptive of his idea for reform with him at the helm. On this Gibbon said: “It was dangerous to trust the sincerity of Au-gustus; to seem to distrust it was still more dangerous. The respective advantages of monarchy and a republic have often divided speculative inquirers; the present greatness of the Roman state, the corruption of man-ners, and the license of the soldiers, supplied new arguments to the advocates of mon-archy; and these general views of gov-ernment were again warped by the hopes and fears of each individual…
“After a decent resistance the crafty ty-rant submitted to the orders of the senate; and consented to receive the government of the provinces and the general command of the Roman armies, under the well-known names of Proconsul and Imperator. But would receive them only for ten years. Even before the expiration of that period, he hoped that the wounds of civil discord would be completely healed, and that the republic, restored to its pristine health and vigour, would no longer require the danger-ous interposition of so extraordinary a magi-strate.”
Even today similar things happen when the constitution of a nation is suspended or a state of emergency is declared. Sometimes, military takes over when it is evident that politicians are leading the nation to water-loo.
However, the overwhelming fashion to-day is for powers to be separated – or frag-mented, as the Americans would call it – further than what the ancients practiced. In the 17th century, the English Philosopher John Lock (1632-1704) dismissed the divine right of kings to rule and argued vehemently in support of civil governments. He, as later did the French philosopher Charles-Louis Monstesquieu, advanced the concept of separation of powers as a guarantee against reincarnation of despotism. Power in this doctrine is to be shared between the exec-utive and the representatives of the people with the judiciary as the arbitrator.
Nowhere were the thoughts of the two philosophers profoundly expressed than in the American constitution. Though the world seemed to be running away from the tyranny of the Prince, it was clear to them that unless checks were introduced, the legislature may usurp power and make re-publics difficult to govern by the executive. Two hundred years after the Philadelphia convention where the doctrine of separation of powers was adopted, the balance of power between the executive and the legisla-ture is still attained only with great caution and manifest labour. The separation is most threatened when the same party controls the executive and the legislature.
Constitutional governments based on the doctrine of separation of powers do not seem to be yielding the desired results in most developing countries. In Nigeria par-ticularly, three (or say two and a half) repub-lics were lost to military coups. While the first could hardly be justified, the second and third could not be condemned as lacking merit. As long as they lasted, different arms of government in the second and third re-publics failed to ensure good governance through checking the excesses of one an-other. Contrarily, the pitch was divided into two, with the legislature and the executive on one side and the people they claim to rep-resent on the other. The result of this col-laboration was the proliferation of corrup-tion and rigging of elections to sustain lead-ership.
At the level of states, there was little to show that the legislature has ever tried to check the excesses of the executive. Once their material demands were met, lawmakers were always ready to grant the executive the position of an emperor. Our ‘emperors’ however, were not like Augustus, for instead of working towards higher ideals in leader-ship and governance, they stooped down to the bestial level of material gratification. This tantamount to the death and burial of merit and accountability leading to the logi-cal conclusion of retaining power in order to perpetuate the ongoing injustice.
That was where the executive collabor-ated with the legislature. There were occa-sions, very few though, when the governor would stand his ground on principle, per-haps belonging to a different ideology from the legislature that was hell-bent on continu-ing with the old practice of squander and theft. The result was that such governors got kicked out of their position, using the im-peachment clause in the constitutional that was meant to safeguard the interest of the people. The impeachment of the first exec-utive governor of Kaduna State was a lead-ing example. That event alone did the great-est damage to the cause of the common man in a democracy. It has proved that little hope is there in our wholesale adoption of the American constitution.
From then, the legislature has become powerful a monster dreaded by the exec-utive. A compromise with evil has become necessary if the executive desires any achievement, no matter how small. ‘Serve us and remain, or challenge us and go’ became the maxim that defined the relationship be-tween the legislature and the executive. Thus was the transformation of the legisla-ture from restraint to constraint.
In this republic, the fourth in our experi-ment, we have enough examples to cite. Apart from the experience of the President and the National Assembly or that of each state governor with his legislature, at the local government level, crisis are daily em-erging between the chairmen and their coun-cillors. Last Tuesday we learnt the disband-ment of Hong Local Government council the Governor of Adamawa State for the deterio-ration of law and order in the area arising from the seemingly unending strife within local council. The truth of such acrimony is always one: the chairmen, who in many cases may not be as pious as Balarabe Musa, might have failed to tow the line of the legislature on matters of allowances or con-tracts though different excuses may be given to cover the actual cause.
If such acrimony breeds hindrance, co-operation and compromise breeds corruption and maladministration. We remember that last year when it was under a leadership of Okadigbo, the National Assembly was more critical of the budget; they were able to ask questions and to insist on getting clarifica-tions. This year, under the ongoing peace treaty, few questions, if any, were asked. Perhaps, the executive have become more competent in preparing budgets so much so that the 2001 bill could pass without much fuss at the assembly or the legislature has agreed, in pursuit of our common good, to cooperate with the executive and overlook its errors. No one should be deceived about what is going on.
Conclusion
Despite these shortcomings and others which we have been discussing about in the past two weeks, we do not feel that solutions should be sought outside the province of the civil government as it happened in the past, unless if the situation becomes really critical – something very far, though Rawlings has started singing the coup song in Ghana. We believe, especially with how the last three military governments run the country to standstill, the third option of Edward Gibbon is our best guarantee to freedom and devel-opment. It is important however to suggest that the constitution needs review such that the realities of our society will be taken into cognisance. Our suggestions may be few but they are fundamental to the success of the republic. Briefly, they are:
1. Transfer of power to impeach an executive from the legislature to the judiciary
2. Further assertion of the independence of the judiciary to enable it the courage required of impartial umpire.
3. Raising the educational standard of political office holders.
4. Revisiting an earlier suggestion of reducing tenures to a single term.
5. Rejection of zoning, power shift and other rubbish.
6. Enforcement of lifetime ban on citizens proved of corrupt practices from participating in politics.
These suggestions, and perhaps few more, will, God willing, be the topic of our dis-course next week.
1 August 2001
Discourse 120 2003: The President to Choose
Friday Discourse (120)
2003: The President to choose
Actually our discourse today is eased by our elder academician Dr. Mahmud Tukur, the celebrated author of the masterpiece Leadership and Governance in Nigeria: The relevance of Values. The book is a must read for every student of politics and administration in Nigeria. Without exaggeration, I can say that it is the most important indigenous book on its subject that I have ever come across. All quotations in this article were made from the magnum opus.
Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) through the declaration of Bafarawa has effectively launched itself, albeit reluctantly, into the center of Nigerian Politics. It has declared its intention to work, as one of its preoccupations, towards reaching a consensus on who will represent the region in the next presidential elections. The declaration has been made. There is no going back. What is required is how each of us will contribute to the evolution of that consensus. Theirs is the politicking and consultations; while ours, herein presented, is a discourse that would focus on the characteristics of a leader who will earn our respect and support. I strongly feel that our politicians, elders and influential youths should spare some time to glance through Leadership and Governance. If they are too occupied, please let them make do with a summary of a fraction of its contents which we have endeavored to present to noble our readers here.
The discussion is based on the leader-ship values expounded by the triumvirate of scholars of the Sokoto Caliphate, namely, Shehu Usman Danfodio him-self, his brother Shehu Abdullahi and his son Muhammadu Bello. The values have been comprehensively reviewed in Dr. Tukur’s book. It may be difficult to find among the region’s political class a per-son who would fulfill all the conditions. However, the list could serve as a score-board on which the strengths and weaknesses of potential candidates could be weighed dispassionately.
Dr. Tukur has reduced the values of governance enunciated by the triumvirate into twelve. We will leave the three process values and the three community values out of our discussion. We will concentrate on the six leadership values he has enumerated. These are justice; ease and kindness; abstinence, moderation and asceticism; integrity and hon-esty; and service to the community.
Justice
The foremost quality of a leader, Muslim or non-Muslim, is his commitment to justice. As Dr. Tukur rightly deduced from the writings of the three scholars, “justice is instrumental to the endurance of the state, for the security of the state and for the welfare of man-kind… The composite argument being put forward here is that the perpetuation of the state, its victory when engaged in conflict and its internal safety are ultimately determined by the extent of the fairness of its leadership in managing the affairs of the community.”
We have repeatedly mentioned in this column that our political instability and particularly the preponderance of ethnic and religious conflicts in our society are manifestations of injustice meted on our people either economically or politically. If we once more need to prove to Nigerians that we deserve their votes, we must not base it only on the democratic principle of majority, but also on our commitment to justice.
The demand for justice is more acute in a society like ours that is made of several ethnic and religious groups. There is also an unimaginable gap between the rich and poor. The constitution has made sufficient provisions for the leadership to institutionalize justice in the distribution of resources such that every part is carried along. No section should be developed at the expense of another.
This is one of the major political crimes of Obasanjo today and it is the major premise of Bafarawa’s argument. It is difficult to remember such blatant bias against any section of the country or an astonishing favor for the leader’s tribesmen in the regimes of Balewa or Shagari, as we are witnessing today under Obasanjo. Obasanjo has repeatedly justified his action on vendetta. One would like to know whether he solicited the support of the North when he joined others in planning a coup against Abacha.
The ACF therefore must choose a leader who transcends the pittance of personal vendetta. He must have a total commitment to the welfare and security of every Nigerian citizen irrespective of his origin or profession. He must be able to practice justice through rule of law and designing public policies that will bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
Ease and kindness
The second leadership value is ease and kindness. Dr. Tukur has interpreted this to mean limiting the inconvenience which the exercise of power and authority is bound to cause the common people. The relevance of this value is not restricted to a theocratic state but also to present constitutional governments where legislation and interpretation of statutes should be guided by the willing-ness of all arms of government to do away with any unnecessary inconvenience the law or its enforcement could cause the citizens. Our constitution has dwelled on matters relating to the freedom of the individual and his rights in the society.
Dr. Tukur has quoted the Bello as saying in his Usul al-Siyasa that “the amir or the imam or the governor should be gentle, moved to forgiveness and refraining from anger, inclined to generosity and tolerance. Among the finest qualities will be patience in the sense of courage and openhandedness. But if he be not gentle nor moved to forgiveness, nor refrains from anger, nor be inclined to generosity or tolerance, then it is to be feared that they will become weary of him and desert him.”
In another place, Dr. Tukur quoted Bello saying, “the ruler ‘should be gentle in dealing with his people… he must not burden them with what is unnecessary…, he should deal with the subjects according to their circumstance…” Also, “a ruler ‘should not be harsh’ but should act towards the people ‘with grace and a guiding hand’. When differences occur on matters which are ‘mere legislation by man’, the governors should ‘pardon the people.”
Humility/Modesty
On characteristic of humility/modesty which a leader must possess, Dr. Tukur made the following summary: “(Shehu Usman) is quite specific both in his op-position to ‘giving authority … to one who seeks it’ and in his view that ‘power is not given to those who hanker after it.’ Bello, for his part, holds that ‘ seeking leadership would create discord’ and therefore advises that a potential ruler ‘should be far from liking leadership (for its want sake), yet who still is enthusiastic to rule’. Bello’s problem with ‘a per-son whom we see striving hard for it (leadership)’ is that ‘if he loves (the power of) leadership and is keen to rule it is to be feared that he will be tempted inside himself and not deal justly with the people.”
Nigerians know very well the ill of having a leader interested in power. The ill is that he will do whatever is possible under the sun to acquire it, through coups, rigging elections, stupendous wealth and intrigue. Once he acquires it, his basic preoccupation, as we have seen more clearly under Babangida, Abacha and Obasanjo, will be to employ all means possible to retain it, against the will of his people. This lack of humility is another source of our political instability.
Some people believe that leadership should not be given to reluctant people, in contrast to what the Jihad scholars are saying. Here lies our problem, the difference in values has caused the politicians of the Southwest to do all they could, through sabotage and blackmail, to win over leadership. Now that Obasanjo has got it, they have fallen into the same pit as Babangida and Abacha. The problem is therefore generic. ACF must not over-look the importance of this principle. They should find among people suitable for leadership one who is most reluctant to rule, in addition to having a good measure of other characteristics herein discussed.
Abstinence, Moderation
and Ascetism
As noted by Dr. Tukur, “Shehu Us-man clearly castigates the pre-Jihad leadership for their overindulgence in eating, luxurious living and bodily pleasures, just as he praises moderation in personal conduct and daily life. Shehu Abdullahi clearly insists that government should avoid purchases and expenses ‘that cause damage to the treasury.”
There is a strong relationship between the penchant of a leader for wealth and the state of corruption in his administration and poverty under which his people live. A leader with high taste will be-come preoccupied with undertakings that are expensive to the treasury. The money that should have been used to offer services to the common man are spent on things that are grossly irrelevant.
Few Nigerian leaders for example have shown moderation in their taste. They want government offices and residences to be the finest monuments in the world. Flamboyance is manifested in the houses they live in, the offices they occupy, the planes they fly, the cars they ride, the dresses they wear, the gifts they give or take, the games they play, and the girls they accompany. Today, the condition is worse than ever. Aso Rock and National Assembly are manifestations of waste, amidst the poverty that has ravaged over 70% of the population. A contract for the extension of the National Assembly complex was recently awarded at the cost of N25.7billion, including a discount (la’ada a waje) of N300million! The saddening thing is that the same Julius Berger Plc that was awarded the job without any call for tender had earlier agreed to do the same job as ‘turnkey’ under Okadigbo’s leader-ship for only N4billion.
Likewise we are having a president who insists on riding a plane of over N5billion. Governors have rejected the Peugeot as their official car. They are riding imported posh Mercedes and jeeps; building luxurious guest houses; and so on. The national stadium, according to the estimate of a member of the national assembly, will cost nothing less than N100billion, something the World bank said could go for only N9billion. How can we tolerate this syndicate any longer than 2003?
In search for an alternative, it is there-fore important that a choice is made among people who, in their past role as leaders, or in their personal lives as individuals, have been most moderate regarding wealth. This characteristic is what will reflect in their philosophy of expenditure such that the billions that should have been used to alleviate the suffering of the people will not be used in a wasteful manner. I wish we can come up with a candidate that is so moderate to reject even his night allowance on any foreign trip. Obasanjo so far is a billionaire I suppose because he has spent over 387 days overseas, and on each he has an allowance of N3million per night!
Integrity and Honesty
On this characteristic of good leader, Tukur wrote: “Looking at the values from the viewpoint of state institutions, Shehu Usman declared that ‘success in government can be achieved by enjoining the truth in as much as the crown of a ‘king is his integrity’. At the level of the conduct of personnel he stipulates that ‘for an official with a fixed stipend to receive anything … other than that is fraud’, while Abdullahi forbids ‘a ruler … to touch property acquired unjustly’. Rulers are also obliged ‘to endeavor to establish truth in all (their) affairs and to see it as their ‘first duty to maintain purity of (their) spirit by sincerity of intention.
“Aside from these postulations, where truth is a means to obtaining either ‘success’ in government or dis-charging a duty, these twin values (integrity and honest) and their synonyms, like probity, sincerity and honesty, have their own intrinsic worth when merely to strive always to distinguish truth from falsehood is understood to be an attribute of ‘the good and wise.”
For decades now, Nigeria has become a victim of a leadership that is bereft of sincerity to the extent that very few people, if any, believe anything government would say anymore. People identify government with deceit, cheating and falsehood. Today, more than ever before, the country is in need of a leader who has sufficient integrity and honesty who will restore our confidence in government. People need a leader who will not sacrifice our interest for his, or his class, or foreign groups.
Service to Community
Shehu Abdullahi has clearly outlined the relationship between a leader and his people. He is to serve them such that every action he undertakes is solely done for their benefit. On the dynamics of the relationship between the two, Dr. Tukur quoted Diya al-Hukkam where Abdullahi categorically made this assertion: “No person is made a ruler over the people to become their master; he is to serve their religious and temporal interests. The governor must not think that he is the owner of the province over which he is made to rule, whereby the land be-comes his personal property which he can give to whom he likes and deny it to whom he wishes.”
I wish this country would one day be blessed with leaders who regard them-selves as servants to the people. They will consult them whenever they will decide on their affairs and they will respond to their complaints with the urgency that a mother responds to the cry of her baby.
So far, what we have had are Presidents, ministers, governors and legislators who consider themselves as our masters, and their lives more precious than ours. They approve for themselves stupendous salaries and allowances while they exacerbate the sufferings of their people. They would prefer to use our resources to ingratiate members of their class than commit them to our service.
I wish we could have leaders who will put our interests before that of multinational organizations like the Paris and London clubs, World Bank and the IMF. We have suffered enough in the hands of these leaches, from the austerity measures of the early eighties to the structural adjustment programs that started from the mid-eighties. Clearly, the ongoing privatization program is not done in our interest; it is designed to auction whatever we have to the foreign investors and their local agents.
Conclusion
These are the qualities that the ACF and indeed Nigerians generally should look for when it comes to election. As I said earlier, it is difficult to find a single person that could meet these requirements 100%. However, if he can rely on honest advisers, sincere ministers and hardworking civil servants, he can use their strength to circumvent for his weaknesses.
If, on the other hand, the ACF leader-ship will dismiss these values and allow their choice to be dictated by the powers of wealth and intrigue, they should better recall what the foremost historian of the Roman Empire – Edward Gibbon – once said: whoever forfeits esteem, forfeits obedience.
2003: The President to choose
Actually our discourse today is eased by our elder academician Dr. Mahmud Tukur, the celebrated author of the masterpiece Leadership and Governance in Nigeria: The relevance of Values. The book is a must read for every student of politics and administration in Nigeria. Without exaggeration, I can say that it is the most important indigenous book on its subject that I have ever come across. All quotations in this article were made from the magnum opus.
Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) through the declaration of Bafarawa has effectively launched itself, albeit reluctantly, into the center of Nigerian Politics. It has declared its intention to work, as one of its preoccupations, towards reaching a consensus on who will represent the region in the next presidential elections. The declaration has been made. There is no going back. What is required is how each of us will contribute to the evolution of that consensus. Theirs is the politicking and consultations; while ours, herein presented, is a discourse that would focus on the characteristics of a leader who will earn our respect and support. I strongly feel that our politicians, elders and influential youths should spare some time to glance through Leadership and Governance. If they are too occupied, please let them make do with a summary of a fraction of its contents which we have endeavored to present to noble our readers here.
The discussion is based on the leader-ship values expounded by the triumvirate of scholars of the Sokoto Caliphate, namely, Shehu Usman Danfodio him-self, his brother Shehu Abdullahi and his son Muhammadu Bello. The values have been comprehensively reviewed in Dr. Tukur’s book. It may be difficult to find among the region’s political class a per-son who would fulfill all the conditions. However, the list could serve as a score-board on which the strengths and weaknesses of potential candidates could be weighed dispassionately.
Dr. Tukur has reduced the values of governance enunciated by the triumvirate into twelve. We will leave the three process values and the three community values out of our discussion. We will concentrate on the six leadership values he has enumerated. These are justice; ease and kindness; abstinence, moderation and asceticism; integrity and hon-esty; and service to the community.
Justice
The foremost quality of a leader, Muslim or non-Muslim, is his commitment to justice. As Dr. Tukur rightly deduced from the writings of the three scholars, “justice is instrumental to the endurance of the state, for the security of the state and for the welfare of man-kind… The composite argument being put forward here is that the perpetuation of the state, its victory when engaged in conflict and its internal safety are ultimately determined by the extent of the fairness of its leadership in managing the affairs of the community.”
We have repeatedly mentioned in this column that our political instability and particularly the preponderance of ethnic and religious conflicts in our society are manifestations of injustice meted on our people either economically or politically. If we once more need to prove to Nigerians that we deserve their votes, we must not base it only on the democratic principle of majority, but also on our commitment to justice.
The demand for justice is more acute in a society like ours that is made of several ethnic and religious groups. There is also an unimaginable gap between the rich and poor. The constitution has made sufficient provisions for the leadership to institutionalize justice in the distribution of resources such that every part is carried along. No section should be developed at the expense of another.
This is one of the major political crimes of Obasanjo today and it is the major premise of Bafarawa’s argument. It is difficult to remember such blatant bias against any section of the country or an astonishing favor for the leader’s tribesmen in the regimes of Balewa or Shagari, as we are witnessing today under Obasanjo. Obasanjo has repeatedly justified his action on vendetta. One would like to know whether he solicited the support of the North when he joined others in planning a coup against Abacha.
The ACF therefore must choose a leader who transcends the pittance of personal vendetta. He must have a total commitment to the welfare and security of every Nigerian citizen irrespective of his origin or profession. He must be able to practice justice through rule of law and designing public policies that will bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
Ease and kindness
The second leadership value is ease and kindness. Dr. Tukur has interpreted this to mean limiting the inconvenience which the exercise of power and authority is bound to cause the common people. The relevance of this value is not restricted to a theocratic state but also to present constitutional governments where legislation and interpretation of statutes should be guided by the willing-ness of all arms of government to do away with any unnecessary inconvenience the law or its enforcement could cause the citizens. Our constitution has dwelled on matters relating to the freedom of the individual and his rights in the society.
Dr. Tukur has quoted the Bello as saying in his Usul al-Siyasa that “the amir or the imam or the governor should be gentle, moved to forgiveness and refraining from anger, inclined to generosity and tolerance. Among the finest qualities will be patience in the sense of courage and openhandedness. But if he be not gentle nor moved to forgiveness, nor refrains from anger, nor be inclined to generosity or tolerance, then it is to be feared that they will become weary of him and desert him.”
In another place, Dr. Tukur quoted Bello saying, “the ruler ‘should be gentle in dealing with his people… he must not burden them with what is unnecessary…, he should deal with the subjects according to their circumstance…” Also, “a ruler ‘should not be harsh’ but should act towards the people ‘with grace and a guiding hand’. When differences occur on matters which are ‘mere legislation by man’, the governors should ‘pardon the people.”
Humility/Modesty
On characteristic of humility/modesty which a leader must possess, Dr. Tukur made the following summary: “(Shehu Usman) is quite specific both in his op-position to ‘giving authority … to one who seeks it’ and in his view that ‘power is not given to those who hanker after it.’ Bello, for his part, holds that ‘ seeking leadership would create discord’ and therefore advises that a potential ruler ‘should be far from liking leadership (for its want sake), yet who still is enthusiastic to rule’. Bello’s problem with ‘a per-son whom we see striving hard for it (leadership)’ is that ‘if he loves (the power of) leadership and is keen to rule it is to be feared that he will be tempted inside himself and not deal justly with the people.”
Nigerians know very well the ill of having a leader interested in power. The ill is that he will do whatever is possible under the sun to acquire it, through coups, rigging elections, stupendous wealth and intrigue. Once he acquires it, his basic preoccupation, as we have seen more clearly under Babangida, Abacha and Obasanjo, will be to employ all means possible to retain it, against the will of his people. This lack of humility is another source of our political instability.
Some people believe that leadership should not be given to reluctant people, in contrast to what the Jihad scholars are saying. Here lies our problem, the difference in values has caused the politicians of the Southwest to do all they could, through sabotage and blackmail, to win over leadership. Now that Obasanjo has got it, they have fallen into the same pit as Babangida and Abacha. The problem is therefore generic. ACF must not over-look the importance of this principle. They should find among people suitable for leadership one who is most reluctant to rule, in addition to having a good measure of other characteristics herein discussed.
Abstinence, Moderation
and Ascetism
As noted by Dr. Tukur, “Shehu Us-man clearly castigates the pre-Jihad leadership for their overindulgence in eating, luxurious living and bodily pleasures, just as he praises moderation in personal conduct and daily life. Shehu Abdullahi clearly insists that government should avoid purchases and expenses ‘that cause damage to the treasury.”
There is a strong relationship between the penchant of a leader for wealth and the state of corruption in his administration and poverty under which his people live. A leader with high taste will be-come preoccupied with undertakings that are expensive to the treasury. The money that should have been used to offer services to the common man are spent on things that are grossly irrelevant.
Few Nigerian leaders for example have shown moderation in their taste. They want government offices and residences to be the finest monuments in the world. Flamboyance is manifested in the houses they live in, the offices they occupy, the planes they fly, the cars they ride, the dresses they wear, the gifts they give or take, the games they play, and the girls they accompany. Today, the condition is worse than ever. Aso Rock and National Assembly are manifestations of waste, amidst the poverty that has ravaged over 70% of the population. A contract for the extension of the National Assembly complex was recently awarded at the cost of N25.7billion, including a discount (la’ada a waje) of N300million! The saddening thing is that the same Julius Berger Plc that was awarded the job without any call for tender had earlier agreed to do the same job as ‘turnkey’ under Okadigbo’s leader-ship for only N4billion.
Likewise we are having a president who insists on riding a plane of over N5billion. Governors have rejected the Peugeot as their official car. They are riding imported posh Mercedes and jeeps; building luxurious guest houses; and so on. The national stadium, according to the estimate of a member of the national assembly, will cost nothing less than N100billion, something the World bank said could go for only N9billion. How can we tolerate this syndicate any longer than 2003?
In search for an alternative, it is there-fore important that a choice is made among people who, in their past role as leaders, or in their personal lives as individuals, have been most moderate regarding wealth. This characteristic is what will reflect in their philosophy of expenditure such that the billions that should have been used to alleviate the suffering of the people will not be used in a wasteful manner. I wish we can come up with a candidate that is so moderate to reject even his night allowance on any foreign trip. Obasanjo so far is a billionaire I suppose because he has spent over 387 days overseas, and on each he has an allowance of N3million per night!
Integrity and Honesty
On this characteristic of good leader, Tukur wrote: “Looking at the values from the viewpoint of state institutions, Shehu Usman declared that ‘success in government can be achieved by enjoining the truth in as much as the crown of a ‘king is his integrity’. At the level of the conduct of personnel he stipulates that ‘for an official with a fixed stipend to receive anything … other than that is fraud’, while Abdullahi forbids ‘a ruler … to touch property acquired unjustly’. Rulers are also obliged ‘to endeavor to establish truth in all (their) affairs and to see it as their ‘first duty to maintain purity of (their) spirit by sincerity of intention.
“Aside from these postulations, where truth is a means to obtaining either ‘success’ in government or dis-charging a duty, these twin values (integrity and honest) and their synonyms, like probity, sincerity and honesty, have their own intrinsic worth when merely to strive always to distinguish truth from falsehood is understood to be an attribute of ‘the good and wise.”
For decades now, Nigeria has become a victim of a leadership that is bereft of sincerity to the extent that very few people, if any, believe anything government would say anymore. People identify government with deceit, cheating and falsehood. Today, more than ever before, the country is in need of a leader who has sufficient integrity and honesty who will restore our confidence in government. People need a leader who will not sacrifice our interest for his, or his class, or foreign groups.
Service to Community
Shehu Abdullahi has clearly outlined the relationship between a leader and his people. He is to serve them such that every action he undertakes is solely done for their benefit. On the dynamics of the relationship between the two, Dr. Tukur quoted Diya al-Hukkam where Abdullahi categorically made this assertion: “No person is made a ruler over the people to become their master; he is to serve their religious and temporal interests. The governor must not think that he is the owner of the province over which he is made to rule, whereby the land be-comes his personal property which he can give to whom he likes and deny it to whom he wishes.”
I wish this country would one day be blessed with leaders who regard them-selves as servants to the people. They will consult them whenever they will decide on their affairs and they will respond to their complaints with the urgency that a mother responds to the cry of her baby.
So far, what we have had are Presidents, ministers, governors and legislators who consider themselves as our masters, and their lives more precious than ours. They approve for themselves stupendous salaries and allowances while they exacerbate the sufferings of their people. They would prefer to use our resources to ingratiate members of their class than commit them to our service.
I wish we could have leaders who will put our interests before that of multinational organizations like the Paris and London clubs, World Bank and the IMF. We have suffered enough in the hands of these leaches, from the austerity measures of the early eighties to the structural adjustment programs that started from the mid-eighties. Clearly, the ongoing privatization program is not done in our interest; it is designed to auction whatever we have to the foreign investors and their local agents.
Conclusion
These are the qualities that the ACF and indeed Nigerians generally should look for when it comes to election. As I said earlier, it is difficult to find a single person that could meet these requirements 100%. However, if he can rely on honest advisers, sincere ministers and hardworking civil servants, he can use their strength to circumvent for his weaknesses.
If, on the other hand, the ACF leader-ship will dismiss these values and allow their choice to be dictated by the powers of wealth and intrigue, they should better recall what the foremost historian of the Roman Empire – Edward Gibbon – once said: whoever forfeits esteem, forfeits obedience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)