BREAKING THE SUCCESSION JINX

By

Mike Ikhariale

As we go to the polls starting from the 12^th April, 2003 to democratically effect a change of guard in our political leadership, it is my fervent prayer that the misfortunes of our previous attempts at a civilian-to-civilian transfer of power does not repeat itself again and if it is a jinx, I submit that it is time to break it. I refuse to accept the diabolical inference being drawn that Nigeria, nay the Black man cannot manage a democratic system and those prophets of doom that seem to lend credence to this hypothesis ought to be put to shame for once and for all.

It is a well known sad part of the checkered political history of Nigeria that the mechanics of political succession from one democratic regime to another is one hurdle that we have never really been able to successfully navigate. It is perhaps more appropriate to say that we have not been allowed to cross it than admitting that we were not able to cross it. In other words, the so-called endemic succession obstacles in the politics of the nation are the outcome of two related intervening negative factors, namely, undemocratic sabotage and constitutional ignorance.

It is true that the first republican government of Balewa could not negotiate the succession corner successfully as it was cut short by the military coup of January 1966. The second republican government of Shehu Shagari was equally not allowed to negotiate the succession corner by another military intervention led by General Buhari in 1984. From an analytical point of view, these two instances in which a civilian democracy attempted to effect constitutional succession from one government to another were aborted by needless military interventions. Particularly for that of the termination of the second republic, it was clear that the military was not going to let the civilians have their way in the operation of a democratic government in Nigeria as there were really no convincing justification for that intervention other than the morbid disposition to usurp power.

Successive military regimes took it upon themselves to humiliate, wholesale, the political class and did everything in the books to discredit constitutional democracy in Nigeria. It was when it was no longer possible for the military to continue in the demonization of the political process, while they greedily vandalize the nation’s economy, that the idea of the fourth republic (correctly, the third republic, as there has only been a second republic in Nigeria so far) became inevitable. All the shenanigans of the IBB regime about transition to democracy were merely directed at buying more time for a military class that has gotten used to looting public money as a natural incident of dictatorship and were really not in any hurry to quit the stage.

So, the nation was placed on an endless transition train in which one stratagem after another were put in place to demonstrate a semblance of transition whereas the military leaders intended a different objectives. This ploy subsisted until the election of M. K. O. Abiola in June 12 1993 in a free and fair election which the military would still not allow to succeed and it was in the aftermath of this last fateful move against president-elect Abiola that Abacha came unto the scene and decided there was no more need to pretend about transition from a military dictatorship to a constitutional democracy as he brutely opted to take the path of self-succession which would have seen him transform from general Abacha to president Abacha under a Mobutu-type ‘home-grown democracy’.

Meanwhile, during the military era, leaders held on to their offices until they were either killed or simply pushed away from power by more ambitious groups of coup plotters. So, the idea of a normal or lawful succession process did not arise: you rule until you are done for. No time frame existed for the reign of any particular military regime. The only exception, so far, is the voluntary relinquishing of power by Gen. Obasanjo in 1979. Gen. Abdusalam, from all indications, could not have continued beyond 1999 as the engine of the military class has, at that time, knocked, so to say. Otherwise, it was always the expectation that one night a voice comes up on the national radio proclaiming a new regime and a new leader. Typically, as they say, soldiers come, soldiers go, and that was all. So Nigerians got used to the abnormal situation in which succession under the military was more accidental than planned and orderly. For example, the many years Gowon and IBB ruled the country could not be limited in terms of segments or phases, or broken down into specific terms of service because they were, for all intents and purposes, potentially endless affairs. So, IBB stay in power, for example, is within this conceptual framework, the same with that of Buhari whose stay in office was actually to be counted in months, simply because what mattered to the soldiers was how long the strong man could hold on in office as there was to time limits associated to the stay in power.

Now that we are in a democracy it is a different ball game. Stewardship has now been constitutionally broken into specific time frames or service terms. For example, a democratically elected president must vacate office after four years in office and vie for re-election for another four years and after that, no more. This has been difficult for most Nigerians to comprehend as they have over the years imbibed the military mentality of government and they now see the idea of a second term as too burdensome and indeed an unfair way to ‘perpetuate’ leaders in office. That is an indiscriminate application of undemocratic logic to a purely constitutional process. Let us not forget or pretend to forget that the aggregate possible time any president can stay in power under the constitution is eight years and no more. We seem to have forgotten that with the military, there was no time limit until something violent happens. The feeling one gets is that in the minds of most Nigerians, elections are simply the civilian counterparts of coups and it is therefore not possible to have the same person in office after a successful coup or in this case, election. What a defective reasoning! It is so easy to get into bad habits and it is even easier to begin to think of such bad habits as the best way of life. Otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend the basis for the widespread frustration that some people seemed to have demonstrated against the possibility of second term for deserving incumbent political office holders. How can we ever attain continuity in governance (not just in government) if we are so spiteful of second terms for our deserving political leaders as a matter of principle?

I have heard so much anguish being expressed about those politicians asking for a second chance to serve their people. Statements like "How I wish he was not asking for a second term" has become the refrain in some quarters. I think that is the wrong approach to democratic politics. There is no guarantee that once an incumbent asks for another term that he would get it automatically. The electorate has the final say on that. So, rather than bemoaning the fact that someone is staying put in office even if within the limits of his constitutional rights, what should be appropriate is to work hard to see that such an incumbent does not get the votes to continue in power. But merely screaming against second term for the sake of it is not only undemocratic, it is also a manifestation of the military mentality in us and it has operated to unnecessarily overheat the system. We know that with the military, once the time of a particular leader is deemed up, the others conspire and move against him and he is promptly overthrown. That is not the case with democracy as we are expected to wait within the time frame set by the constitution to effect orderly succession. It therefore unacceptable both to the spirit and letters of our constitution to want to achieve the same result indirectly by insisting on the anti-second term bogey. I have no quarrel with a polticians whom by himself thing he can only afford to serve a single term whether his people like it or not. That, it should be conceded, as conceded it must be, is his right to do but what is not right is to turn that into the law. There is actually the possibility, in arguendo, that if most political office holders within the system continue to insist on a single term that a convention could develop but that is not the case here and the possibility of a convention evolve as a matter of constitutional law over that matter is remote as ours is a written supreme document which operates to curb such tendencies.

It is therefore wrong to scare incumbents out of their ambitions just because someone else is interested in the same office when, indeed, the constitution has made adequate provisions for any one to lawfully challenge the incumbent and, if possible, defeat him at the polls. Those rallying against the idea of a second term are simply afraid to square up with the constitutional prescriptions under which our republic is established: any serving leader is entitled to exercise his rights to ask for a second term subject however to valid constitutional disqualification like justified impeachment and insanity or other medical disabilities, but the electorate has the prerogative to deny him that chance at the polls. Anything different from that is undemocratic, dictatorial and self-serving.

It is in that context that the statement credited to General Buhari, the presidential candidate of the ANPP, made at one of his campaign stops at Awka in Anambara state is to be reviewed. According to him "No elected president of this country has survived two terms in office since independence in 1960." The retired general was also reported in the same press to have noted that "a purposeful leadership with a clear focus should be able to make a lot of impact on the lives of Nigerians within a stretch of four years", adding that "the second-term syndrome was even a sign of weak leadership." There is nothing basically wrong with those views standing alone but in the context of the succession debate, it evinces a viewpoint from the most unlikely quarters – presidential candidate! One of the possible implications of that statement is that he does not beleive that a leader should do more than a single term in office, no matter what the constitution provides. He thinks four years are enough to sufficiently prove ones worth and go into retirement. With respect, the General got it wrong there. I think the General has not completely divested himself of his anti-democratic mentality. Otherwise, it is out of place for politicians who are campaigning to win the presidency under the constitutions to speak so scornfully of the prescription of the same Constitution. In any case, the electorate should not be denied the right to have back a performing leader at least for another term. After all, Buhari is himself coming forward for "another term" because a lot of people beleive that he has something to offer. Why would any one deny him that right simply because he had been there before? Therein lies the reductio ad absurdum of his view on second term.

If indeed no president has survived two terms in Nigeria, whom do we blame for that tragedy other than the former military coup plotter himself? Shagari was well into serving his second term when Buhari led his mutinous troops to sack his democratically elected government at gunpoint. It is not the fault of the constitution that soldiers like Buhari did not allow Shagari to complete his term. The justification they gave for that usurpation of power, like all other justifications, were not within the contemplation of the then existing constitutions of Nigeria. They were therefore mere fraud on the people who voted those governments into offices. There are constitutional means for punishing a bad government but military coups is not among them. It is even more tragic to want to turn an aberration into a norm. Nigeria deserves to have successful democratic transition. The nation should be alert to the very seditious proclamation of our impatient politicians in the guise of campaign statements. It is not the sign of weakness, as Buhari suggested, if a leader insists on a second term. It is the prescription of the constitution, and all democratically minded politicians should learn to live by it.

Nigeria deserves a place at the rendezvous of democratic victory. It is sad that many people who hanker after public offices in Nigeria are fundamentally undemocratic and are never able to adapt to the terrain of legalism and democratic constitutionalism. Demonizing the second term process is wrong. For how long shall we continue to start afresh? By second term, I do not intend that the incumbent must win but a decent transition should be possible between an incoming democratic government and the out going one. We must braze ourselves up for this possibility unless we have something else in mind other than a democracy. How would democracy grow if we continue with the vicious and primitive ‘turn-by-turn’ system of military men who usurp political powers in a relay of coups d’etat?

Nigerians should heed the advice given recently by the US ambassador to the country Howard Jeter, when he said that the nation should never be allowed to explode over the process of democratic transition from one government to another because the consequences would be grave not only for Nigeria but for the entire sub-region. That ought to be self-evident for all sane citizens but the acrimony and needless bitterness of late point to a different but frightening direction. We really do not need an outsider to tell us that fact but when you have adults play kindergarten politics, they sure need such admonition. It is therefore a challenge to our politicians and their followers to learn to live within the parameters of the Constitution. Seeking to impose personal idiosyncrasies on the body-polity or trying to apply rules peculiarly suitable for the dictatorial era in the current dispensation can only lead to unpleasant results. Therefore, the second term syndrome, as some have chosen to all it, is one test that we must pass as a people. And if it is a jinx, it is time to break it.

As we move rapidly into the critical election period in Nigeria, I sincerely hope the best candidates win. The contestants have put in a very good fight and, in some cases, needlessly acrimonious, bloody and materially costly. It is now the turn of the electorate to use their votes very wisely and responsibility too. And the best way to achieve that is to vote one’s conscience and stand by it, win or lose. Your preferred candidate need not and must not win at the end of the day, but the important thing is that you would have registered your preference and that single ballot of yours is a veritable minus for the candidate that you voted against and a plus for your own candidate. It is a powerful weapon of sensor and commendation and it should never assume a do or die status. That should be it.

Even though there are several very fit Nigerians angling for that plum job, not many are yet ‘presidential materials’ and they know it themselves. There are actually only two serious contenders for the presidency right now, namely, Buhari and Obasanjo. Many people who are fed up with the apparent ineptitude of the Obasanjo first stanza would prefer that Buhari win. And many more that believe that re-electing Obasanjo would better serve the interest of democracy in Nigeria would ensure that he is returned to Aso Rock. Buhari first outing, unfortunately, did not anticipate a day like this when he would have to stoop so low, so to say, and do the political thing. That is a huge liability on his neck in most parts of the country where the political old guards still hold sway. I am not sure they have forgiven him neither did I hear that he has himself asked for pardon from those aggrieved "Alagbon jailhouse graduates".

From my little knowledge of the politics of Nigeria, all the odds squarely favor Obasanjo for a re-election. Power would remain for a while in the South West before it goes back to the children of Arewa who seem to have already laid the foundation for that eventual return. Quite tragically, however, and risking the usual ill-informed abuses and reckless stigmatization thereafter, I dare say that the Ndigbos are just not yet on the political radar of Nigeria and the ill-advised "Igbo presidency movement" which has misled a motley crowd of Igbo presidential wannabes into a race that was lost before it commenced would soon evaporate into thin air. I would have love an Igbo president in the post-Obasanjo years but that will not happen because the Ndigbos have proved to be very poor politicians who would rather make enemies over little things instead of making friends for the future and, if what I have been reading from that otherwise intellectually fertile race is anything to go by, then, there is simply no hope for the Ndigbos for now unless a miracle happens and, of course, in politics miracles happen so frequently.

I am making this prognosis because I believe that democracy has come to stay in Nigeria and it is therefore a moral boosting venture to be thinking ahead and also prepare our minds for some predictable outcome. After the inauguration of Obasanjo for a second term in May, I shall consider it a personal political task to sign up for an "Atiku for 2007" or any arewa nominee for that matter. They have a very rich IOU to draw from the Yorubas and the rest of the country who should be glad to return a favor to them. On the contrary, the Ndigbos would just be paying a huge political debt that started accumulating in earnest right from their wrong reading of the overall implications of the June 12 struggle and there present unnecessary animosity to the present Obasanjo system. Take it or leave it, the Hausas/Fulanis have one or two valuable lessons to teach other Nigerian groups, especially the Ndgibo political warriors: first, it is not every irritation that you fight with a bazooka, second, it is very helpful in politics to play weak even when you are very strong. Our Igbo brothers seem to prefer the gadu-gadu stampede approach to politic in nothing is impossible to write or say. I strongly suggest that the reader goes back to a very illuminating piece crafted by my good friend, Mr. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi that was published, amongst other fora, on Friday, June 23, 2000 in the Guardian entitled "The Fulani factor in history". A point which may interest other Nigerian groups, especially the Ndigbos now clamoring for an Igbo president is this immutable point succinctly made by Sanusi, thus: The Fulani do not hold that they have a "birthright" to rule Nigeria. They do not believe that leadership or politics is in their genes. However, it is in their culture. They have been culturally programmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures".

You cannot fault that assertion in view of what we know about the politics of the core north – tact and diplomacy. For example, Balewa, Murtala, Shagari, Buhari, Babangida are all members of that group, in one form or the other, but they never told us that they were running a "Hausa/Fulani presidents" or governments. But how come the Ndigbos could dream up of an "Igbo presidency" in a country like Nigeria? Someone with some animus belli would take that to mean that I am questioning the right of the Igbos to vie for the presidency even when it is obvious that what I am saying is that it was bad politics altogether to be talking of an "X" presidency, if factor X approximates to a tribe in a variegated polity like Nigeria or elsewhere for that matter. Have you heard the Bush White House being described as the Texan presidency or was Clinton’s administration an Arkansas presidency? You see what I mean?

In spite of my analysis, it is still the better candidate, or the better of the two evils as some would say, Buhari or Obasanjo, that would carry the day, no matter the indices we might have used here. For I care, the winner would just be a "Nigerian president" and not an ethnic representative as an "Igbo presidency" tends to suggests. But like they say in the Delta area of Nigeria, "na too know make some traders short for market".

Good luck to Nigeria!!!

April 2003