CAN PRESIDENT OBASANJO ORGANIZE A 'SUCCESSION ELECTION' IN 2003?
PLEA FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PROCESS
By
Research Fellow African Studies Center
Boston University
CEO, Advancing Democracy in Africa (ADA)
One of the issues raised with me at the Houston Meeting of the African Studies Association arising from my paper was whether President OBASANJO with his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP can be trusted with presiding over a free, fair and credible election in 2003? I expressed my doubt and apprehension and gave reasons for that feeling. If he can not be, what should be done to ensure not just a free and fair election, but a credible process leading to that election and after? The solution is internationalization of the process as the only means of guaranteeing the credibility of the entire process. This question arose after the analysis of the deep-seated uncertainty in Nigeria and its effect on the declining faith in the political order since 1999.
It should be noted that after two and half years into the first term of this administration, I have found that the President’s policy measures cannot lead Nigeria to a democratic order. The question is why? I have my doubt, not because the President is inadequate to the task, but because the President does not seem to appreciate the effect of the deep-seated uncertainty on the varieties of the demands on him and on the political system. Most disastrously, the President does not seem to understand how this relationship is manifested in the overall character of politics in Nigeria and on what he should lead the political class to do.
The deep-seated uncertainty is beginning to give rise to citizens’ lack of faith in the President and the political class as recently demonstrated in the findings of the survey conducted by Peter Lewis of American University and reported in the Daily Trust of Tuesday November 20, 2001. Lewis found out that the enthusiasm for the President and the political class after many years' misrule of the military, which was 84% in 2000 declined to 55% in 2001. There is a growing lack of faith in the capacity of the political order to deliver on the fundamental and he lingering political problems, which include the depolicization of the armed forces, the resolution of the grievances of the peoples of the oil producing areas and the demarginalization of the Ndi Igbo to say the least. Lewis also found out that the nascent democracy has been failing the people on the day to day issues. Lewis found out that the Nigerian people are dissatisfied with the capacity of governments at all levels to deliver on such matters, as resolving the unemployment and mounting poverty, despite its commitment to poverty alleviation and meeting the shortage or lack of food for the common man and deliver water, schools and health care. What is stunning is that this was an administration that was earlier earmarked to stay for one term only. Could it deliver within the period of one term.(1) This is a crucial issue, which was first raised by me in March in 1999 before the President Elect was sworn in but the political class was too anxious and failed to answer the question until the brother in law of General Babangida raised a variant of the issue in 2001..
I hope the politicians should know that the various Nigerian groups have come to believe that the President and the politicians are under some understanding to serve for one term. Is that not why some are trying to run the clock on the President through many unresolved or lingering problems? While some are apprehensive of the plot to run the clock on the President and the political order, others are also working out their strategy of pushing for their agenda should the President’s term be restricted to one term. In fact, some are jockeying for their share of the pie as long as the President and the political order exist. Over to the President, one may ask if he is aware of this seesaw game? If he is, what is he doing about it?
There is an increasing feeling among Nigerians that the present dispensation is not a system that would last. All the politicians I ran into or who are in communication with me from Nigeria in the past few weeks are in agreement on one fact about the future of Nigeria. They seem to be apprehensive that the system, even though not comparable with the immediate past under General Abacha would not last with the way the governments at all levels and with the way the so-called political parties are going. What would happen, is something I would rather leave to you.
IBB IN HOUSTON!
Outside the Conference venue at Houston, in fact in a Church on Sunday November 18, 2001, I ran into a young man from Benin and a political activist, Mr. EJ Agbonayinma of the Nigerian Alliance for Democracy of America (NADA) based in Houston. Knowing my past in Nigerian politics, especially my involvement with General Babangida, he posed to me the question whether what we have today under President OBASANJO is comparable with Nigeria under General BABANGIDA? Depending on his interpretation, I told him they were not comparable in many ways, which I did not expatiate on. What is critical to this essay is what I told him as an Edo person that when people like Agbonayinma begin to ask such a question and even preferring the past ruler, military or otherwise to this so-called democratic order under President OBASANJO, it means one and only one thing. In fact, as an Edo man, he helped me with the Edo saying in Benin that when citizens are paying tribute to a past ruler, it means that the present ruler is bad and should be deposed. To put his mind at rest, I then offered him a piece of advice, which I tell those who want to run for office in Nigeria that only our people will decide who should rule them and we should do everything to empower the people to do their democratic duty.
The following day he came to see me with his friend, Mr. Patrick Orobor. I discovered that they belong to a group determined to bring about a change in Nigeria and that they were part of the new IBB machine in the US. They wanted to know why I would not support their man, General BABANGIDA? I told them that they should tell their client that he is still my personal friend, not minding my feeling about the June 12. I told them that if they love IBB, they should know where he went wrong in the past. I was surprised and highly impressed that they bought my advice and even secured copies of The Tale of June 12 and the recent monograph, The Trial of Chief MKO Abiola and the Criminalization of Democracy in Nigeria 1994. If these are the kind of workers IBB has in the US, he is up to a good start.
I assured them that I have nothing personally against him or President OBASANJO or any other candidate or person in Nigeria for that matter. I pleaded with these chaps what I also tell those who want my advice that they should tell their candidate that he should lay out his vision for the future for the Nigerian people. I further pleaded with them that their client cannot avoid the past and that what he plans to do today and in future should be in the light of his past for the people of Nigeria. Of course, I tried to educate them that they and their client should allow the people of Nigeria who are the arbiter to decide. It means that the clamor for the past means that the present order is deficient and that it is in need of change. I then told them that in the final analysis, the determination of who should rule Nigeria would have to compare IBB's vision with that of President OBASANJO and other candidates. This IBB still has to do; I then told them that I still have to be told by him directly what his vision is. This is what I tell Nigerians, of military or civilian background that they should lay out their vision for the Nigerian people to see and evaluate.
My view is that our people cannot be made to make the mistake of 1999 when the original founders of the PDP were made to accept the huge sum of money from General OBASANJO and military jacked the party and ran away with it. The Nigerian people were made to vote for him without knowing what he stood for with the respect to all the fundamental issues afflicting the Nigerian people since the creation of Nigeria in 1914. Nigerians did not know what the candidate had in mind for the various peoples of Nigeria and for Nigeria as a whole. General Obasanjo and other actors in 1999 did not go to the Nigerian people with a vision of how the fundamental issues afflicting them would be resolved and hence the lingering political problems today. The only opportunity Nigerians would have had was from a televised debate between General OBASANJO and Chief Olu Falae. Of course we knew what happened; General OBASANJO chickened out the last minute, because he was sure he would be made the President by the same force that made him the candidate and raised over 400 million Naira a week to the election. This is what we should avoid as we prepare for 2003. It would appear that we are making the same mistake of 1999 of jumping the gun.
NIGERIANS HAVE NO FAITH IN 2003 UNDER THE PDP
What I could deduce from my interactions with politicians in the various sectors of Nigeria and from the various comments in the Nigerian media is that all the complaints about corruption, groups’ claims, counter-claims and Sharia arise from the feeling on the part of some actors that there would not be another election.
To the National Assemblymen, there seems be an apprehension that there would not be another opportunity or another election, which would be free, fair and credible. Majority of the Nigerian political actors tends to feel that they contested the last election in 1999. Some who are holding appointive offices seem to harbor the feeling that they are holding the last office or appointment. PRESIDENT OBASANJO made the Ministers on appointment to sign undated letters of resignation. Does this act on the part of the President and the Ministers contribute to enhancing confidence in the political order?
I saw manifestations of bounded uncertainty from research findings at the Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS) in 1989. The solution we proffered then was that we should evolve a programmed political education to make the political class have faith in the election as part of a series of elections. The erratic system of banning and unbanning from Babangida’s changing moves and moods ruined the system that was beginning to bear fruits. It opened the political space to a new political class made up of the members of the National Executive Committees and the Presidential candidates of the two political parties that did not benefit from the programmed political education of the CDS between 1989 and 1992. The annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election finally killed the little faith the political class was beginning to have in election and the prospect of a series of elections.
Someone once asked me, if President OBASANJO knew that the people he is working with either as leaders of the parties or serving with him in his cabinet or occupying position of responsibility in the National Assembly actually have no faith in the prospect of another election? How would be not know that those surrounding have no democratic credentials. It is a rule in the program of democratic transition that one could not predicate democracy on non-democratic institutions. On the other hand, one needs democrats to create democracy. I leave this to the President to answer.
What President and the political class should appreciate is that democracy is anchored on the feeling or faith under three conditions.
That there would be another election. But the prevailing order is planning to have the period of the current administration to be extended by two years.
That the winner is not the winner for all time. The feeling of this current administration is that as long was the majority party, its candidate would always win an election.
That the loser is not the loser for all time. This means that those outside the PDP would forever have no chance of competing for the office of the President.
Consequently, democracy abhors the expression attributed to Chef Anenih that 'there is no vacancy in the Presidential Villa in 2003' or that the Ndi Igbo could only aspire to the highest office in 2015. See the Comet April 6, 2001. One wonders, if President OBASANJO knows the implication of such an expression for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If he does not know, one should let him know that the expression, "no vacancy in the Presidential Villa or in the Aso Rock in 2003" can only mean one of two things or both, which are:
1. That there would not be a free and fair nomination process within his party, the PDP.
2. That there would not be a free and fair election process in 2003 involving the President and other candidates.
The meaning of "no vacancy in Aso Rock in 2003" would be the followings:
1. That the two processes would be massively rigged to achieved the predetermined ends
2. That the President’s men are at work to implement a program directed at the two ends.
3. That the process of choosing party offices within the PDP would be applied to achieve the same ends.
4. That the process of divide and rule would be implemented to deal with other parties.
5. That the electoral law coming out of the National Assembly on the next election would be such as to as to achieve the predetermined ends.
6. That the use of "faked" security reports as an argument to determine the schedule of elections in 2002 for the local government must be seen within the context of the two ends.
These are 'warning signs' directed at both ends, which would be (a) the massive rigging the process of nomination within the PDP and (b) the massive rigging of the election in 2003.
PRESIDENT OBASANJO OUGHT TO HAVE DENOUNCED "NO VACANCY"..
One may ask, why did the President not distance himself from this kind of expression associated with his Minister and other aides, if he is not part of the plan or if he is a democrat, which he says he is? The President ought to know that this kind of expression is at the root of the declining faith in the President’s capacity to deliver democracy now or in future. Certainly, Anenih’s assertion, which extends to those who would be President in 2007 and in 2015, is not only disturbing, but the thought is anti-democratic.
This was why I refused to talk about sustaining democracy in the Atlanta Dialogue organized by the Nigerian government with Nigerians in Diaspora in 2000 because, as I argued then there was nothing called that yet to sustain in Nigeria. That still remains my position today. What we have today is a militarized civilian rule, which does not grow out of the ‘will of the Nigerian people’. What we should have been doing since 1999 is how to move from a militarized civilian order to a democratic order.
What the President should have been doing since he emerged as the President would have been for him to serve as a strong and broad ‘bridge’ between the past military misrule and the future. His emergence was meant to rekindle faith in Nigerians that the 1999 election would not be the last election or that the appointment people had in 1999 would not be the last appointment. Now that President OBASANJO is virtually coming to the end of one term, it would appear that he is fighting to get over the one term pact he signed with his original sponsors. It would appear that the way he is going about this is either through an extension of the four year term to a one term of five or six years through some kind of constitutional amendment. When that seems to be failing, the handlers of President Obasanjo are resorting to a new tactics through an organized ground swelling endorsement from all sorts of people in the country that the country needs him for a second term. Unfortunately the lingering crisis in the country, which made the President to admit to the 'Dismal Reality' on October 1, 2001 and canceled the independence celebration because there was nothing to be proud about in his reign.
The organized endorsement from the PDP Governors who are tying their future with that of the President is another variant of the anti-democratic plan of the President's handlers to secure an extension of his one term to a second term.
What these methods portray can be seen in two ways. One is that the President is afraid to go to the people to seek a renomination in competition with another candidate within his party. Second, the President's handlers are scared stiff of the prospect of a reelection battle with another candidate of another party in a free, fair and credible election. We were told by his handlers that he would agree to a second term if there is a ground swelling demand for him to do so. Of course this ground swelling support would not be expected to come from Ogun Sate, his home for obvious reasons.
2003 MAY BE ANOTHER 1964 AND 1983 UNLESS….
The year 1964 is still very vivid to me, as a student and student partisan politician at the University of Ibadan. I saw what happened with the Federal Election, which was massively rigged for the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) by the Yoruba politicians, such as Chief SL Akintola and his followers, such as Chief Remi Fani-Kayode, AMA Akinloye and Richard Akinjide. I was a partisan politician in 1983; I saw what happened then when the same southwestern politicians assisted the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) to massively rig the election in many parts of the south. Unfortunately, the same actors in the southwest are still alive in the southwest; they are planning to manipulate the election in 2003 for the current regime.
President OBASANJO might have faith in election, but from the security reports his handlers are peddling around, he is scared of a 'succession election' in 2003 because of many imponderables. Since when has the security report from spurious sources been used to determine the prospect of an election? It is a statement of fact that those who are managing him including those who massively rigged the elections in 1964 and in 1983 have never had faith in a free, fair and credible election. The signs are there that there would not be a free, fair and credible election come 2003. One is constantly been reminded of the 'succession elections' of 1964 and of 1983 organized by the ruling political party and massively rigged by the same political party. Do we need to be reminded of the consequences of both infractions? For the young people like EJ Agbonayinma and Patrick Orobor, I hope they go back to the past and appreciate that the military intervention in politics followed the 1964 and 1983 anti-democratic acts of the party in power.
SOLUTION IS INTERNATIONALIZATION OF ELECTION PROCESS
The solution to a situation of a ruling political party being saddled with organizing an election in which its office holder is also a candidate is to internationalize the process from the pre-election to the post-election period. Nigeria cannot have a free, fair and credible election under the PDP when its Presidential candidate is a candidate. The Nigerian political situation warrants the UN taking over the entire electoral process. One would then ask some pertinent questions:
1. Would President OBASANJO be willing to forego his sovereignty, which he claims and internationalize the ' succession election'?
2. Would he be willing to allow the Federal Government controlled mass media be placed in the hand of an independent body, which would have representatives from all the parties?
3. Would the President be willing to allow independent domestic monitoring groups to monitor the entire electoral process?
4. What role would be assigned the international observers?
5. Would the President be willing to allow the 'Independent' National Election Commission (INEC) be actually 'independent' in fact and not in name by allowing all the parties to have equal representation in the Commission?
It is a myth to think that as long as the President OBASANJO can be both the appointive authority of the INEC and a candidate at the same time and ensure the Independence of the Commission. It ought to and should be appreciated by the President that he could not be a candidate in a highly contentious election as we had in 1964 and in 1983 and at the same time be expected to be a credible umpire. He should learn from our past when Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Shehu Shagari thought they could be both in 1964 and in 1983 respectively.
The internationalization of the process of election is a delicate issue that touches on the sovereign power of a country as Nigeria with a reputation of helping other countries meet their domestic peace. There are FIVE conditions under which the UN would take over the entire electoral process of any country. The five conditions are:
That the election must have a clear international dimension;
That the monitoring should cover the entire electoral process;
That there should be broad public support for the mission;
That the government should seek the UN action; and
That there should be the approval of a competent UN organ
The Nigerian political class should prevail on the President and the National Assembly that a free and fair election that is credible would not be forthcoming from the PDP government as presently composed. The Nigerian government should in turn make a case to the UN as the Haiti Government did in 1991. The situation in Nigeria has a clear international dimension and that the solution is for the UN to take over the entire election process. (See Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principles of Periodic and Genuine Elections: Report of the Secretary General, UN GAOR, 46th Session Agenda item 98(b) at 25-26. UN Doc. A46/609 (1991).
From the deep-seated uncertainty in Nigeria it should be clear that there is a need for internationalizing the 'succession election' in Nigeria, which would involve the UN to take over the entire 'electoral process'. It would involve the followings:
Observation and verification of the elections;
Take over the entire electoral process;
Registration of voters;
Handle the registration of political parties;
Handle the electoral polls;
Handle the registration of candidates;
Internationalize the handling of the freedom of expression;
Guaranteeing the capacity of the freedom of parties to mobilize;
Guaranteeing the equality of candidates in the electoral campaign, and independent; and above all
Internationalization of the verification of the outcome of the vote.
(See UN GAOR 44th Session Agenda Item from Draft Resolution on Assistance to Haiti UN Doc. A/44965 (1990).
"A stitch in time saves Nine", so the saying goes! All the actions of the National Assembly in trying to fashion an electoral law would only be begging the question; they would eventually lead to more confusion as long as the President and the PDP are candidates.
Would the National Assembly agree that it does not have the credibility to design an electoral code and write in themselves and engage in the politics of inclusion and exclusion?
All the actions taken so far about the local government council, on the Governors, on the National ID card for election, on Nigerians in Diaspora are disturbing and are pointer that they have no credibility to make laws for a free, fair and credible election in 2003. Even look at the shame arising from the party congresses and convention from the three political parties. Is it not a shame that none of the three political parties had been able to organize a successful convention, which did not lead to factions? We saw how the Federal Government controlled Radio and Television were used to black out the Chairman of the PDP Chief Banarbas Gemade in his fight for survival against the 'National Leader' of the Party, Chief Tony Anenih. This is within the PDP! What would happen if the fight is between the PDP and other parties? We saw how false election results were declared by the Nigerian Television Authority in 1983! If you look at the Constitution, the Independent National Election Commission is part of the Executive, the PDP. We need a truly independent body that has representatives of all the political parties at all levels, local, state and federal. My case for internationalization is further strengthened by these actions.
Nigerians who want a free, fair and credible should farm the entire election process to the UN. Nigeria should set an example for other African countries to follow. Our oil money should be able to finance the international conduct of the election. There is no doubt that it would not only be cheaper, it would ensure a level playing field and a credible succession and in the end a stable Nigeria.
December 2001