|
The Continual Betrayal of Democratic Rights of Nigerians. Thrice within 10 years: 1993, 1998 and 2001 By
What is 1993? What is 1998? Of course, what does 2001 mean? By 1993, I mean the annulment episode; by 1998, I am referring to the self-succession project of General Sani Abacha. The year 2001 refers to the decision of the President of Nigeria, General Olusegun Obasanjo and his political party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) to mastermind the Self-Succession Project for President Obasanjo and for the PDP by making President Obasanjo the only candidate and the PDP the only party in 2003 election.
In April 1998 when General Abacha launched his Self-Succession Project, I had occasion to tell the world that, that project was another annulment. That was when I first used the term the betrayal of the democratic rights of Nigeria, which formed the basis of my study at Harvard in 1995-97. I am referring to my book, The Tale of June 12: The Betrayal of the Democratic Rights of Nigerians 1999 published by Press Alliance Network London in 1999 and released to the Nigerian reading public on August 1, 2000.
Now in December 2001, we are faced with another betrayal of the democratic rights of the Nigerian people, which the Nigerian Labor Congress called a 'civilian coup'. What pro-democracy forces expect from the Nigerian Labor Congress is to serve the President of Nigeria with a notice and warning of the determination of the Nigerian people that any coup, whether of a civilian or a military variety would not succeed in Nigeria. One expects the labor leaders to make it clear to the President and the political class that the Nigerian workers would be in the forefront in resisting a one party rule by all legitimate means. This is what the labor leaders should tell the Nigerian people. The Nigerian people expect the current labor leaders to correct the impression created of the past leadership of the Nigerian Labor Congress under Pascal Bafyau that the national labor leadership connived with military to sustain the annulment between 1993 and 1994, especially during the oil workers political strike. See my monograph, The Trial of Chief MKO Abiola and the Criminalization of Democracy in Nigeria (1994) recently published by ADA and dedicated to the Nigerian oil workers and Chief Frank Ovie Kokori. All human rights organizations should prevail on President Obasanjo to roll back the anti-democratic bill he recently signed into law.
OJUKWU AND OKADIGBO CANNOT SPEAK FOR PRO-DEMOCRATIC IGBOS The solution is not in the threat of secession as Chief Emeka Ojukwu threatened recently. Secession is not the solution but a negative response to a political issue that could be dealt with politically. Aren’t the Ndi Igbo surprised at this assertion? I was. Would Nigerians believe him when he called what President did as 'daylight robbery' when one looks back to his contributions to the same robbery in 1993 and in 1998? Maybe he thinks that Nigerians have forgotten his role in the betrayal of the democratic rights of Nigerians in 1993 and 1998. He should let the Ohaneze Ndi Igbo speak for the Ndi Igbo who are still in search of an agenda and a visionary leader after the civil war.
Biko (I beg you), the Distinguished Senator from Abagana, Dr. Chuba Okadigbo should stop misleading the Ndi Igbo. Why make them think that the Ndi Igbo still have a chance for the number one spot in Nigeria in 2003 under the current Electoral Law, which virtually makes President Obasanjo the defacto single candidate in 2003? Haven't the Ndi Igbo lost their chance in the PDP since 1999? This is the general feeling! I might be wrong; we would have to wait and see, come 2015 according to timetable dictated by the National Leader of the PDP, Chief Tony Anenih. According to him, there is no vacancy for another PDP in Aso Rock in 2003; Atiku would take over from Obasanjo in 2007 and rule for eight years, which would end in 2015. This timetable was dictated before the new Electoral Law.
Was this why the revered Chief Tony Enahoro quickly joined the PDP so as to avoid being in the opposition? He was reported to have told his supporters of the MNR in Edo State that since the PDP would rule forever, he would like his supporters to join the PDP so as to avoid being in the opposition, an argument for one party dominance in Nigeria. If you cannot beat them join them.
I have always argued that the chances of Igbo or the minorities in Nigeria of becoming the President are better enhanced under a system of two political parties and through the interplay of political forces. Only a revitalized two party system and definitely not through zoning or rotation that would improve the chances of the Ndi Igbo and other marginalized groups in future. This is not possible under the current Electoral law.
LINKAGES: 1993, 1998 and 2001. This essay is a response to some pertinent questions posed to me recently by a group of Nigerians in Diaspora. One is whether there is a connection among these three events of 1993, 1998 and 2001. The other question is whether there is continuity between the first two episodes and what President and the National Assembly did with the Electoral Law of December 2001. I was quick to respond (a) that there is a connection among the three events and (b) that there is continuity between the first two events and what is being anticipated in the Electoral Law.
What should be noted is that the impact would be the same. The three episodes arise from a betrayal of the democratic rights of the Nigerian people. The net effect would amount to the denial of the democratic rights of Nigerians, which is a gross denial of the right of Nigerian people to human dignity.
Those who engineered the annulment thought that that would be the end of the denial of the democratic rights of the Nigerian people. They thought that a new transition would lead to a free and fair election. They were wrong.
Those who encouraged General Abacha to embark on his Self-Succession Project also thought that that would be a response to the issues thrown up by the first denial in 1993. They were wrong as the Self-Succession Project descended on those who originally connived at the annulment of the June 12. They constituted the Nigerian political class that called itself the G-34 that protested the Self-Succession Project. They soon found out that the annulment of the result of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election was less serious than the gross denial of the right of Nigerian to associate freely, form parties and participate in a competitive election.
The Electoral Law should be seen within the right of the Nigerian people not just of the political class to freely associate and participate in a free and fair election. What the Nigerian political class and the international community should realize is that what President Obasanjo in concert with his party men in the National Assembly did by way of the Electoral Law is more devastating to the development of democracy in Nigerian than the Self-Succession Project of General Abacha.
The timing and the environment are two issues that should be appreciated. In 1993, the Nigerian people and the international community were fed with a catalog of lies and distortions about the June 12, such as that there was no winner or that the election was inconclusive.
The world in 1998 was fed with another lie that General Abacha was a response to the issues raised by the annulment. Even the US President, President Bill Clinton under the influence of some leaders of the African-American community was looking forward to a 'President' Abacha in accordance with the West African Model of Democratic Transition.
But the year 2001 ought to or should be different, as the world has to appreciate that the West African Model of Democratic Transition was a farce. The world should be concerned with another Mugabe rearing his ugly head in the most populous and promising African country. The international community should impress on General Obasanjo that the new Electoral Law, which is a coup against the Nigerian people and an attempt to install a one party rule in the 21st Century, would not be tolerated.
ELECTORAL LAW A BREACH OF NIGERIAN COMMITMENT UNDER THE ICCPR It is well recognized that under the commitment of Nigeria under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right to political association is unfettered and the right to political participation is an enforceable right. The Electoral Law is a violation of the rights guaranteed the Nigerian people as a result of the commitment of Nigeria under the ICCPR. The pro-democracy forces in Nigeria should arraign the Nigerian President before the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva. This UN Committee condemned General Abacha twice in 1997. I strongly urge Nigerians whose rights would be violated to go the UN Human Rights Committee with a petition against President Obasanjo.
GRAVITY OF POLITICAL CRIME TODAY UNDER PRESIDENT OBASANJO If what General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and General Sani Abacha did in 1993 and 1998 respectively could be excused, as they were operating within the environment of a military regime, one cannot excuse the administration that was supposed to come to power by election. A government that comes to power by election should rule in accordance with the 'will of the Nigerian people'. How could a democratic order so-called conspire against the Nigerian people and devise a method that would outlaw other competitors? How would an elected President deny the right of Nigerians to form political parties? How could a democratic order make an order, which alters the will of the people, such as the extension of the tenure of the local government beyond what the Nigerian people originally voted for? How does the President make the Supreme Court part of the legislative process by calling on those who were dissatisfied with the new law to go to the Supreme Court? These questions should form the bases of taking political action by groups in Nigeria against the plan to install a one-man rule in Nigeria.
The present PDP may think that the law would make it the dominant one party in the next 60 years; but what the leaders of the PDP would later realize is that the new electoral law would further make President Obasanjo in the end the sole ruler of Nigeria. Everyone knows that President Obasanjo does not have faith in the system of political parties and in the institution of coequal branch of government under which his imperial presidency would be checked.
PRESIDENT OBASANJO AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CANNOT PRESIDE OVER 'SUCCESSION' ELECTION It should be obvious by now that the Presidency and the National Assembly as presently constituted cannot be trusted with coming up with a law on 2003 and with presiding over a free and fair election in 2003. What to do is to restructure all the instruments charged with election such as the Election Commission and mass media organizations by making them by partisan and international. The suggestions made in the essay published by This Day on Sunday of December 16, 2001 still remain valid. What I need to add is plead with the leaders of various groups in society to perform the function of a civil society and resist any attempt of the present administration or by anybody to truncate the nascent democracy.
NEED FOR CIVIL SOCIETY-PEOPLES' POWER What happened in 1993 and in 1998 showed clearly that there was a dearth of civil society in Nigeria, which could, like in the Philippines and recently in Zambia, stop the government that sets out to rob the citizens of their democratic right. It is called the 'Peoples' Power in the Philippines. It involves the citizens under the auspices of peoples' organization undertaking peaceful or non-violent demonstration to stop any attempt to rob the peoples of their democratic right.
The closest we got to the Philippines in Nigeria was the efforts of the students to protest the SAP in 1988. But it was never a demand for the overthrow of the military government. The most successful effort at demonstrating the peoples' power with respect to defending the democratic rights of the Nigerian people was the action of the oil workers in 1994 led by Comrade Frank Ovie Kokori. The political class could not take advantage of what Comrade Ovie Kokori had used the oil workers to bring about under General Abacha. That government would have collapsed, if the political class had not rallied round the military to work against the democratic interest of the Nigerian people. The members of the political class were shortsighted believing that General Abacha's promise of handing over to one of them was genuine until he dealt with them one by one. They were shocked when he finally excluded them from the political race. First, General Abacha excluded them from the number of political parties he finally announced and instituted the formation of the five official political parties. Finally he used the official political parties to commence his Self-Succession Project. This was stopped by mortality.
This is another opportunity when the workers would have to perform their legitimate political function of defending the democratic rights of the Nigerian people.
One hopes that the leadership of the labor unions would not yield to the financial inducement of the government and subject themselves to the politics of ethnicity and the policy of divide and rule.
One hopes the Ekwueme, the Ojukwu, the Rimis, who out of ethnic and regional considerations abandoned the enforcement of the democratic rights of the Nigerian people in the past and teamed up with General Abacha and others, would not buckle under and yield to the capricious whims of the government. They failed the Nigerian people in the past when their leadership was badly needed. Would they fail again this time? Time will tell.
PURPOSE OF A THREE-YEAR TENURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT The purpose of staggering election and (in the Nigerian case of having the local government election more frequently) is to serve two functions. One is didactic and the other is a barometer of public opinion on the performance of government at all levels.
DIDACTIC PURPOSE Frequent election serves a teaching or learning purpose for those who have no or little faith in election. An election in 2002, a year before the big election in 2003 would serve as an opportunity to teach the voters the rudiments of voting and how to comport oneself before and after an election. Political education expert would readily have sanctioned using a frequent local government election as a teaching or a learning device.
BAROMETER OF PERFORMANCE An election between the general elections is a barometer for judging how the President, the Governors and existing political parties are faring with respect to what they promised the people at the previous elections.
We saw what happened in Portugal this week (December 17, 2001) when the Prime Minister Antonio Guterres had to resign because his party, the Socialist Party lost in a nationwide local government elections. He saw the result as an indication that his popularity and that of his party midway through its term was waning. This is democracy at work even though this might seem to be an extreme case.
In the case of Nigeria, we can look at this in three ways. One, the election in 2002, a year before the general election of 2003 would have been an opportunity for President Obasanjo to parade his stewardship and showcase his achievement. This would also apply to the Governors and the three political parties.
Two, an election in 2002 would also have been an opportunity for the challengers to President Obasanjo and other office holders within the existing political parties to sharpen their message in anticipation for the 2003.
Three an election in 2002 would have afforded an opportunity for challengers from new political associations to challenge the records of the incumbent President and the incumbent Governors and the present political parties.
These three aspects of the barometer are what democracy is all about. Anything short of this opportunity as President Obasanjo is trying to do with the Electoral Law is detraction from what we are aiming at and should be resisted by all democracy loving Nigerians.
OBASANJO SHOULD LEARN FROM THE US President Obasanjo enjoys quoting the practice in the US, though wrongly to support his display of one man rule and his disdain for the political party that sponsored his election and the contempt for the coequal branch of government, the National Assembly from his jaundiced view about the separation of power in the Constitution. What he failed to appreciate from the practice in the US is that there is an election for various offices annually in the US.
President Obasanjo should note that even in the wake of the September 11, 2001, no body could cite the security situation in the city to deny the voters of the City their voice in determining who would replace the September 11 made popular Mayor. The voters of New York City still went for an election to elect their Mayor.
If what happened in New York City is not enough, let me refer President Obasanjo to other elections in the country. Two Key states, New Jersey and Virginia still went for their Gubernatorial election and soundly defeated the party of the war-induced popular President and elected Democrats. The usual explanation for the defeat of the Republican in New Jersey and in Virginia was that the voters of New Jersey and Virginia responded to local issues and that the election was not a referendum on President George Bush. This was in keeping with the saying of Tip O'Neil, the popular Democratic Congressman from South Boston and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives that 'all politics are local'.
From the foregoing, President Obasanjo should allow the Nigerian people to express themselves as often as possible through the staggered election.
President Obasanjo should not use the fake security reports of heaven would fall, if there were elections in over 700 locations in Nigeria in 2002. And so what? Is this not the work of government to prevent civil unrest? Maybe a local election would resolve many issues.
OBASANJO V IBB IN A SHADOW BOXING CONTEST AT THE EXPENSE OF NIGERIANS I cannot end this essay without commenting on the real factors behind the decision of President Obasanjo to ambush those who want to float new parties. It has to do with his determination to checkmate the self-styled evil genius, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. (IBB). This is the reason for the unprecedented haste with which the President Obasanjo embarked on assenting to the Bill from the Joint Committee. The decision centered on one and one subject, what would and how to stop the IBB machine from the political scene in 2003? Poor IBB! He is still an issue and even precipitating an anti-democratic act on the part of President Obasanjo when he has not formally announced his intention!
Nigerians know that the PDP's fear is the prospect of those who left the PDP led by Chief Sunday Awoniyi teaming up with the political association put together by friends of General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida. They knew what he could do from the way he 'military jacked' the transition program and 'military jacked' the emergence of Chief Obasanjo and 'bankrolled' the election of the PDP President, many Governors and National Assemblymen in 1999. Who would not be afraid of such a man? But should Nigerians suffer because of IBB's dreaded enormous power? Why not let the Nigerian people decide?
Nigerians are confused; what went wrong? This should have been a matter between President Obasanjo and President Babangida to iron out on their own. But the Nigerian peoples' right to form their political parties and right to political participation should not be sacrificed in order to stop IBB's machine and its attempt to chase out President Obasanjo's government in 2003. President Obasanjo should trust the Nigerian people with their power to decide who could best meet their needs.
My view today about the prospect of IBB still remains the same, which I expressed when some Nigerians were apprehensive about the coming of General this or General that. I refer readers to a series of essays on 'Generals are Coming! Should they be welcome? The crux of my argument then and still is today is that we should let the voter decide. The voter is the political King in a democracy. No one, not even President or the National Assembly or the PDP should stand between the voters and the candidates.
I refer readers to my essay, After Obasanjo Who/What. This essay was written to debunk the idea of a pact between the President Obasanjo and the north that he would spend one and only one term. I argued against the implications of the pact, which he entered into with his sponsors in 1999. In my essay, I laid out then the basis of renominating and reelecting President Obasanjo for a second term. This essay can still be accessed from the various archives of the Nigerian newspapers. The position I canvassed then still remains my position today.
President Obasanjo and the current office holders, Governors and the National Assemblymen have an advantage over all other challengers. The present office holders have a record of accomplishment with which to go to the Nigerian people and canvass for a second term. When challengers are talking of what they would do for the Nigerian people, the President and other office holders would be calling on the voters to judge them with respect to their records of accomplishment in office.
My argument in the past and today is that voters would have basis for judging the challengers and the office holders with respect to the lingering political issues. Voters could also use the dilapidating social services and physical infrastructure, the resolution of social crisis all over the country and cry over marginalization in some specific areas to determine who succeeds in 2003. The President and the other office holders have advantage over their challengers as they would list and parade what they accomplished in the same areas during their term in office as a basis for a second term.
The implication of the new Electoral Law is that the present office holders have nothing to parade to the Nigerian people in 2003 as their accomplishments during their tenure of office. Is this why they want to stop their challengers? Is this a fair interpretation of the plan of President Obasanjo? Has he failed to deliver on what the people of Nigerian expect from him during his first term of office? Since he does not have something to boast of as his accomplishment, he then decided to stop would be challengers at all cost. President Obasanjo may succeed today but the Nigerian people would have the last say with their right to resist any authoritarian order that sets out to inflict itself on the people through some devious means, such as the new Electoral Law.
LET NIGERIAN VOTERS DECIDE WHO GOVERNS Nigerians who had reason to consult me in my professional role as a Political Campaign Consultant in the past in the US would recall my simple advice. I urged the Nigerians in the US seeking offices in various states in Nigeria that they would have to package themselves with respect to what difference they would make in the life of their people as distinct from the current office holders.
Alhaji Mohammed Abubakar Rimi and other challengers from the Ndi Igbo world and from the South-south to President Obasanjo in the PDP must be given opportunity to lay out their vision for the country. Let the Nigerian voters judge and compare them with that of President Obasanjo.
So too those who are itching to form another political party, which they would use to challenge the PDP should not be stopped. They should be given the opportunity to also lay out their vision for the country. Let the Nigerian people judge and compare them with that of the PDP.
VOX POPULI, VOX DEI (VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, IS THE VOICE OF GOD) Woe betide those who would stand between the voters and themselves and their challengers. President Obasanjo should be reminded of the fate of those who did it in the past in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world. He is a believer, a Christian who loves using the God's name in what ever he does. Maybe he does not know that the vote is the voice of the people and how this is related to the Voice of God. He should be reminded that any attempt to deny the Nigerian people their voice is an infringement of the adage, 'the voice of the people is the voice of God'. Vox Populi, Vox Dei!
What does the Electoral Law mean today for the Nigerian people and God?
What would the end be? During the Holy Seasons for the two religions, Christianity and Islam, Nigerians should call on the President to allow the Voice of the Nigerian people be the Voice of God.
In April 1998 I warned the international community and the Nigerian pro-democracy forces of the implications of the Self-Succession Project of General Sani Abacha that that Project was the same and worse than the annulment of 1993. Today in the last month of the first year in the 21st century and during the Holy Season, I am warning the international community and the lovers of democracy among the Nigerian people again of the implication of President Obasanjo's new Electoral Law. It is the same as and worse than the Self-Succession Project of General Abacha. It is a Self-Succession Project through deceit, simplicita!
STRANGE COINCIDENCE: ELECTORAL LAW, MILITARIZATION OF POLITICAL DISPUTE AND CALL FOR US ARMS May I state what is further disturbing in President Obasanjo's 'Self-Succession Project'? Do we know that it is coming at the same time the President was justifying his use of the military to inflict genocide on the Odi people in 1999 and on the Tiv in 2001? Does the President realize that these were the same people who voted massively for him in 1999? Yes, he does; he would not need their votes in 2003 thanks to the new Electoral Law, which would make him the sole candidate in 2003.
Do we know that President Obasanjo's determination to substitute political dialogue with the military use in settling internal political disputes in Nigeria may not be unrelated to his Self-Succession Project, which he knew would be resisted by the Nigerian people? President Obasanjo is building the rational for the use of the military to enforce his Self-Succession Project in the name of quelling internal violence, which he knew would come from his attempt to enforce his one man rule.
Are Nigerians aware that President Obasanjo's determination to use the army to deal with internal political disputes is also in the same period that the Minister of Defense is calling for more military cooperation from the US. Of course, we know the survival of President Obasanjo now and in the future is part and parcel of the US-Nigeria Military Pact or Understanding. The US cannot close her eyes to a rape of democracy; the US would not and should not support the use of the military in Nigeria to deal with legitimate political demands of the Nigerian people.
If the US failed the pro-democracy forces in the past, this is the time the US should stand with the Nigerian people. This is the time the US should call the Nigerian President to order. This is the time the US should deny President Obasanjo more arms to kill our people, as he did in Odi in 1999 and in Benue in 2001. All these are frightening coincidences that should not be taken lightly.
TWO CLASSES OF NIGERIANS TODAY: WANTED WHO LEADS DEMOCRATS? President Obasanjo is dividing Nigerians into two classes, those on the side of democracy barricade and those on the other side of the democracy barricade, which he leads with distinction with the Electoral Law. Who leads the Nigerians on the side of the democracy barricade? Which one you dey is the question now posed to members of the political class. (Nigerian pidgin English meaning where does one place oneself today?) Members of the political class must stand and be counted; there is no place to hide! You are either for or against the new tendency under the Electoral Law.
I AM AGAINST IT. IT WILL BREED A ONE PARTY DOMINANCE AND LEADS TO THE DICTATORSHIP OF ONE MAN. I AM AGAINST A ONE PARTY RULE AND I AM AGAINST A ONE MAN RULE NO MATTER HOW DIVINE HE MIGHT CLAIM.
To my Readers at Home and Abroad; Compliment of the Season and a Happy New Year and Accept this Essay as my LAST COMMENT on the new Electoral Law.
December 2001
|