The essential power sharing strategy
By
As the nation moves towards national elections and transition from one government to another, the focus is again on the issues regarded as important for smooth transition and sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Arguably, the most prominent of such issues is that of determining how to share political power among the major political constituencies. This has been the central issue in Nigerian politics and was instrumental to the outcome of the 1998/1999 transition elections under the so-called power shift arrangement. What is of great concern today is that to all intents and purposes, the power shift arrangement has failed to bring about the much needed unity and sense of belonging among the people of this country, as envisaged by its proponents and touted by its beneficiaries. It is therefore necessary for us to ponder over the underlying concerns of Nigerians that led to the power shift proposition so that we can better understand exactly what we need to bring about unity and sense of belonging among our people.
Power shift arose from the notion that political power in Nigeria has remained in one section of the country for too long and to the exclusion of other sections of the country, hence the need to deliberately reserve the presidential slot for the section of the country perceived to be most politically marginalised. In spite of the inherent generalisations and inaccuracies of this notion, it was stridently advocated by those who had their eyes on its immediate benefits to their political ambitions, rather than the more intrinsic value of a viable and acceptable framework for resolving the anxieties associated with power politics in Nigeria. It is no surprise that barely a year after power shift was actualised in May 1999, it instead created more serious anxieties about unity and sense of belonging than it was meant to assuage, leading to the unprecedented rate and scale of ethnic and sectarian disturbances where none existed. It is now obvious that the power shift philosophy was not conceived to bring about genuine unity and sense of belonging among Nigerians but to assuage the parochial interests of a section of the country in clinching political power. Our experience of the results of actualising power shift since May 1999 has also exposed the pitfalls of the rotation and zoning formula commonly canvassed as the buttresses of the power shift arrangement. Advocates of rotation and zoning are of the mistaken belief that such arrangement can quash any sense of domination and reduce tension in the political process, thereby facilitating good governance. Now we know this is a fallacy. If anything, our experience since May 1999 has only revealed how power shift can create a super-presidency bolstered by ethnic craving for the spoils of a presidency borne out of the nationalistic consensus of other Nigerians and encouraging despotic tendencies. This is what triggered the escalation in ethnic tension and strife in the country, which has marred the return to democracy, weakened the nation state, and hurt the patriotic instincts of the people. Dangerous parochial allegiances are promoted at the expense of effective national organisation and integration. High level corruption and general administrative ineffectiveness are other undesirable consequences of executive authority being exercised in furtherance of political interests at variance and often in conflict with the national interest. Nigeria cannot afford to indulge in such primordial practice of politics, and such not be compelled to do so.
As I have consistently advocated, what Nigeria needs is a power sharing arrangement that is intended to create a broad-based government at the end of each round of national elections. The emphasis should not be on any one ethnic group but on a broad spectrum of the major political constituencies participating meaningfully in the federal government and the policy planning and decision making process. Not weighed down by parochial and other vested interests, the office of president of the republic, which is duly filled on a national franchise would serve the entire country well both symbolically and in the exercise of executive authority. We only need to recall the first republic when, without any notion of power shift, power was adequately shared among the main constituents of the polity. The late Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was always acting in concert and consultation with the Okotie Ebohs, the Amanze Njokus, the Jaja Nwachukwus, the Inuwa Wadas and the Akintolas who were thereby carried along in keeping to the spirit of the unity government of coalition put together by the NPC.
Decisions were invariably collective and consultations wide and representative, especially on national issues. This was also noticed during the second republic. When President Shehu Shagari strove to exercise executive authority in concert with his allies in the NPP, leading to a more stable government and lasting spirit of cooperation and understanding. Even the military regimes, despite attempts to portray them as exclusively north juntas, made concerted efforts in sharing power once in government to uphold the constitutional principle of federal character. It must be said that whatever the inequities and excesses of civilian and military governments of the past, the deliberate composition of broad-based governments to accommodate the main political constituencies were positive factor that helped not only the stability of the governments but also the peace of the nation.
Power sharing, as distinct from the fallacious concept of power shift, will more effectively address our concerns for unity and sense of belonging among our people. It is not based on the real or imaginary anxieties of a section of the country, but rather on the collective aspiration of all our people for a stable and united nation that they can be proud and secure in. Ultimately, it is, and should be, the responsibility of the political parties to make themselves endearing and attractive by reaching out to all Nigerians equally and by providing then platforms for electing individuals that truly represent the broad social and cultural diversities that make up Nigeria. This will not be peculiar to Nigeria since history has established that an effective political party that is capable of functioning as a national institution can accomplish these goals by providing genuine opportunities for all, including ethnic and religious minorities and women. Remarkably, when the military governed Nigeria, a good number of their most powerful and influential officers were actually ethnic minorities by birth. This is certainly more acceptable than the current scenario where aspirants print posters without any indication of party affiliation because they believe in championing their ethnic causes first before deciding which party to join. We need politicians who will join parties out of ideological commitment and then work assiduously into the party hierarchy until they are mature enough to have the party supporters all over the country rally round them as potential national leaders.
Having said this, all patriotic politicians should identify with the need to agree on a national code for power sharing through wide-ranging, all-inclusive dialogue at the national level currently being pursued. Such a code will not only resolve the inadequacies of the hollow concept of power shift but also be binding through consensus thereby providing a lasting foundation for a future of sustainable democratic practice based on the demands of our circumstances.
Jan 2003