MONAC And the 2003 Project
by
Perhaps, if the nascent group, Movement for National Consensus and Accommodation (MONAC), had foisted itself on us without throwing up Chief Francis Arthur Nzeribe as its arrow head, the agenda on its hands would not have caused an outrage in the polity.
But because the organisation is promoted by the man who has acquired notoriety as the enfant terrible of Nigeria's politics, what would have appeared as a rational analysis of the state of our polity as being canvassed by MONAC, is being jettisoned with reckless abandon. Unless we are saying that MONAC and Arthur Nzeribe are one and the same thing, there is no reason why we should not put our emotional responses in check and pause to consider the 2003 Project as being advanced by the organisation.
MONAC has said it has taken a dispassionate look at the 2003 elections and is convinced that the only person who can get to the presidential throne is the incumbent president. The organisation's most potent argument is that the three political parties we have today do not seem prepared for any other candidate other than Olusegun Obasanjo. It also reasons that even if new parties are registered, such parties, owing to obvious reasons, may not be able to wrest power from the incumbent. MONAC has many other reasons, which make it believe that Obasanjo should just remain in power.
Let us begin from the beginning. And the starting point is to state the obvious. Obasanjo is not a good product for the presidency. He has spent close to two years. It is evident from his style so far that the man has nothing to offer Nigeria.
But the man, in spite of his obvious failure, is poised for a return. He wants to be in office for eight years. Ordinarily, this should be a strange exhibition by a man who was persuaded to become president. In civilised and disciplined settings, Obasanjo, the self-acclaimed Messiah, would have taken the four-year mandate given to him to seek to make a difference in the lives of Nigerians. After that, he will retire into a happy old age. He will then become a reference point, in fact, a respectable elder statesman. Unfortunately, in our own case, the man who was coaxed into becoming president has taken more than an extra-ordinary interest in the project. This is in spite of his being a square peg in a round hole.
Since we operate party system, we would expect that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which produced Obasanjo would go back to the drawing board and seek to make amends. We have not seen any semblance of this so far. Rather, what we are being treated to is a litany of choruses from party stalwarts, clamouring for another four-year tenure for a non-performer.
We also expect that if PDP fails to rise to the occasion, the opposition parties-the All Peoples Party (APP) and the Alliance for Democracy (AD), will pick up the gauntlet and show PDP the way out. This they ought to do by cashing in on the weak points of the PDP government and presenting Nigerians with an alternative that is decidedly viable and rewarding. So far, all our expectations have come to nought. What we are being treated to is a cacophony of putdowns, all geared towards presenting Obasanjo as the man for all times.
Given the peculiar character of Nigeria's politics, it will be futile for anybody to seek to wrest power from Obasanjo in 2003. As the incumbent and considering the fact that he has a band of dirty fighters, Obasanjo has every chance to make nonsense of any opposition mounted against him.
In the event of the failure of the opposition, and this should be expected, "strident voices of dissent are likely to be raised. There will be shouts of disapproval. There will be allegations of rigging. All this will not, of course, go without bloodshed, thuggery and brigandage. If this happens, we will surely be reminded of our failed attempts at transition from civil rule to civil rule. We will remember the crisis of succession of 1964 to 1965 that eventuated in the first military coup in this country. We will also be reminded of our 1983 experiment that also led to another coup. Perhaps in the wisdom of MONAC, we will be circumventing this ugly repeat of history if we do the uncommon- return the incumbent without opposition.
And if you thought the leprous acquiescence of the existing parties could be taken care of by the emergence of new parties, you will utterly be discouraged by the recent posturing of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). We understand that the electoral body is not keen on admitting new parties. Why? We understand that it is seeking to respect its master's views. If true democracy is at work, we would not dissipate valuable energy on party registration. The system would have been open and all-inclusive. In the face of INEC'S prescriptions and proscriptions, we appear condemned to the inertia and criminal collusion of the existing political parties. If this is the case, as it really is, what sense would there be in going for any election that will result in the obvious? After all, was Obasanjo not adopted in 1999? The INEC of Justice Ephraim Akpata accepted an APP/AD alliance to give a semblance of legitimacy and authenticity to the elections. Otherwise, Obansanjo would have been the sole candidate. The military which midwifed the elections decided on him long before the elections were held. It will therefore make no difference now if he is returned unopposed.
MONAC may have been compelled by the weaknesses in our polity to suggest sole candidacy. But where can this lead us? What does the agenda presuppose? It will readily remind us of the years of General Sani Abacha when the five political parties of the period unanimously adopted him as the sole candidate. Curiously then, Abacha never rejected or accepted. He pretended to his grave.
But the democracy we are practising now cannot be the Abacha brand. We do not need cheermen and women. We need thinkers, scientific analysts, egg-heads whose imaginations can elevate us beyond the familiar. What MONAC is advocating is too well known to elicit any favourable responses. Since MONAC is interested in national accommodation and consensus, it may well begin to strive to aggregate like minds in our polity with a view to forming a new political group that will serve as an alternative to the failings of the existing ones. For 2003 to depart from the gory details of the past, MONAC and any other group interested in genuine transitions must tell us how to provide an alternative to Obasanjo. Democracy is a people's enterprise. It therefore takes competition for granted. Let Obasanjo have a competitor for the 2003 project. If we fail to provide one, then we would have succeeded in making a mockery of the democracy we fought so hard for.