Obasanjo Should Heed Patriots' Advice
By
I have a view on the advice of The Patriots. Its relevance, and seemingly hidden apocalyptic tenor, has a relationship to the intervention of The
G-34 in 1998, which the maximum ruler, General Sani Abacha ignored to his doom. But we will soon return to that.
I pity those who are calling The Patriots names. Men like Chief F.R.A.William's Chief Abraham Adesanya, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Chief Ganiyu Dawodu, are not given
to frivolity. They are not political contractors, whom we can presume, had been paid by Obasanjo's traducers to oppose him. And in a remote sense, if those who
oppose The Patriots do so on account of the sentiment that Obasanjo's is a Yoruba Presidency, can they say in all honesty that Obasanjo with his presidency and
all, is a better defender of Yoruba interests than Adesanya or Adebanjo?
There is a spiritual dimension to what is going on today which connects to our recent history. At a point, when it seemed that the late Abacha and his
confederates had subdued the whole nation, sapped its will, subjugated the opposition, and wrapped our necks with bracelets of fear, a group of Nigerians,
suddenly found their voice and manhood. They banded together and told Abacha he was leading Nigeria to the precipice. And in doing so, they drew from the road
maps to disaster that were so evident to all except those who were part of the court of plunder where Abacha presided (some of those are principals in
Obasanjo's desperate desire to extend his rule). The import of the message of the G34 is that Nigeria was 10 minutes from the precipice and needed a break. That
counsel was ignored and in line with the hovering x- factor in Nigeria politics, it was Abacha who was consumed. I have pondered the advice of The Patriots. 1
see a similarity to the advice of the - G-34. I also see a similarity between Abacha's rebuff, and Obasanjo's seemingly arrogant, response; by ignoring them and
rushing to buy the form of his party indicating his interest to run. The matter is closed, but we await the response of those forces which mysteriously always
intervened to save Nigeria from the precipice.
I share the position of respected commentators like Waziri Adio and Olusegun Adeniyi about sticking to the method of leadership succession enshrined in the
constitution. That, of course, is desirable, and is in fact the goal of any political system. The only trouble in our own case, is that the institutions of
state, that ought to ensure the amplification of the real will of the people are not developed to act independently, and in public interest. We have, perhaps
the most powerful presidency in the world. The laws are arranged in such a way that the President has absolute power. The organs that are critical to the
amplification of the will of the people are in the bag of the President. He appoints the chairman and members of the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC), who in turn report to him. He presides over their funding. This INEC, led by Dr. Abel Guobadia, is a study in the quantum of control the President has
over that critical organ that umpires democratic competition. On the behest of the Presidency or its agents, the convention of the ANPP was truncated.
Again, the President appoints the Director-General of the State Security Services (SSS), and the Inspector-General of Police. Although we have the Police
Service Commission, a few events in recent past indicate that the pendulum of power can be altered by the mere juggling of the postings and portfolio of
Assistant Inspectors General of Police (AIGs) and Police Commissioners.
Then again, the party is also not free from the hold of the incumbent. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is a typical example of a platform, stymied, and
rubbished by the perpetual control of the executive. As things stand today, nobody can be anything in the party unless it is sanctioned by a few, who determine
whether the interest of the individual corresponds with the interest of the incumbent.
Because these institutions are not developed or that the laws that created them vest control, direct and remote, in the President, what happens in a democracy
depends therefore on the space the incumbent is prepared to allow. In the current dispensation, the incumbent does not pretend that he admires or fancies so
much competition. This is the background to the electoral act scam.
How do these relate to the matter at hand? In a very direct way, it says that in a polity where there is too much power in the hands of the incumbent, there is
a limit to how much space he can allow. In this situation, the talk of opponents gathering together to work to defeat the incumbent at the polls becomes purely
academic. Make no mistake about it, this is at best, the ideal that we seek. But that is not realistic now. It has never happened in Africa. No incumbent has
been defeated, which is why people like Robert Mugabe, of Zimbabwe Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo never lose, despite their unpopularity. In line with the 1993
experience, managers of President Obasanjo's second term project do not calculate that he will be President again, based on the vote cast by real people at
polling stations across the country. They do not pretend that they are interested in anything like that. Otherwise, on which achievements will they base the
campaign? As I asked a Minister recently, if you are asked to lead the President to the South-East to solicit for their votes, on what will you base your
request? The roads, the infrastructure, the improvement in power generation, security, justice, - even within the party or what? If people will be sincere, the
same applies to the South-West, not to talk of the North. Will he go to Zaki Biam, or Odi to campaign? There are issues, but the truth is that they are not
interested in the debate, because it won't matter. It won't have any bearing to the polls. At the end of the day, the President will be declared to have won a
landslide, even as they calculate to 'capture' the South-West where the president remains unpopular. So, it is futile to expect a campaign based on anything.
The reality is that no matter how many people group together, no matter their ability to demonstrate Obasanjo's failure, there is not much effect that can have
on his electoral chances. If the people do not give the mandate, it will be contrived between Chief Tony Anenih, the governors, the INEC and security agencies.
We have been through it before. And curiously, the people who did it before are back at their beats. Aware of this, postulation about people campaigning and
voting out the government is sheer sophistry.
History testifies that we have never managed well, the stress of civilian-to-civilian transition. Reason is that incumbents, -even when they are most unpopular
- manipulate the structures to return themselves to power. When they do so, the backlash results in violence, which even after subdued by the security agencies,
leaves the governments with minimal legitimacy. These governments with weak foundations are usually what the military come to overthrow. It was the case in
1964, and 1983. With the benefit of hindsight, people reason that our elections will be stripped of the attendant violence if the executives are not succeeding
themselves.
In a way, this makes sense. Were Obasanjo not a candidate in this election, he will preside over the transition, and run it like a fair, but firm taskmaster. He
will ensure that INEC, the Police, the SSS and even the PDP were doing their jobs and not favouring any candidate. I thought that because we have never been
able to succeed with organizing smooth polls under civil regimes, that President Obasanjo would have vested his energy in pursuit of this legacy. Why must he be
the one to do it? After ruling the country twice, it had become difficult to see what other thing he could accomplish. He has nothing else to prove. And only a
man who has nothing to prove and prefers to enrich his legacy as a statesman could do that. As I see it, that task which Obasanjo's ambition is likely to
compound, and which will be undone, will decide the future of this country. This is very unfortunate.
I do not see why we cannot actualize that. We can hold the National Assembly elections in 2003, but postpone the presidential and governorship polls. Working in
concert with the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly, Obasanjo will use the next one year to perfect the constitutional amendments on the single-term
provision, tackle the fallout of the Bakassi issue, nudge INEC to remove all the tardiness in the organization of the presidential polls, including leaving for
Nigeria, a credible electoral register, celebrate the All Africa Games, and host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit. After that, the election will hold
and Obasanjo will go home and find some role to play in the world. Between the African Union (AU), NEPAD the Commonwealth and the United Nations (UN), there
must be enough to satisfy his appetite for travel and proselytization.
Dec 2002