|
PATRIOTS' COUNSEL: EPITOME OF POLITICAL MYOPIA By Upper Marlboro, Maryland. U.S.A. A caucus of eminent Nigerians, who call themselves “The Patriots”, have recently aired their view on the best way to streamline power transition within our brand of democracy. What informs their viewpoint appears to be a need to provide a sense of belonging to all stakeholders in the nation’s governance. Specifically, this core elite group desires to have all elective mandates expire after one term, starting with present incumbents.
To make their idea more palatable to those in power at the moment, the “Patriots” suggested an extension of tenure in office to 5 years without an option of seeking renewal of mandate. This idea is not totally new because it has been bandied about intermittently for the past few years. Perhaps, what has triggered the “Patriots’” recent move is the urgent need in some quarters to discourage President Obasanjo’s bid for a second term during the 2003 general elections.
The “Patriots” apparently have opted to align their forces with those of the leadership of the National Assembly in their bid to see a change of the occupant of the Aso Rock in the no-distant future. It is noteworthy that this crop of Nigeria’s elite profess that the sole motivating factor in their quest is to shore up our nascent democracy. Many would question the wisdom in tampering with the constitutional setup that has not been given the chance to unfold as designed. The “Patriots” must be amongst those who feel that constant tinkering with Nigeria’s constitutional design is in the best interest of the average Nigerian.
It may not be a mere coincidence that efforts of the “Patriots” are in high gear now just as elements of the National Assembly have commenced a drive to effect a constitutional amendment to alter the fate of current incumbents midway through their elected terms. There appears to be such a sense of urgency to do something soon so as to preempt the scheduled 2003 general elections. These moves dovetail with the reported scheme by the leadership of the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings aimed at removing President Obasanjo from office before the end of his tenure in middle of 2003.
The Nigerian media is awash with speculations that some elected incumbents have chosen to renege on implementing the gentleman’s agreements that they entered into during their electioneering campaigns in the run-up to 1999 general elections. In the case of Obasanjo, it was alleged that he actually signed a document that made it clear that his presidency would not exceed a single term. As is peculiar with Nigeria, such a document is still kept away from public view. Where is the credibility of such a claim if no one is in a position to make the signed document public? Or, has politicking become a secretive affair? Similar accusations of breach of “trust” are being leveled against state governors and local government chief executives by their rivals who resent the notion of a second term for any incumbent.
I could care less whether Obasanjo and all other elected politicians throughout Nigeria remain in power or not after the 2003 general elections. In my books, the majority of them have failing grades for performance and political leadership. But poor performance cannot be enough reason to upend the normal routine of democratic governance. Stable democracies have inculcated the discipline of letting elections decide the course of events within the polity. I really don’t see much difference between the logic of military coup plotters and the machinations of the National Assembly leadership and the “Patriots”. These entities are intent on toppling the democratic process for reasons that appear noble and plausible superficially.
The reason given by the “Patriots” for their intervention, for example, is ostensibly to save the Nigerian democracy from its present difficulties. From their vantage point, restricting Obasanjo’s tenure to a single term is the magical wand that will rid Nigeria of all its ills for the foreseeable future. Many members of the “Patriots” group either took part in producing the current constitution or had ample input in deriving its contents. What new phenomenon have the “Patriots” recently discovered about Nigeria that was unknown when the current constitution was being pieced together? If fellow compatriots buy their advice today, how much further along the road shall we go before they come up with something else out of the blue? The proper solution to Nigeria’s national dilemma still remains elusive.
It is thus not unusual that groups and individuals continue to search for the best way forward. Some are simply interested on finding the means to manage the nation’s affairs from day to day. The reasoning here is that survival in the interim is an absolute prerequisite for the great future that everyone anticipates. This may be the logic that drives the “Patriots’” vision for contemporary Nigeria. Their position on the need to modify the tenure of elected incumbents, however, is half-baked because they appear to have ignored the necessary preliminary steps that would expedite the realization of what they are angling for. Persuading Obasanjo to desist from seeking an extension of his mandate through a general election is hardly the best method to nurture a fledgling democracy like ours.
The “Patriots” obviously lack faith in the ability of the electorate to make the determination of whether the incumbent president ought to be re-elected or not during the forthcoming general elections. Let’s assume that President Obasanjo shall heed the counsel of the “Patriots” this time around and withdraw his candidacy. Will Obasanjo’s decision imply that all other elected incumbents must also follow suit and withdraw from seeking a second term? If the “Patriots” are really patriotic citizens seeking the ways and means of moving our democracy forward, why don’t they deploy their energy and resources in initiating the process for a constitutional amendment necessary to bring about their wish? These privileged Nigerians appear to be more concerned about grandstanding than demonstration of leadership which is expected of persons of their stature.
It is naïve for anyone to believe that one single gesture from an incumbent Head of State is all that Nigeria needs now to resolve the current political impasse between the executive and legislative arms of government. It is also a hard sell to assert that mere rotation of occupancy of the Aso Rock amongst the major ethnopolitical interest groups in the country is the best way to improve the livelihood of the average Nigerian at this juncture. The “Patriots” may mean well for the country but their elitist disposition has led them to presume that the average citizen’s role in our democracy could be compromised without dire consequences as long as the current rulers at the top can be swayed. Endless tinkering with the constitution will not necessarily bring an end to Nigeria’s complex problems overnight. If change must be, let it be brought about through the means stipulated in the constitution.
The “Patriots” have many distinguished constitutional lawyers in their ranks and they ought to know that the best time to deliberate upon change of tenure of political officeholders should not be at the eve of general elections. Key personalities that now caucus under the auspices of the “Patriots” have well-known positions on the best path for Nigeria’s future. Most of them would prefer Nigeria to revert back to the geopolitical structure that was in place before the Civil War. The nearest we can get to the political arrangement of those halcyon days is the present 6 geopolitical zones. This zonal structure, however, is more descriptive in nature than operational. Rotating the presidency amongst these zones may not necessarily mollify the angst of many ethnopolitical interest groups which feel that the cause of their socioeconomic woes is the fact that they are marginalized. Southsouth zone, for example, is home to dozens of ethnopolitical interest groups and since only an individual can be president at any given time, there will still be disgruntled entities even after producing a Nigerian president from that zone. The beauty of democratic system of governance is that the entire electorate is given the opportunity to make its input on how political power is wielded as well as the choice of individuals who provide leadership for the society.
There must be more imaginative ways to build an equitable Nigeria than the pursuit of concept of rotational presidency. Even within relatively homogenous groups like the Southeast and Southwest zones, for example, subtle internal divisions make it almost impossible to please everyone within them by having one of their sons to become a one-term president of Nigeria. The recommendation of one-term tenure for all elected executive officeholders is intrinsically a prescription for disaster. If this were implemented, it would mean that all chief executives at the local, state and national levels, irrespective of their leadership qualities and performance record while in office, must leave to make place for new ones just after completing a single tenure.
The electorate is thus put in a situation where it has to continuously be in search of good leaders. For political office seekers, being good or competent means little because the same fate awaits both the good and the bad at the end of their first term. Who benefits in such a scenario where good leaders are barred from full implementation of their good ideas because of a limitation to one-term tenure? The “Patriots’” recommendations are designed to re-introduce the erratic leadership style that was glaringly evident during the era of military rule. National development was thrown into chaos by constant unpredictable changes in leadership at all levels of government. Successful coup d’etats meant a complete change of leadership personnel irrespective of one’s competence and performance. Contracts and development agenda due for implementation were often abandoned when the new team arrived to take over even though full payments had already been made for their completion by the preceding regime. Could this type of incoherence in governance be what the “Patriots’” advice would result in if accepted? If the name “Patriots” implies indubitable patriotism on the part of members of such a group, then it is easy to see that this elite clique has failed to live up to its label. It is an act of political mischief for this group to suggest that wholesale adoption of their “wise” counsel is an acceptable way of resolving the ongoing crisis between the presidency and the national legislature.
The patriotic thing to do would have been to review the positions of both sides in the dispute and come up with a dispassionate assessment of which side is right or wrong. Alternatively, the imminent general elections would have been allowed to provide the average citizen an opportunity to weigh in on the matter. The best option for our nascent democracy is for everyone to play according to established rules of the game as stipulated in the constitution. The “Patriots”, like members of any other citizens’ group, have the right to air their views on matters of great import to the nation. Narrowing the scope of their thoughts and recommendations to specific political decision of an individual, President Obasanjo, portends an ulterior motive that may be vested in a drawn-out campaign by some “Patriots” members to derail our nascent democracy. For a group that contains an impressive list of legal luminaries, the “Patriots’” bid to undercut the democratic process for electing political leaders for the nation’s top executive positions at this juncture is both disingenuous and dangerous.
This is a blatant exhibition of political myopia which ought to be discountenanced in its entirety.
Nov 2002
|