Solving the Presidency Problem
By
WITHIN the realm of economic science, need defines man’s world view. The existentialist theory, as a definition of human conduct, in relation to being, is not without a solid foundation in understanding human behaviour. What affects his means effects his being, his living and his life. Others are the side effects of the neglect or otherwise of his needs.
This theory is, of course, not for all time. The plutocratic elite, at least in Nigeria, has successfully dislodged it from its economic position of pre eminence as the only singular determinant of human activity. They have crowned it not as the problem but the effect. The real problem, they insist, is power, or better still lack of access to it, in a fair manner. This is underlined by the rhetorics, so much repeated, without the judgement of history, that the caliphate people think that rulership is their birth right by which they mean the control of the presidency which is not one and the same with their postulation. Power is not the same with leadership.
To stamp the authority of the centrality of the presidency, as the core problematic issue, over the more real one, the chaotic theory of rotatory presidency was given a licence of absolute relevance which we have come to accept without a thought about its own inherent problems and imperfections.
Because of the belief in it, we have completely ruled out twenty year old Yoruba, for example, from aspiring to the presidency until forty years after 2007, granted Baba Aremu does tazarce in 2003. It doesn’t matter to us the inherent problem that may arise in keeping an active people away from the top political throne of their country. We must appreciate some looming problems here and should therefore rethink an alternative, particularly that we have been propagated to accept that the struggle for the presidency is the real problem. Even if this be true the current rotatory practice, as the solution, would worsen matters. For instance, each of the two zones in the former Eastern Region is saying, "no presidency in 2003 no Nigeria," certainly a sign of things in the offing. There is a looming calamity ahead. Already, the 2003 political war has started with commanders at the ready each itching to shoot his way into Aso Rock.
Faced with such a possibility what were we to do to save the day? There is a great temptation to accept the idea of an all inclusive presidency, a presidium, so to speak, or as, some call it, a presidential council, with a six man alternate presidents, headed by a chairman of the presidium, to serve alternately for a period of one year i.e a six year single tenure for all. In the event of death a person from his zone be elected to take his seat. With an alternate president, coming from each of the six geo-political zones, to serve as chairman, for one year, in a council, where decisions remain the collective view of all or the majority, it is hoped that the outcry of "marginalisation" and "born rulers" may vanish.
The entire federal ministries are to be grouped into six such that important ones do not fall under one group. Each of the alternate presidents is to take charge of a group of ministries with ministers as immediate supervisors but all answerable to an alternate president and who in turn, is a answerable to the presidential council, or the presidium, for final decision on any executive matter.
However, a body of six alternate presidents, with equal powers is quite a load. In the circumstance, it is neater to have two, one from the two major divides, i.e. North and South, with each serving as chairman for three or four years and exercising the functions of the president in consultation with the federal executive council or such other bodies. The truth is that the problem is not the struggle for presidency, as such but the struggle for it between the elites of the two divides. This struggle would minimize considerably in that at each time in the life of an administration, (six or eight years of a single tenure) there is "our own" in-charge.
In either of these proposals there would be no place for a vice president while the alternate presidents are to be elected on a joint ticket. The beauty of it is that not only would the stiff struggle for the presidency considerably reduced, its usual consequences, on the polity but also that the idea of a zone waiting for forty years to produce the next president would be done away with for good. It is also hoped that this would give each zone or geo-political block, a better sense of belonging. More important it would guarantee the continued unity of the country.
Since these proposals would entail changing the constitution this brings us to the much taunted Sovereign National Conference, SNC. In discussing it we need to bear two things in mind. The first is that the current constitution in operation was, in many views, never the collective product of the sovereign people of Nigeria, which is why some have been insisting that it lies against itself by saying "we the people ---". But the reality also is that it is what is now defining our political relationship, giving legitimacy to our current democratic structures. We cannot therefore ditch it, mid way, without throwing out, at the same time, the structures and all their operators. We must concede this fact and also the need to act lawfully. We cannot accept certain provisions of the constitution and at the same time seek to reject others by unwillingness to act in accordance with the faulted ones only on the basis of expediency. It would portray us as unlawful lots. The truth about law is that it is not submissive to, or defined within the concept of what is good but within the requisites of what is legal or lawful. Law, essentially, has never been a prisoner of good or even logic but a detainee of itself.
Thus, the proposed SNC, therefore, must submit itself to the provisions of the constitution for it to be legally tenable. This is the second issue of importance in discussing the subject.
How then could the two issues be resolved within the proposed frame work? Already, there is a presidential blue print on constitutional amendments which has been circulated. The national assembly is working on another. If we really want to resolve the problem within the frame work of the constitution, then what is to be done is that when NASS is through with its own, the two documents be made available to all the local government councils for their comments after consultations, through conferences or whatever, with informed people in their respective areas. Thereafter, their views be submitted to their respective state assemblies. In turn, state legislators call a meeting of council chairmen and together produce a state position on the two drafts again, after a state conferences, involving citizens of the states. The legislative, executive and judicial branches, in each state, compile a harmonized state position to be submitted to NASS.
On its own NASS consults with the two other branches and then presents a harmonized national view to a meeting involving its key officials and representatives from each state assembly. This done, NASS calls a national conference with three to four representatives from each state or one (elected) from each council area who, together, with state houses of assembly, given perfection touch to a final draft constitution after which it follows the process of constitutional changes as outlined, this time without changes, except that the final draft be approved in a referendum by the people.
In this process the elected representatives of the people, at various levels and the people themselves are involved while constitutional requirements are served. This would give the would be constitution a better legitimacy than the unconstitutional platform of the SNC as being proposed.
By and large, there is certainly a need for a national conference to revisit the 1999 constitution but within the frame work of the same constitution. We can’t claim to be operating a democracy when we are unwilling to respect the due process of the law, which is one of its pillars. It is important to guard against applying illegality to correct legality and illegitimacy.
April 2002