Why It's Hard to Believe Jonathan

The issue of single term tenure for the president and state governors is a natural divisive factor in Nigerian politics. The reason is due to the mutual distrust and back-stabbing which characterise our type of politics. Both President Jonathan and his spokesman Reuben Abati were miffed by what they described as the opposition parties’s “abusive” and “insulting” reaction to the President’s proposal.

The bitterness in our politics is unfortunate, but it has a history and everybody is guilty. It started right from day one when the colonialists were leaving and the race for political power became a matter of life and death amongst the various ethnic and regional blocs. The trend worsened after the British had gone as the sectional struggle – fanned by the ruling classes – continued to inflame passions among the ordinary people, culminating in death and destruction. Successive governments have failed to stem the tide. We are always pushed back to square one, always talking about “starting anew.”

Jonathan’s move to introduce a single-term tenure is all about starting afresh as he himself indicated during his speech at the Peoples Democratic Party national secretariat on Thursday. Speaking while declaring open the 56th National Executive Committee meeting of the ruling party, the President said, “If you look at the evolution of the political system, the two-tenure (term) is the ultimate. Because even countries which have single tenures, after some time go for the double tenure. So, it is like evolutionary process.”

Many observers have argued that because of the many wrong things about our system, it is better to discard it. The merit, as Jonathan argued on this matter of tenures, is that it will reduce acrimony, cut cost and lessen the desperation that comes with a two-term tenure. This, many also agreed. Where the President is distrusted is his promise that he would not become a beneficiary of the proposed single term, five-year tenure. Most Nigerians are wont to think that there is something fishy about the proposal, which appears set on consuming valuable time and some resources and diverting attention from governance.

Jonathan has the dubious record of being a president who changes the rules in the middle of the game. He is also adept at doublespeak – all with a straight face. It is too early in the day to forget how he rail-roaded his party into giving him its ticket to run for office during the April elections. The party had zoned the presidency to the north, but because Jonathan was desperate to continue ruling, all means fair and foul were employed to make him the party’s sole candidate.

Now, the factors that made him so desperate to contest in 2011 are the same that would make him want to secure a second term. One is his inability to achieve much in terms of developmental programmes during the year he ruled after Yar’Adua’s demise. Another, of course, is sweet, raw power, the prospects of which are almost endless. The third is the crowd around the President, many of whom are permanent residents in the corridors of power.

Jonathan appears deliberately confused about what the constitution provides for him. Clarifying on why he will not run for office in 2015, he said at the PDP headquarters: “The tenure of Goodluck Jonathan and Namadi Sambo will end on May 29, 2015. That is the constitution.” The truth, however, is that it wasn’t the Nigerian constitution which prevented Jonathan from running in 2015. The constitution provides for two-term tenure for the president and state governors. It was Jonathan himself who, during the 2011 presidential campaign, promised the electorate that he would not contest the election after he might have done one term. This promise was made in the heat of the hustings, at a time when victory did not appear guaranteed, a time of desperation, a time when the electorate’s trust was all that mattered. Clearly, we are back to similar times when a desperate cabal can do anything, the easiest of which is changing the rules in the middle of a game – including denying covenants solemnly made earlier – in order to cling to power.

---

Published in my column in the current edition of the weekly newspaper, BLUEPRINT.

Divided, They Sink!

If by the end of next week the opposition parties in Nigeria fail to coalesce and adopt a common candidate for the April general elections, we might as well conclude that none of their candidates can beat Dr. Goodluck Jonathan – free and fair election or no free and fair election. This prediction is couched in my firm belief that at the moment, the so-called opposition parties are in disarray as far as presenting a formidable front in the polls is concerned, and there seems to be no real indication that they could get their act together within the next seven days.

There is a clear desperation as the deadline for presenting names of candidates to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) draws near. It is borne out of the fear that now that Jonathan has secured the PDP ticket, he looks more formidable than he used to be before the primary election two weeks ago and looks set to win the big election in April. It is very clear now that unless the opposition parties come together and back one candidate, pushing Jonathan out would be a very Herculean task indeed.

Quite a number of discussions are taking place towards this end, but they don’t seem to be ending in any satisfactory result. Yesterday, the papers were awash with the story of a “secret” meeting between Malam Nuhu Ribadu of the ACN and Gen. Muhammadu Buhari of the CPC in the latter’s house in Kaduna. The meeting was held ostensibly to map out a strategy to snatch power from President Jonathan. The idea is in tandem with the ongoing moves to ensure that a northerner becomes president in the new dispensation.

But will that kite fly? Your guess is as good as mine. The opposition figures in the country are self-serving by nature. Each wants to be the one to reach the top, hence his inability to make a compromise in a power-sharing deal. Their meetings end in a cul-de-sac because each enters the meeting with a I-come-to-beg-you-to-leave-it-to-me agenda.

The reason for this is not far-fetched. Opposition politics in Nigeria is not what it used to be. There is a complete absence of ideology in the parties, which makes them to look the same except in name. In contrast, the strong parties of the good old days of the First Republic, such as the NCNC, NEPU, UMBC, and AG, as well as the UPN, NPP, GNPP, and PRP in the Second Republic were based on identifiable ideologies. The personalities leading or populating these parties were men and women that were consistent in their beliefs, not because they thought their beliefs would bring wealth or glory to them but because they felt without equivocation that, that was the best way to arrange the society and build the nation.

According to Wikipedia, political ideologies have two dimensions: 1. Goals: How society should function or be organized, and 2. Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal. That is why in the United States of America, you are either Democratic or Republican; in Great Britain, you are either Labour or Conservative. In between these lie just a few alternatives, which are invariably incapable of rocking the boat too hard because the two major camps tend to be adequate for the diverse opinions people hold.

Mark you, political ideology is like religion: people don’t just quit for cheap porridge. People come together because they believe in a set of ideas, which is the driving force behind their political action and manifesto. They don’t gather in order to eat what is available on the dining table or share whatever they can get for their pockets.

Today, the story is different. You have a colony of drifters and quitters wearing the badge of politics. No matter how well-fed they look, they are just hungry, and it is their hunger (usually for power and money) rather than ideology which drives their actions. Little surprise, then, that you find politicians who had made a name as members of a political party suddenly drifting to another party, including one they had spent most of their political life castigating. The word for this is decamping, and many politicians in our country do it with pride and gusto while pretending to be victims of a “witch-hunt.” Examples are legion. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar was elected as a governor under PDP in 1999 but when the game between him and Obasanjo soured, he founded AC, which won the election in Lagos State. Today, he is back in PDP, a party he wanted to see destroyed, and had sought to become its presidential candidate. Alhaji Aminu Bello Masari, a top-notch member of the PDP, was a ranking member of the House of Representatives for many years. Today, he is a gubernatorial aspirant under CPC in Katsina State. Dora Akunyili was also a PDP member and had served as minister of information and communication under two presidents; today, she is a senatorial candidate under APGA in Anambra State. Dr. Abba Sayyadi Ruma, hitherto a leading member of the PDP, under which he served as commissioner and SSG in Katsina State and later minister of agriculture, is now seeking the governorship seat under CPC. Senator Adamu Aliero, another PDP stalwart, is now contesting under CPC. Malam Nuhu Ribadu, a senior official of the PDP government of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, is now the presidential candidate of ACN. Alhaji Attahiru Dalhatu Bafarawa became governor under ANPP, decamped to DPP which he founded in order to run for president in 2007, and is now a ranking member of the ACN, under which he sought to contest the presidency. The list is almost endless.

These people and others like them are now giving the impression that they are martyrs who have just found their heavens. It is believed, however, that they decamped only because their chances had been blocked in their former parties and would return as soon as they have captured power or found no succour in their new parties. After all, party politics is no religion. They don’t even recognise the word ‘ideology’. This is why they drift from one party to another without blinking an eye, like bees looking for flower from which to suck pollen. This is also exactly why it is difficult to forge an alliance capable of defeating an incumbent president in this country. We will see if the leopard can change its spots in the next one week or so.

---
Published in LEADERSHIP WEEKEND today

You Call That An Election?

Yes, the special convention of the Peoples Democratic Party had all the trappings of a free and fair election. Delegates who were going to choose the party’s candidate for the April election were screened and got accreditation in the presence of agents of the three aspirants; votes were cast in the open and into transparent ballot boxes; the counting was done in similar fashion – in the open; the aspirants’ agents were present throughout and were permitted to put in a word if necessary. The aspirants had been invited to tell the delegates what they had in store for the nation. Above all, the whole event was televised live on the NTA, Africa’s largest TV network whose signals are beamed across the globe. You couldn’t have watched this event at the venue or on TV and not be impressed by the meticulous manner in which it was organised. But was it free and fair? Did President Goodluck Jonathan defeat Alhaji Atiku Abubakar fair and square, to borrow from Malam Adamu Ciroma’s description of Chief MKO Abiola’s victory in the presidential election of 1993?

To be free and fair, an election must be truly free from the encumbrances imposed by party stalwarts and government officials, such as intimidation, coercion or blackmail. The voter should be able to exercise his free will, relying on the faith he has in the stated manifesto of the candidate. He has to be persuaded by his conscience that the candidate will serve the collective interest of the community or nation. He should not be compromised by financial inducement, promise of goodies or threat to his privileges. If one applies this clear definition to the event that spanned Thursday to yesterday morning, one would no doubt laugh over what the PDP apparatchiks called a free and fair election. To begin with, the outcome of Jonathan’s victory had been decided long before the party delegates began to arrive Abuja by state governors who believe that whatever they do is in the national interest and that they are acting on behalf of the multitudes. In this primary election, the delegates were mere sheep and their state governors the herdsmen. They were simply commanded to vote for each governor’s choice, which was not necessarily their own choice.

It was during such decision-making that both the stick and the carrot were wielded. Loyalty would be handsomely rewarded while independence of choice, regarded as betrayal, would attract severe sanctions. In our impoverished country where most people go for where their bread is buttered, it is easy to see loyalty than ‘betrayal’. This is why the governors, who control the purse-strings of their states, are the key element in any election in Nigeria. Former governor Donald Duke had told us how it is done, in a bare-all interview he granted The Guardian last year. And only recently, one of the leading chieftains of the PDP, Chief Tony Anenih, who goes by the sobriquet Mr. Fix It (with an added “Slouching an AK-47 of Dirty Tricks”) promised the party’s faithful in Benin City that anyone who dared to vote for Atiku in the presidential primaries would be fished out and punished. Surprisingly, this threat from a man notorious for carrying out to the letter what he intends to do was glossed over by most people, even by the Atiku camp.

Another hat-trick scored by the organisers of the event was the categorisation of the delegates state by state. Ostensibly, this was done in order to make for an easy accreditation and counting. However, it is easy to surmise that this arrangement had forced a precondition on the voters: vote for who your governor told you or we will find out. Now it is possible to know which states “liked the president most” and which ‘betrayed’ him. One could see Governor Isa Yuguda almost sweating as the Bauchi tally was being given; Yuguda, a staunch supporter of the president, has had his delegates giving Atiku as many as 44 votes. Even though Jonathan won by just 2 votes, questions are legion over the governor’s real control over his delegates or even his real loyalty to Aso Rock. This kind of regimentation has played in Jonathan’s favour by intimidating delegates into falling in line. Of course, we are not expected to call this a rigging of the votes because what it did was to rig the voting system from day one.

The next issue is money. We have all seen how the media made a kill in the advertising market in the run-up to the primaries. But those who made the biggest kill were the delegates to the convention. I have personally talked to some of the delegates, who confided in me that huge amounts were shared among them. Right from home, they collected all sorts of monetary gifts. Their trip, accommodation and feeding were sponsored by their governors. They received a lot of blandishment on what and what not to do in Abuja. “It was like being in the army,” one told me. “You were given orders, and no questions were brooked.” Another delegate confided in me that on arrival in Abuja, they were accosted with Atiku’s gift – US$3,000.00 per delegate – but, then, that gift became chickenfeed by the time Jonathan’s windfall came – US$7,000.00 per delegate. If you were smart enough to collect from the two camps, as many delegates did, you became US$10,000.00 richer. Still, my findings indicated that this monetary inducement was not the real deciding factor in the end; the state governor’s decision was the one.

And you ask: why did the governors have to back Jonathan in this primary? Have they not got their own ticket? Yes, they have, but they also knew that their political fate still hangs in the balance; until the April elections are done with, there are many minefields ahead. For most of them, it was safer to play by the rules of the game as spelt out by the party, the presidency and the strange bedfellows parading themselves as the pro-Jonathan bulwark. Any wonder, then, that Jonathan was able to win 80 votes to Atiku’s 1 in Abia, and 141 - 0 in Akwa Ibom, 67 – 0 in the president’s home state of Bayelsa; 105 – 0 in Cross River and 128 – 2 in Rivers?

Rules or no rules, the game – call it war – has just begun. Whoever organised Thursday’s primary this way is determined to give Jonathan victory in the next two months. The taste of the pudding is in the eating. It would be interesting to see how Atiku, who must have been humbled by his defeat in spite of all the reminders he read out to the delegates on the (s)election night, will fight back.

Beware the Ides of January!

On Thursday, next week, delegates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) shall throng Eagle Square, Abuja, to select the person best suited to carry the party’s flag for this year’s presidential election. That day is January 13 which, incidentally, falls among the days dubbed the Ides in the Roman calendar. In this calendar, said to have been devised by Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome, months were organised around three days, each serving as a reference point for counting the others. One of them, known as Ides, fell on the 15th day in March, May, July, and October; and on the 13th in the other months.

The term Ides was made famous by the episode in Act 1 Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar in which a seer warns the Roman emperor to “beware the Ides of March.” Caesar, knowing that the Ides is just another day, makes a joke of the warning the following day, thus: “Well, the Ides of March have come”, and the man answers insistently: “Ay, they have come, but they are not gone.” Caesar is later assassinated in the Theatre of Pompey by 62 senators, among whom are some members of his kitchen cabinet, such as Brutus. He has refused to heed the warnings of the old seer.

Even though the historical event happened over two thousand years ago, in 4 B.C., it has continued to fascinate readers, especially the notion of grave consequences that presumably follow any warning uttered while invoking the term “the Ides of March.” Now, some wise guys in the PDP had fixed the “Ides of January” (i.e. 13th day of the month) to choose their presidential candidate. Ordinarily, one would have dismissed the event as a non-issue, but, then, the PDP prides itself as the biggest political party in Africa. Above all, it is the ruling party in Nigeria. It has produced three presidents since the birth of the Fourth Republic, having been declared winner of the presidential elections in 1999, 2003 and 2007. It also controls most states of the federation, and the National Assembly. The Nigeria Governors’ Forum, populated by its members, is one of the major pressure groups in the country. Its neoliberal policies, anchored on huge petrodollar revenues, exert a great impact on the country’s more than 150 million people.

The selection of its presidential candidate is, therefore, bound to affect the nation’s fortunes, for better or worse. The incumbent president, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, is running for election for the first time in his life. In the past, he stood as running mate – in Bayelsa State as deputy governor and in 2007 as vice-president. Now he is testing his popularity for the first time. To become president on his own account, he must, first, scale the hurdle of the January 13 primary. If he wins, he would proceed to the second hurdle: defeating the presidential candidates of opposition parties. Both hurdles are no tea party. In his first great river to cross, Jonathan is facing the biggest contest in a presidential primary in Nigerian history.

This is the result of what many see as the party’s Achilles’ heel: the agreement its leaders signed, zoning the presidency between the north and the south. Jonathan became president by what his first name suggests – good luck – when his boss, President Umaru Yar’Adua, died. In the agreement, the next president must come from the north because Yar’Adua had not completed the region’s term in office. But Jonathan and his supporters have chosen to bury the pact. The main contestants from the north backed down in support of former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, following a voting on a consensus candidate and are expected to throw their weight behind him on January 13 and thereafter.

Meanwhile, mudslinging is going on between the two camps. Every day, one reads in the newspapers one charge or the other flying between them, mostly bordering on corruption allegations and assumed self-incriminating comments made in the past. The latest, published yesterday, was a condemnation of the ruling party said to have been made by Atiku in November 2006 – as if the man had no right to make such a statement at THAT material time when the party was an indisputable lawless behemoth. That statement, allegedly made on the Hausa Service of the VOA, quoted him as saying that the PDP “does not follow due process; it does not respect the rule of law and the constituted authorities.” The truth is that everything Atiku said about the PDP at the time was correct. Worse things were said by its members and observers. Prof. Wole Soyinka famously described the party as a nest of vipers.

For years, the PDP was embroiled in crises, not only because its members saw it as the shortest route to sudden riches, but also because it lacked internal democracy. Its candidates were imposed on the electorate, and they invariably emerged winners. Consequently, as calls for its reform filled the air, many of its members defected. The party lost heavily in many by-elections. Today, with the promise of free and fair elections from the electoral commission, many of its former members are seeking election via other parties. The giant PDP that once bragged it would rule Nigeria for 60 years is suddenly no longer so confident; it seems to be walking on feet of clay.

The presidential primary could be another make-or-mar milestone for the party and, probably, for the nation. There are fears about what would happen in the event that either Jonathan or Atiku loses the election. If the president loses, would he simply return to the classroom or somewhere quiet to enjoy his cool millions? And would Atiku squirm back into his shell to enjoy his millions or move to actualise his rumoured Plan B if he loses on that night of the long knives? The plan, mark you, is not his promised fire and brimstone as Jonathan’s camp alleges; it simply says that Atiku and his co-travellers might defect to another party, such as Muhammadu Buhari’s CPC, and back its candidate for the presidency in a last-ditch push against Jonathan.

Either way, there is something fishy, nay, eerie, about this January 13 convention. Whatever it is, one prays that it is good for this country. Nigerians have been held in bondage for too long by the PDP cabal, who come in the guise of rescuing the people from economic and social ruin. But the ruin has not abated. If anything, it has worsened. Nigeria remains backward economically and is listed as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. May the Ides of January not spell further doom for this nation. Amen.

----

Published in LEADERSHIP WEEKEND, last Saturday

Where is the Democracy?

Democracy Day is today, May 29. When the then President Olusegun Obasanjo created the day, there was euphoria in the air. Nigerians were glad to have civil rule in place. Quite understandably, expectations were high. After a long continuum of military rule, they hoped to have a say in who governed them - and how. With the people's representatives in executive positions and in the various parliaments, they looked forward to a better society, a better life. So Obasanjo's order that May 29 should be commemorated every year as the day on which Nigerians should ruminate solemnly on the civil governance couldn't have been faulted.

Ten years down the line, however, the question that arises is whether we have had our hope, our aspiration, our expectations realised. Your guess is as good as mine. A few days ago, the government advised us to mark this milestone in quietude and not to shout it on the rooftops. The government's spokesman added, probably for those who wish to exercise their democratic right in any extent possible, that if you still wish to scream about this day, you may well do so. It is your constitutional right. But he did not give reason why the "celebration" should be low-key. Yes, the nation has lost its leader recently. For many, the mourning is still ongoing, and for many others it is forever. But that is not the real reason for the government's saying that Democracy Day should be witnessed with a solemn restraint. There is really nothing to celebrate.

In answering the question whether we have harvested our dreams of democracy, we should begin by asking ourselves the purpose of democracy. For me, the whole purpose of democracy is that leaders should deliver on the promises they made when they begged us for votes. We did not give them power so that they could become more comfortable through lining their pockets or buying landed property. They are there in order to make us more comfortable.

But the reverse is the case in this country. As poverty and want increase manifold among the mass of the people, those in executive positions and in the parliaments become increasingly more comfortable. There is not much to show in terms of improvement in the life of the common man. The state of infrastructure in the country is appalling in spite of the mouth-watering contracts governments at local, state and federal levels dish out all the time. Unemployment has become the byword for school graduation. Health facilities are nearly absent as public hospitals continue to play their old role of consulting clinics. Any Nigerian who wants qualitative medical care has to seek it abroad. But how many Nigerians have the wherewithal to embark on medical tourism in Egypt, India, Europe or the United States?

Insecurity has more than doubled since 1999. Thousands of Nigerians have died in the hands of brigands and assassins, as well as in sectarian violence. Electricity supply is still a far cry from the promised goal. Promises made by our leaders to tackle other issues requisite for qualitative living - food, education, good roads, housing, human rights, etc. - are yet to be delivered. Why? Because the leaders would rather make themselves more comfortable than discharge their responsibilities to the electorate. Just this week a debate broke out over an alleged attempt by members of the House of Representatives to have their quarterly allowances upped from N27.2 million to N42 million each. Though the increase would have been illegal, one wouldn't be surprised if the idea was mooted by the honourables in order to test its acceptability by the public. A House that is yet to prove its positive impact on the lives of the people that made it possible for each member to be there is more interested, as many instances in the past showed, in mining more funds for personal aggrandisement. In Nigeria, nothing is impossible.

Up there in the executive rooms, the story is quite similar. Their excellencies have immersed themselves in the task of playing the power game. Consequently, the fabled 7-Point Agenda has remained a mirage, a refrain that political appointees chant anytime they have an opportunity to do so, which is all the time. The game of power, which involves playing the chess of who becomes what, where and how, appears to have more attraction to the leaders. Playing this game has ensured that not a single item on the 7-Point Agenda has been achieved in three years. Even the one that some apologists cited in the wake of President Yar'Adua's death, i.e., amnesty for militants in the Niger Delta, is neither here nor there. What Yar'Adua promised on his agenda was not an amnesty but a frontal solution to the problems of the oil-producing region, which included the environmental impacts of oil exploration and improvement in the life of the Niger Deltans. Nothing of the sort has been done. Exploration and pollution, which are twinned in the hapless region, continue unabated.

What we are seeing is the politics of appeasement for criminal elements who took arms against their fatherland. As long as the boys are kept quiet through the monetary inducement called rehabilitation, the main problems would subsist. At the end of the day, the gargantuan failure of 7-Point Agenda in relation to the Niger Delta would manifest in renewed militancy, kidnapping, robbery and other atrocities.

President Goodluck Jonathan has the onerous task of redeeming the image of the Yar'Adua/Jonathan regime. Sticking to the 7-Point Agenda as initiated in 2007 is a bad idea that should be jettisoned immediately. A piece of advice given by Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi last year, on the verge of his appointment as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, should be revisited with all seriousness. What Sanusi said was that the government had better concentrate on just two or three points of the agenda. Seven points were unwieldy, he argued.

Recently, I was in a forum where a top federal government official said that the then Acting President Jonathan had elected to address just three problems bedevilling the nation: the Niger Delta question, power and security. It was a few weeks before Yar'Adua died. With the demise of Yar'Adua, Jonathan, with a bigger mandate as president, has an opportunity to commit himself to those three items. Disappointingly, however, on Wednesday this week the Federal Executive Council came up with the funny disclaimer that it was going to do away with the 7-Point Agenda. We should, therefore, expect to see no change in government policy in the next one year. Our ears are going to continue to receive the annoying cacophony of the unwieldy agenda that has since become a quasi religion under Yar'Adua and Jonathan. Remember that it is the failure of this agenda that questions the faith of Nigerians in the ability of government to deliver the dividends of democracy. And remember that Jonathan has "not enough time," as his defenders now tell us, to do much before the general elections. As such, it is quite plausible that the gains of democracy will continue to elude us, just as we are required to observe Democracy Day year after year.

* Published on the back page of LEADERSHIP, on Saturday, May 29, 2010