Is there a link between Abacha, June 12, MKO Abiola's death also in June 1998 and the death of the "Strongman of Ibadan Politics" or as he was lately labelled "the Garrison Commander of Ibadan", Alhaji Lamidi Adedibu?
The death of Adedibu represents an opportunity for the political, business and traditional elite in Ibadan to create new leadership in Ibadan. If the enlightened elite remain selfish and insular, and continue to think only of their children and family, then another Adedibu will emerge. The leaders who think Ibadan deserves better must begin to engage with the grassroots and be more sacrificial and then the people can relate with them as leaders and not a "foreign" elite.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Ten years after Abacha
Where were you when you heard that General Abacha had died? Most Americans can recall to the last detail where they were, what they were doing, and how they heard about some notable events-the murder of Martin Luther King Jnr, the assassination of John F Kennedy, and the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Centre being some of the best illustrations. In Nigeria, I believe most people can recall with some specificity what the circumstances around them were when they heard about the death of General Sani Abacha.
I was in a presentation room that day, in the bank with which I then worked, leading a focus group discussion on scenarios for Nigeria from 1998 till 2003. I believe I have previously shared some of that experience on these pages. Any way the bank’s management had put me in charge of a scenario planning team, which was charged with coming up with scenarios that would provide the context for the bank’s strategic plan which was then been discussed. The exercise was a very enlightening experience as it entailed speaking with a cross section of leaders in academia, politics, media, religion, business, and even traditional institutions.
The remarkable thing however was that the exercise demonstrated very clearly how much of an obstacle to the country’s evolution and development Abacha had become. In trying to get my respondents to share their perceptions about the country’s future-political, economic, social, its place in the world etc, every response suddenly became conditional on Abacha’s actions-what will he do?; will he become a civilian leader?; will he hand over?; will he release MKO?; is he healthy?; will he live?; will he die?; ad infinitum! It suddenly struck me that the destiny of a whole nation had become entangled with the actions, moods, intentions and health of one man! And that man was not by any means your normal type of person! He was Abacha!
For those whose memory about those days match my own recollection (apparently some others have alternate recollections, which I suggest we ignore), because of Abacha, Nigeria was suffering under the weight of political and economic sanctions; the economy was grinding to a halt; many Nigerians had fled into exile in Europe, America and Canada to escape Abacha’s hit squad (which we now know was led by Sergeant Barnabas Jabila and under the command of Abacha’s Chief Security Officer and other officials of that regime); some persons including Kudirat Abiola and Chief Alfred Rewane had been killed by agents of the regime; Mr Alex Ibru and Chief Abraham Adesanya had barely escaped the regime’s hit squad by the skin of their teeth; the Ogoni activist, Ken Saro Wiwa had been hanged by the regime against international appeals that he be spared; and the current President’s own brother, General Shehu Musa Yar’adua had been killed while under detention by the regime.
We recall that Nigerians all over the country jubilated as the news of Abacha’s death spread across the country, and the international community breathed a sigh of relief that the dark goggled General whose thoughts and actions it appeared no one could rationalise had passed on. On that day, as I stood in front of the discussion group, we searched desperately for hope that the country would somehow find a way to progress in spite of the human roadblock that Abacha had now seemed to become, when my then CEO peeped into the room and uttered the frankly amazing words, “Opeyemi, what are you doing here? Abacha is dead!” I could never forget those words, which signalled a fresh dawn for this nation, and off course ended my focus group discussion, as everyone scattered to absorb the reality of the news. Even in death, people were afraid of Abacha! Of course, my scenario planning assignment became a piece of cake. The range of alternate possibilities became very clear, and we quickly brought the assignment to a close within weeks of Abacha’s death. I believe Nigeria by and large lived to the scenarios we came up with up till 2007, but the jury is still out on what way we will travel going forward.
Nigeria has come a long way since June 8, 1998. We have had three regimes-the short, transitional regime of General Abdulsalam Abubakar, which was notable for two things, one political, the other economic-the quick handover to his erstwhile Commander-in-Chief, General Olusegun Obasanjo as elected President, and the rapid depletion of the nation’s reserves! Obasanjo ruled for eight years with a credible performance in macroeconomic management, but made many mistakes in the political posture of the regime. In spite of Obasanjo’s faults however, Nigeria in 2007 bore no relationship with the country he took over in May 1999-Nigeria in 2007 was not just free of the over $30 billion foreign debt which Obasanjo inherited, but had accumulated about $40 billion of reserves. Economic reform had transformed several sectors-oil and gas, banking, telecommunications etc and foreign investment was flowing into the country again.
Obasanjo made mistakes with his personal style, the third term bid, the quality (actually lack of quality!) of elections which he conducted and the contradictory behaviour with regard to corruption and other matters, but in May 2007, he finally grudgingly exited the national stage handing over to President Yarádua. The Yar’adua Presidency will have its own time and opportunity to do that which was not done by the former regime, and to do more and faces clear challenges with the principal ones being electricity, infrastructure and the Niger-Delta. The Niger-Delta in particular represents perhaps the most significant threat to the country’s future, and if not urgently addressed may finally do that which even Abacha could not do!
On the tenth anniversary of Abacha’s death, some actually celebrated in religious places with thanksgiving services for the great deliverance which God performed concerning this nation on that day. Some others however emboldened by the passage of time and perhaps seeking merely to provoke their adversaries see things differently. If the western world whose banks actually confirmed the existence of huge deposits running into billions of dollars held by the late dictator hear that three former military rulers of Nigeria declared publicly that he never stole from the nation, they would be reminded that truly we are a peculiar people. How did the leaders of Afenifere who urged their Yoruba constituency to vote for General Buhari in 2007 feel when they read his celebration of Abacha?-Abacha who murdered and terrorised their leaders and led many of them into exile. How did President Yar’adua whose elder brother was killed by the regime feel?
I was in a presentation room that day, in the bank with which I then worked, leading a focus group discussion on scenarios for Nigeria from 1998 till 2003. I believe I have previously shared some of that experience on these pages. Any way the bank’s management had put me in charge of a scenario planning team, which was charged with coming up with scenarios that would provide the context for the bank’s strategic plan which was then been discussed. The exercise was a very enlightening experience as it entailed speaking with a cross section of leaders in academia, politics, media, religion, business, and even traditional institutions.
The remarkable thing however was that the exercise demonstrated very clearly how much of an obstacle to the country’s evolution and development Abacha had become. In trying to get my respondents to share their perceptions about the country’s future-political, economic, social, its place in the world etc, every response suddenly became conditional on Abacha’s actions-what will he do?; will he become a civilian leader?; will he hand over?; will he release MKO?; is he healthy?; will he live?; will he die?; ad infinitum! It suddenly struck me that the destiny of a whole nation had become entangled with the actions, moods, intentions and health of one man! And that man was not by any means your normal type of person! He was Abacha!
For those whose memory about those days match my own recollection (apparently some others have alternate recollections, which I suggest we ignore), because of Abacha, Nigeria was suffering under the weight of political and economic sanctions; the economy was grinding to a halt; many Nigerians had fled into exile in Europe, America and Canada to escape Abacha’s hit squad (which we now know was led by Sergeant Barnabas Jabila and under the command of Abacha’s Chief Security Officer and other officials of that regime); some persons including Kudirat Abiola and Chief Alfred Rewane had been killed by agents of the regime; Mr Alex Ibru and Chief Abraham Adesanya had barely escaped the regime’s hit squad by the skin of their teeth; the Ogoni activist, Ken Saro Wiwa had been hanged by the regime against international appeals that he be spared; and the current President’s own brother, General Shehu Musa Yar’adua had been killed while under detention by the regime.
We recall that Nigerians all over the country jubilated as the news of Abacha’s death spread across the country, and the international community breathed a sigh of relief that the dark goggled General whose thoughts and actions it appeared no one could rationalise had passed on. On that day, as I stood in front of the discussion group, we searched desperately for hope that the country would somehow find a way to progress in spite of the human roadblock that Abacha had now seemed to become, when my then CEO peeped into the room and uttered the frankly amazing words, “Opeyemi, what are you doing here? Abacha is dead!” I could never forget those words, which signalled a fresh dawn for this nation, and off course ended my focus group discussion, as everyone scattered to absorb the reality of the news. Even in death, people were afraid of Abacha! Of course, my scenario planning assignment became a piece of cake. The range of alternate possibilities became very clear, and we quickly brought the assignment to a close within weeks of Abacha’s death. I believe Nigeria by and large lived to the scenarios we came up with up till 2007, but the jury is still out on what way we will travel going forward.
Nigeria has come a long way since June 8, 1998. We have had three regimes-the short, transitional regime of General Abdulsalam Abubakar, which was notable for two things, one political, the other economic-the quick handover to his erstwhile Commander-in-Chief, General Olusegun Obasanjo as elected President, and the rapid depletion of the nation’s reserves! Obasanjo ruled for eight years with a credible performance in macroeconomic management, but made many mistakes in the political posture of the regime. In spite of Obasanjo’s faults however, Nigeria in 2007 bore no relationship with the country he took over in May 1999-Nigeria in 2007 was not just free of the over $30 billion foreign debt which Obasanjo inherited, but had accumulated about $40 billion of reserves. Economic reform had transformed several sectors-oil and gas, banking, telecommunications etc and foreign investment was flowing into the country again.
Obasanjo made mistakes with his personal style, the third term bid, the quality (actually lack of quality!) of elections which he conducted and the contradictory behaviour with regard to corruption and other matters, but in May 2007, he finally grudgingly exited the national stage handing over to President Yarádua. The Yar’adua Presidency will have its own time and opportunity to do that which was not done by the former regime, and to do more and faces clear challenges with the principal ones being electricity, infrastructure and the Niger-Delta. The Niger-Delta in particular represents perhaps the most significant threat to the country’s future, and if not urgently addressed may finally do that which even Abacha could not do!
On the tenth anniversary of Abacha’s death, some actually celebrated in religious places with thanksgiving services for the great deliverance which God performed concerning this nation on that day. Some others however emboldened by the passage of time and perhaps seeking merely to provoke their adversaries see things differently. If the western world whose banks actually confirmed the existence of huge deposits running into billions of dollars held by the late dictator hear that three former military rulers of Nigeria declared publicly that he never stole from the nation, they would be reminded that truly we are a peculiar people. How did the leaders of Afenifere who urged their Yoruba constituency to vote for General Buhari in 2007 feel when they read his celebration of Abacha?-Abacha who murdered and terrorised their leaders and led many of them into exile. How did President Yar’adua whose elder brother was killed by the regime feel?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Three Years to Go! Part 2
Two weeks ago, in the first part of this article, we attempted a preview of the Yar’adua regime’s first year in office and made the point, as the title clearly indicated that the regime is running out of time. It has three calendar years, and eighteen to 24 months “policy space” left before its first year is exhausted. We expressed surprise that given the clarity about Nigeria’s policy and economic priorities, and given the amount of input (NEEDS, NEEDS 2, Vision 2020, 7-Point Agenda etc) available to the regime, it had yet to define its strategy for dealing with the problems confronting the nation. We examined the regime’s very sparse balance sheet, with “rule of law” being the only claimed “achievement” and noted that while rule of law is clearly a prerequisite for national development, it cannot suffice as a policy prescription in a twenty-first century economy.
Since then, the President has taken the welcome step of coming out to articulate his views about his government’s achievements (or lack of it) on several fronts-including an interview with the Financial Times of London, and an interview with a panel of journalists led by John Momoh of Channels TV. In all these interviews, the President repeated at every opportunity his achievement in the area of rule of law and explained that he had spent the last one year “planning” the activities the regime would engage in over the next few years. The interviews did not communicate much that was specific about the outcome of these plans beyond promising Nigerians “exciting times” in the next 365 days. Nigerians could of course do no more than exercise faith and optimism that those exciting times would materialise soon, and that the excitement would be of a positive nature.
I must say that the portents do not appear very enticing however. I say this because in the same period, the regime announced the most retrogressive policy statement perhaps in the last decade! This was the policy announcing the constitution of a board for the PHCN which beyond the subterfuge amounted simply to the re-introduction of NEPA. If there was any doubt about what the regime had just done, it appointed a former NEPA managing director as CEO in the new team. The implication of that action is a rejection of a private sector framework for resolution of Nigeria’s power supply problems in favour of a state-controlled national power utility. I interpret the hogwash about the team ‘preparing PHCN for privatisation’ simply as an attempt to cloud the reality of another major policy reversal from the Nigerian people, and perhaps from our development partners.
This column has been reluctant to jump to conclusions about the regime’s economic policy preferences hoping that the evidence of failure of state-owned enterprises in Nigeria is so compelling that no regime interested in development could countenance a return to that failed model of development. But on the other hand, the evidence is now mounting, and only naïve optimism would prevent reaching that conclusion. The regime as we pointed out in the first part has reversed privatisation of the refineries and steel complexes without articulating a fresh process of privatisation. It has not carried out any privatisation of its own, and has also attempted to reverse the privatisation of NITEL and NICON Insurance, and to license NIGCOMSAT as a mainstream telecommunications operator.
In the case of PHCN however, this step actually contradicts the regime’s only touted achievement-the rule of law! If there was one reform that the Obasanjo regime carried out scrupulously in line with the rule of law, it was the power sector reforms. Indeed it was the non-passage of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act between 2001 and 2005 that stalled the power sector reforms, and ensured that the reforms were still on-going when Yar’adua came to power. There is no provision in that law (which is an Act of the National Assembly) for a coordinating committee for PHCN. The law mandates the privatisation of the 11 electricity distributing companies and 6 power generating companies by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and that process was already in play even before May 29, 2007. The appointment of that committee is not only illegal, it is patently retrogressive and may be the final confirmation that for whatever reasons, the regime is opposed to a private sector-led development.
I do not know how many Nigerians noticed a report in THISDAY of Sunday June 1, 2008, (titled “Private Sector Incursion into Education Faulty, Says Kingibe) in which the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babagana Kingibe reportedly “identified the incursion of the private sector into education as one of the mistakes of the reforms of the sector”. In a speech at the Obafemi Awolowo University on Friday May, 30, Kingibe attributed the present sorry state of the country’s educational system to this “incursion” and claimed that “the incursion had brought increasing gap between the cost and quality of education provided by the public and private sectors”. One can only hope and pray that Kingibe was misquoted or else we will see another major retrogressive attempt to expel the private sector from the educational sector within the next few months.
When the anti-private sector momentum is fully unleashed no sector should imagine itself immune-private telecommunications providers may still have many fights ahead of them. The attack will masquerade as concerns over quality or cost of service or some other subterfuge, but the real objective may be to re-establish state control in the sector; private broadcasting-radio and television, private airlines, banking industry consolidation, oil and gas, mining, ports concessioning etc may sooner than later be rolled back into the hands of the state.
It is also beginning to appear that when the President speaks about “planning” he is actually talking about a state-planned economy. Several months back, the president’s Chief Economic Adviser spoke about a return to the National Development Plans that were the Nigerian economic management model in the 1960s and 1970s, and that were the hallmark of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, India and other communist and third-world economies. It is also true that countries like Japan and Singapore relied on heavy state planning in the context of capitalist state planning, but the whole of the world has since recognised the best role of the state. China led the communist world towards deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation and the entire communist world with the exception of North Korea, Cuba and perhaps Venezuela have departed from such thinking. It is amazing that Nigeria in 2008 is contemplating a return to such economic planning.
Agbaje is Senior Consultant/CEO of Resources and Trust Company (RTC), a Strategy, Consultancy and Business Advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the group’s policy, government and political consulting division.
Since then, the President has taken the welcome step of coming out to articulate his views about his government’s achievements (or lack of it) on several fronts-including an interview with the Financial Times of London, and an interview with a panel of journalists led by John Momoh of Channels TV. In all these interviews, the President repeated at every opportunity his achievement in the area of rule of law and explained that he had spent the last one year “planning” the activities the regime would engage in over the next few years. The interviews did not communicate much that was specific about the outcome of these plans beyond promising Nigerians “exciting times” in the next 365 days. Nigerians could of course do no more than exercise faith and optimism that those exciting times would materialise soon, and that the excitement would be of a positive nature.
I must say that the portents do not appear very enticing however. I say this because in the same period, the regime announced the most retrogressive policy statement perhaps in the last decade! This was the policy announcing the constitution of a board for the PHCN which beyond the subterfuge amounted simply to the re-introduction of NEPA. If there was any doubt about what the regime had just done, it appointed a former NEPA managing director as CEO in the new team. The implication of that action is a rejection of a private sector framework for resolution of Nigeria’s power supply problems in favour of a state-controlled national power utility. I interpret the hogwash about the team ‘preparing PHCN for privatisation’ simply as an attempt to cloud the reality of another major policy reversal from the Nigerian people, and perhaps from our development partners.
This column has been reluctant to jump to conclusions about the regime’s economic policy preferences hoping that the evidence of failure of state-owned enterprises in Nigeria is so compelling that no regime interested in development could countenance a return to that failed model of development. But on the other hand, the evidence is now mounting, and only naïve optimism would prevent reaching that conclusion. The regime as we pointed out in the first part has reversed privatisation of the refineries and steel complexes without articulating a fresh process of privatisation. It has not carried out any privatisation of its own, and has also attempted to reverse the privatisation of NITEL and NICON Insurance, and to license NIGCOMSAT as a mainstream telecommunications operator.
In the case of PHCN however, this step actually contradicts the regime’s only touted achievement-the rule of law! If there was one reform that the Obasanjo regime carried out scrupulously in line with the rule of law, it was the power sector reforms. Indeed it was the non-passage of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act between 2001 and 2005 that stalled the power sector reforms, and ensured that the reforms were still on-going when Yar’adua came to power. There is no provision in that law (which is an Act of the National Assembly) for a coordinating committee for PHCN. The law mandates the privatisation of the 11 electricity distributing companies and 6 power generating companies by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and that process was already in play even before May 29, 2007. The appointment of that committee is not only illegal, it is patently retrogressive and may be the final confirmation that for whatever reasons, the regime is opposed to a private sector-led development.
I do not know how many Nigerians noticed a report in THISDAY of Sunday June 1, 2008, (titled “Private Sector Incursion into Education Faulty, Says Kingibe) in which the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babagana Kingibe reportedly “identified the incursion of the private sector into education as one of the mistakes of the reforms of the sector”. In a speech at the Obafemi Awolowo University on Friday May, 30, Kingibe attributed the present sorry state of the country’s educational system to this “incursion” and claimed that “the incursion had brought increasing gap between the cost and quality of education provided by the public and private sectors”. One can only hope and pray that Kingibe was misquoted or else we will see another major retrogressive attempt to expel the private sector from the educational sector within the next few months.
When the anti-private sector momentum is fully unleashed no sector should imagine itself immune-private telecommunications providers may still have many fights ahead of them. The attack will masquerade as concerns over quality or cost of service or some other subterfuge, but the real objective may be to re-establish state control in the sector; private broadcasting-radio and television, private airlines, banking industry consolidation, oil and gas, mining, ports concessioning etc may sooner than later be rolled back into the hands of the state.
It is also beginning to appear that when the President speaks about “planning” he is actually talking about a state-planned economy. Several months back, the president’s Chief Economic Adviser spoke about a return to the National Development Plans that were the Nigerian economic management model in the 1960s and 1970s, and that were the hallmark of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, India and other communist and third-world economies. It is also true that countries like Japan and Singapore relied on heavy state planning in the context of capitalist state planning, but the whole of the world has since recognised the best role of the state. China led the communist world towards deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation and the entire communist world with the exception of North Korea, Cuba and perhaps Venezuela have departed from such thinking. It is amazing that Nigeria in 2008 is contemplating a return to such economic planning.
Agbaje is Senior Consultant/CEO of Resources and Trust Company (RTC), a Strategy, Consultancy and Business Advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the group’s policy, government and political consulting division.
A Vote for Clinton-Obama Part 2
In the first part of this article back in January, I in effect issued a joint endorsement of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The basic argument back then was that I sought to encourage not an “either-or” approach to the emerging Clinton-Obama dilemma facing the US Democratic Party, but a “win-win” combinatorial strategy in which the Democrats sought to put both candidates on the ticket. However I preferred to see Hillary at the top of the ticket as nominee with Obama as running-mate and future presidential candidate. In spite of all that has happened since then (with it becoming clearer that Obama might eventually emerge as the democratic nominee), I remain convinced that the sensible decision for the democrats would have been on the lines argued in that article.
In the article, I wrote as follows, “So if either democratic front-runner becomes President, he or she will be setting a major record in American politics and will be redefining assumptions about US political practices and culture-either way a minority president, whether female or African-American. Now can’t we have two for the price of one? Can’t we have a President Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Barack Obama and make it an event of multiple historical proportions-a first female president, who will also be a first former first lady to be elected Senator and then President, and who will be elected on a ticket that produces the first African-American Vice-President who can then go ahead to become President subsequently! The icing on the cake will of course be that we then have Bill Clinton back in the driving seat of American politics with the panache and excitement that goes with it! For me, this would be a dream scenario.”
I like Barack Obama, indeed I have been greatly inspired by his confidence, charisma and intellect. Its amazing that the African-American son of a Kenyan immigrant and white American mother would at just 46 years be a US Senator, and just on the brink of becoming the candidate of the Democratic Party for Presidency. His ascension to that office would be a truly revolutionary event in American politics, and not just as some argue for the symbolism. It would indicate, just like J.F Kennedy’s election in the 1960s another generational shift in US politics but more importantly signal a major shift in mind-sets as well in America that may lead to perhaps some change in global perceptions on race and ideology. I have no doubt that he would be a better leader than George Bush, and may even be a more charismatic communicator than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or even J.F Kennedy. It would be an excellent development if Obama were to win the Presidency in November.
On the other hand, I love Hillary Clinton as well. I believe Hillary will be a fantastic President. She is tough, competent, focused, driven and extremely intelligent. She has stronger economic, foreign relations and national security credentials than Obama, and she is better prepared for the actual job of running the United States. But she will never possess the communication skills, empathy and common touch that her husband and Obama have in such abundance. Moreover she is fiercely hated by conservative America and the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party regards Hillary as a more formidable opponent than Obama, and Republican Party strategy, money and media power may have been mobilised to assist Obama secure the democratic nomination in the calculation (which may yet turn out wrong) that McCain will easily beat Obama.
We have heard for instance of Republicans registering to vote in Democratic primaries as part of the “Stop Hillary” campaign. We wonder at the relative ease with which Obama raises millions of dollars while Hillary has to put her personal money into the campaign. The media has been particularly nasty towards Hillary and it does appear her campaign’s complaints of her ill-treatment by the media are not unfounded. The Republican establishment lives in mortal dread of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, fearing her liberal ideologue and stubborn intellect and will do whatever it takes to prevent her running in the general elections. On the other hands, the Republicans believe they can handle Obama in the general elections. They will raise fears about his race, religion, his African and Muslim parentage, his willingness to talk to Iran and Syria, his relative national security and economic inexperience, everything and will not be afraid to play dirty.
And as I argued in the January article, McCain himself will not be a push-over! I wrote then before he secured the nomination, “Senator McCain in particular is very experienced and hugely popular with American voters and will be a more formidable opponent for any Democratic nominee”. It was based on these contextual analysis that I felt the more strategic (rather than emotional) response from the democrats would have been to push a joint Clinton-Obama ticket with Hillary at the top of the ticket. Hillary has no serious vulnerabilities that the Republicans can exploit. She is a known quantity with the American voters. She has stronger economic credentials than McCain and is no neophyte on defence and national security which is McCain’s assumed forte. Moreover I believed Obama’s message of change can still be accommodated (afterall voting a female President is also quite revolutionary, especially with an African-American vice) within a Clinton-Obama ticket.
And Obama is only 46 while Hillary is 60. After two terms of a Hillary Presidency, Obama will only be 54, and ready for two terms as President in his own right! Anyway in spite of my arguments, the Democrats (assisted by Republicans!) appear to have chosen Obama as their nominee, but the (now) Obama-Clinton argument is still valid, even though it is less clear that Hillary would want to be vice-president to Barack Obama, or that Obama will feel comfortable with a strong personality like her as his deputy. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party big-wigs must keep the door open to this possibility. As I argued before, “the combination of the experience and policy know-how that Hillary commands, and her strong ties with the democratic establishment through her husband, and Obama’s message of change and bi-partisanship which has resonated loudly with Americans of all races, classes and ages will be a formidable ticket and is more likely to defeat McCain”.
Agbaje is Senior Consultant/CEO of Resources and Trust Company (RTC), a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the group’s policy, government and political consultancy division.
In the article, I wrote as follows, “So if either democratic front-runner becomes President, he or she will be setting a major record in American politics and will be redefining assumptions about US political practices and culture-either way a minority president, whether female or African-American. Now can’t we have two for the price of one? Can’t we have a President Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Barack Obama and make it an event of multiple historical proportions-a first female president, who will also be a first former first lady to be elected Senator and then President, and who will be elected on a ticket that produces the first African-American Vice-President who can then go ahead to become President subsequently! The icing on the cake will of course be that we then have Bill Clinton back in the driving seat of American politics with the panache and excitement that goes with it! For me, this would be a dream scenario.”
I like Barack Obama, indeed I have been greatly inspired by his confidence, charisma and intellect. Its amazing that the African-American son of a Kenyan immigrant and white American mother would at just 46 years be a US Senator, and just on the brink of becoming the candidate of the Democratic Party for Presidency. His ascension to that office would be a truly revolutionary event in American politics, and not just as some argue for the symbolism. It would indicate, just like J.F Kennedy’s election in the 1960s another generational shift in US politics but more importantly signal a major shift in mind-sets as well in America that may lead to perhaps some change in global perceptions on race and ideology. I have no doubt that he would be a better leader than George Bush, and may even be a more charismatic communicator than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or even J.F Kennedy. It would be an excellent development if Obama were to win the Presidency in November.
On the other hand, I love Hillary Clinton as well. I believe Hillary will be a fantastic President. She is tough, competent, focused, driven and extremely intelligent. She has stronger economic, foreign relations and national security credentials than Obama, and she is better prepared for the actual job of running the United States. But she will never possess the communication skills, empathy and common touch that her husband and Obama have in such abundance. Moreover she is fiercely hated by conservative America and the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party regards Hillary as a more formidable opponent than Obama, and Republican Party strategy, money and media power may have been mobilised to assist Obama secure the democratic nomination in the calculation (which may yet turn out wrong) that McCain will easily beat Obama.
We have heard for instance of Republicans registering to vote in Democratic primaries as part of the “Stop Hillary” campaign. We wonder at the relative ease with which Obama raises millions of dollars while Hillary has to put her personal money into the campaign. The media has been particularly nasty towards Hillary and it does appear her campaign’s complaints of her ill-treatment by the media are not unfounded. The Republican establishment lives in mortal dread of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, fearing her liberal ideologue and stubborn intellect and will do whatever it takes to prevent her running in the general elections. On the other hands, the Republicans believe they can handle Obama in the general elections. They will raise fears about his race, religion, his African and Muslim parentage, his willingness to talk to Iran and Syria, his relative national security and economic inexperience, everything and will not be afraid to play dirty.
And as I argued in the January article, McCain himself will not be a push-over! I wrote then before he secured the nomination, “Senator McCain in particular is very experienced and hugely popular with American voters and will be a more formidable opponent for any Democratic nominee”. It was based on these contextual analysis that I felt the more strategic (rather than emotional) response from the democrats would have been to push a joint Clinton-Obama ticket with Hillary at the top of the ticket. Hillary has no serious vulnerabilities that the Republicans can exploit. She is a known quantity with the American voters. She has stronger economic credentials than McCain and is no neophyte on defence and national security which is McCain’s assumed forte. Moreover I believed Obama’s message of change can still be accommodated (afterall voting a female President is also quite revolutionary, especially with an African-American vice) within a Clinton-Obama ticket.
And Obama is only 46 while Hillary is 60. After two terms of a Hillary Presidency, Obama will only be 54, and ready for two terms as President in his own right! Anyway in spite of my arguments, the Democrats (assisted by Republicans!) appear to have chosen Obama as their nominee, but the (now) Obama-Clinton argument is still valid, even though it is less clear that Hillary would want to be vice-president to Barack Obama, or that Obama will feel comfortable with a strong personality like her as his deputy. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party big-wigs must keep the door open to this possibility. As I argued before, “the combination of the experience and policy know-how that Hillary commands, and her strong ties with the democratic establishment through her husband, and Obama’s message of change and bi-partisanship which has resonated loudly with Americans of all races, classes and ages will be a formidable ticket and is more likely to defeat McCain”.
Agbaje is Senior Consultant/CEO of Resources and Trust Company (RTC), a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the group’s policy, government and political consultancy division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)