President Goodluck Jonathan was reported to have stated at the Presidential Inauguration Lecture delivered by Professor Ladipo Adamolekun just before his inauguration on May 29 that in his view, four years was too short to achieve transformation. The statement was unexpected from a president just elected overwhelmingly on a mandate of “transformation” and upon whom Nigerians had invested hopes for national renewal. Jonathan has now in effect launched a campaign to persuade the National Assembly, the political elite, State Governors and legislatures on the desirability of a constitutional amendment to extend the tenure of the President and Governors from the current four to between five and seven years with no prospect of second terms.
I have since been bewildered as I pondered how the president and his advisers considered this issue his most important policy and legislative priority? Even though I would prefer to believe the president’s assertion that he doesn’t intend benefitting from the proposed change, the question remains why this matter occupies such elevated position on the president’s agenda? And the wisdom, from the point of view of strategy, of the president personally making the case; the consequence been that Jonathan has squandered political capital so early in his term on a debate of at best doubtful value! This column, as well as many other commentators and stakeholders have spent time articulating an agenda for the Jonathan administration covering power, transportation, infrastructure, economic diversification, unemployment and poverty, education and health, housing mortgage and land reform etc-did anyone identify extended presidential and gubernatorial single tenures as an important national imperative?
Beyond misplaced priorities, the case being made for longer tenures appears shallow and simplistic!!! The logic advanced is that extending presidential and governorship tenures would reduce cost and ferocious competition associated with four-year electoral cycles and allow office holders focus on performance without re-election worries. These arguments do not stand much scrutiny! The 2007 elections, probably the worst in Nigeria’s chequered democratic history was conducted by ex-President Obasanjo who wasn’t a candidate. Yet it was a “do-or-die” matter because like all incumbents, Obasanjo was interested in his succession! So were ex-Governors Gbenga Daniel, Bukola Saraki and Ali Modu Sherriff of Ogun, Kwara and Borno states respectively in the last governorship elections even though they weren’t contestants, having served mandatory two terms. The point is, in corrupt political systems (particularly), departing incumbents and parties remain interested in succession irrespective of whether specific individuals are running!
The prospect of exclusion from political power for five to seven years may in fact have the unintended consequence of making intra and inter-party competition for political power a more deadly fight-to-finish! The knowledge that another opportunity is only four years away moderates desperation to win elections at all cost. I worry also about the consequences of electing a wrong governor or president! The electorate is condemned to five, six or seven years of drift and stagnation once it makes the error of electing a wrong leader. Given that most Nigerians regard most of those they have elected as failures in office, I wonder whether they have any reason to project that giving longer non-renewable terms will make a positive difference. The more likely consequence is that a corrupt, incompetent or irresponsible leader with has no prospect of re-election will become totally irredeemable, lacking no incentive to attempt better performance. In my view, six or seven years of mis-governance may amount to a generational calamity!!!
In a yet-developing democracy, rife with corruption, self-aggrandisement and unaccountable leadership, this proposal is likely to weaken, rather than strengthen our democracy! Leaders will get more insulated from the voters; the electorate will further lose “power” over their rulers; and elected officers will become near monarchs! The proposal assumes that the over-riding motivation for seeking political office in Nigeria is the quest for service, with the political system and elections being a distraction rather than the other way round! Most Nigerians will for good reason, contest such an assumption. The truth appears to be that many seek office for pecuniary gain, and may simply appropriate the gains of longer tenures in cash, rather than focused service. A truly committed leader would excel in four years, and the voters will reward him with a second term as they did for Fashola in Lagos.
I concede however that there may be need to debate the more comprehensive proposals contained in the draft 1995 Constitution (which never became law) which recognised six geo-political zones; created the offices of President, Vice-President, Prime-Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister; created five-year single terms for president and governors; recognised the principles of zoning and rotation of political offices among geo-political zones and senatorial districts; created a 30-year transition period for such zoning and rotation to operate; created a process to ensure succession from the same zone in the event of succession or death of an incumbent; and recommended proportional “all-party” governments to eliminate the “winner-takes-all” system which is the real cause of deadly political competition. Even though these proposals emerge from the “national cake sharing” paradigm of the Nigerian nation, they are worth re-examining to see if they offer any value.
No comments:
Post a Comment