|
In a democracy, the constitution takes the
place of the Koran or the Bible, depending on our religious preferences.
It defines executive, legislative and judicial privileges and their
boundaries. It also encapsulates our values and culture and further
illuminates the roles of individual citizens and the media. It is a
sacred to the extent that it is beholden first and foremost, to the
people, whose duty, in fulfillment of our obligations under to the same
document, is the right to choose a leader acceptable to the greater
majority. Like in our books of faith, to violate or even disrespect the
constitution is akin to blasphemy, punishable under the laws of the
land. These are why once leaders are elected globally, they are also
sworn to an oath of office, the minimum expectation being that they must
whole-heartedly respect and abide by the constitution in all their
actions. In a democracy, leaders are supposed to be the embodiment of
truth, integrity, good conduct and above all transparency.
Democracy abhors dishonesty or deceit, and
certainly even the most minor infraction from leaders, as the late
American president Richard Nixon discovered when he was forced to resign
in 1974. Democracy, after all, is supposed to derive from the people,
by the people, and for the people. It had been so right from the days of
John Locke; it fuelled the Civil Rights movements in North America in
the 1960’s, it defied the folly of the founders of apartheid South
Africa, and has not changed even in spite of George Bush, the murderous
occupant of the White House at this very moment, who, given what had
become of the world today, might just be tempted to believe he is God.
An ideal democracy has no room for
garrison politics of the type we saw recently in the titanic battle
between the people and Olusegun Obasanjo. It frowns at rotational
presidency, and block-voting, as has been the case in many instances in
our political history, while issues, and the individual’s perception of
the economics of nationhood, rank high on the list of priorities.
Democracy has no place for warlords, or ethnic champions, and very
certainly, no roles for the likes of Lamidi Adedibu and Chris Uba. It
prohibits any form of politicking that has fear, intimidation and
inducement as defining characteristics. It rejects fiscal indiscipline
such as the non-implementation of budgets, because above all, public
funds are the people’s funds, held in trust by the leader who must also
be freely chosen by the people. It sneezes at personality cults,
because, all citizens in the social contract are supposed to have equal
rights and justice.
Therefore, because democracy sets all
these high standards for itself, it also presupposes that before people
can aspire for political leadership they must first equip themselves
with a constituency. In the same respect, there must be a natural
affinity between the leader and his constituents. The symbiotic
relationship, which often evolves thereafter, not only reflects
democracy in its finest form, it actually defines it, and no where was
that better captured than in the recent debates in the National Assembly
over the third term agenda. From the way some of the legislators spoke
and the manner their constituencies reacted, we could easily see the
difference between the leaders who were truly elected and those who were
imposed or rigged into office, and that, in truth, was hardly
surprising.
In Nigeria we have the tendency to put the
cart before the horse, and, our political primitivism finds ready
explanation in the pathetic state of the nation today. In 1999, the only
constituency Olusegun Obasanjo had apart from his chickens back in his
Ota farm where the prison inmates in Abacha’s gulag, where the military,
which was his previous constituency, had confined him after his
conviction for coup plotting. But up propped General Abdulsalami
‘Sodangi’ Abubakar to spring the man from jail after the demise of
General Abacha, and the rest quite painfully, is now history. Posterity
will recall that a badly emaciated Obasanjo was subsequently spruced up,
and, riding on the crest of public sympathy, emerged as the PDP
candidate for the presidency in 1999. The subsequent elections he won
back then was supposedly free and fair, but it was obvious even then
that the man had no proven constituency because he was roundly rejected
by his own kinsmen in the southwest who preferred his opponent Chief Olu
Falae.
In 2003, the media gobbled the myth that
the president had succeeded in luring the southwest into the mainstream
of Nigerian politics, but in reality however, nothing was further from
the truth. What the election results portrayed was that Obasanjo had
finally acquired a constituency by sweeping the southwest. But we all
know that the 2003 elections were hopelessly rigged, and in one
embarrassing instance, the number of votes cast even exceed the list of
eligible voters presented by INEC in Ogun state by 600,000!
As such, without a proven constituency,
Obasanjo tried to create his own in his image of spite and
vindictiveness. He rapidly empowered the southwest, but only succeeded
in breeding short-sighted and incompetent politicians like Olabode
George. The AD, championed by Bola Tinubu and others, as well as hordes
of the ex-governors he de-robbed in broad daylight in 2003, are spoiling
to exert their grim revenge come 2007. He actively encouraged a
north-south dichotomy through the sponsorship of regional meetings and
associations as well as the wasteful national confab, but that too
proved to be a folly when his third term dream was torpedoed by a
pan-Nigerian majority in the NASS. He exploited our religious
differences but that also backfired when even the leaders of waterside
Churches celebrated the foreclosure of the elongation of his
tenure.
And last Thursday, at an expanded caucus
meeting of the PDP, a frustrated Obasanjo reportedly told the party
faithful that the nature of a presidential democracy dictated that the
choice of their next presidential candidate should come from either the
governors or the senate. He was not doubt referring to America, which in
recent times elected Governors Reagan [California] Clinton [Arkansas],
and G. W. Bush [Texas] as presidents. But he reckoned without George
Bush senior, who as VP succeeded Ronald Reagan. Also, while he may be
partially correct, in the same presidential system, it is the party,
which is the actual custodian of ideology and core values. It is also
the party, which dictates to the president and not the other way round.
Having polluted the PDP with neophytes, sycophants and intellectual
Lilliputians since 2003, OBJ cannot lay claim to the same level of
refinement or political sophistication.
But we live in an era where garrison
politics is the order of the day; where candidates win elections even
without constituencies, while in some instances, people ‘won’ even
without being listed on the ballot. Regardless, even for a retired
General, it is obvious that OBJ must be extremely shell-shocked by the
events in the NASS penultimate week. His speeches –like on the day he
celebrated the truncation of his beloved third term agenda- and actions,
are becoming incoherent, suggesting he may lost something where it
mattered most. His revenge, which we expected anyway, came in the form
of the nuclear missile directed at IBB and Atiku’s presidential
ambitions -on the platform of the PDP at least- last Thursday.
Also last week, the EFCC, which
pussy-footed over the bribery allegations in the National Assembly on
the third term agenda, suddenly realized the need to go public with its
ongoing probe of former leaders –sans OBJ’s first tenure of course- who
opposed his tenure elongation on allegations of Corruption. That too,
was not unexpected. More of the muscle flexing will come in the coming
days and months, because, if there is one thing about OBJ, it is in the
manner of his predictability. For now though, for all practical
purposes, he remains the mischievous emperor without an empire who
continues to toy with the nation’s destiny. And, for the dangers his
antecedents poses for the entire nation, he is quite easily the most
dangerous Nigerian that ever lived.
And Bush eats his words….
Last week, American President G. W. Bush
while hosting his ally and principal accessory in the ongoing genocide
in Iraq and Afghanistan made what was surely a vindication of the
positions of the French, Germans and most of the free world before the
coalition occupation of Iraq. Immediately after 9-11, and just before
the invasion, Bush had a few choice words for his adversaries. On the
hunt for Osama Bin Laden, he commanded his troops in typical cowboy
parlance to get him “Dead or alive”. On the threats posed by the Iraqi
resistance he blurted, “Bring them on!”
Well, Bush gobbled all the words and more
last week in response to a question by a journalist on whether there was
anything he felt he could have done differently with the benefit of
hindsight. Responding, he admitted he regretted making the statements
because they tended to portray the wrong impression. The lessons of
Vietnam aside, if the man were not such a hopeless student of history,
he would have realized that once upon a time in this world, there lived
a certain Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte and
of course Adolph Hitler and we know what became of them and their
dreams.
In the meantime, for a man renowned for
his haughtiness and arrogance, digesting his own words must have come at
a huge price, but as long as Newton’s theory on gravity remains
undisputed, the humiliation will be nothing compared to the moment
Americans are forced to flee Mesopotamia or present Iraq. It happened to
Napoleon at Waterloo, Hitler at Stalingrad, and Alexander the Great in
present day Afghanistan and would surely happen to Bush or whoever
succeeds him.
|