|
How not to choose the president By Chido Onumah
Since the demise of the third term agenda, comments on the “qualities” of the successor to President Obasanjo have become animated. Two interesting contributions – from the president and Senator David Mark – have dominated the headlines lately. Let’s look at the arguments. First, the president’s. Some people were of the opinion that Obasanjo wanted to extend his tenure because he is “corrupt and afraid to let his acts of corruption catch up with him” when he leaves office. Now that he has been compelled to say he is not going to stay beyond 2007, will he look for a successor who will defend his interest?
There have been conflicting stories on where the president stands on the question of his successor. We have read reports that he had directed a thorough search for his successor among governors from the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Earlier in the month, the president was reported to have said he would not hand over to his enemies. That is anybody who has “sabotaged” his government at any point in the last seven years.
President Obasanjo obviously doesn’t want to hand over to anybody who would wipe off his achievements. The president, we are told, came to this conclusion based on his experience in 1979 when the civilian government that took over from him undermined “all the legacies of his military regime”. Obasanjo provided what looked like a clarification of his position during the 12th Nigeria Economic Summit in Abuja two weeks ago.
According to the president, “producing the
occupant of the highest office in the country was a serious business that
required adequate preparation”. Obasanjo likened the presidency to a
marathon and in his characteristic mordant wit declared: “you cannot start
running a marathon without preparation: individual preparation, collective
preparation, certain amount of discipline, certain amount of learning the
ropes. If you go to my village and say you are bringing out somebody who
will run a marathon, he will be a failure because he has been brought up
all his life on eba, garri; eba, garri. He may have to do some training
and exercise and all that. A lot will depend on it, for all the members of
the team of the relay”.
David Mark is a “business entrepreneur” and senator of the Federal Republic. Not too long ago he was a general in the Nigerian Army, governor of Niger State and minister of communications. Recently, he granted an interview in which he declared: “If I have my way, I will say whoever does not have a military background should not be made president.” His reason: “civilians don’t have the requisite training.” According to David Mark, there is nothing like serving in the military. Even journalists should undergo military training, he admonished: “It gives you the confidence that you need and makes you to be everything. Today, I know about my car more than my driver does. I can do more repairs on it and so on. That is one of the things we were trained on in the military. We are well trained more than other people. I can tell you that a staff sergeant in the army is better than a university graduate in this country. That is the truth. If you give me a graduate and a staff sergeant, I will pick the sergeant because I can train the sergeant. Yes, because military training is the best. That training gives you boldness. You people think we are just zombies”. Using the U.S. as an example, Mark contended that it was wrong for anybody to deny him the opportunity to rule Nigeria simply because he was once a soldier. My dear senator and retired general, nobody says you can’t aspire to the highest position in the land because you were once a “professional” soldier. The constitution – the same one you and your fellow officers throw away like used tissue when you seize power – guarantees that right. If people are opposed to the retired generals syndrome (RGS) in Nigerian politics, it is because of their genuine concerns for the future of the country and the dissatisfaction arising from years of misrule by our generals, many of whom can’t distinguish between a battlefield and a football field. Nigeria is in a mess today because the likes of David Mark have always had their way. Mark was one of the senators who supported the bill that sought to give President Obasanjo another term in office. That bill was thrown out by his discerning colleagues. Mark was quite visible during the reign of the Gen. Ibrahim Babangida. He was one of the few officers alleged to have played a prominent role in the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. We all know the outcome of that treacherous act. As minister of communications in the late 80s, Mark berated Nigerian students for protesting the increase in the price of petroleum products. His reason: not many students owned cars. Just because Mark wants to make a case for himself and his superiors, he loses all sense of reason, logic and history. Nigeria gained independence in 1960. The military – once described by a forthright general as “an army of anything goes” – has been in power for 29 years, 36 years actually if you add the current president who is a retired general. Why haven’t these generals used their so-called training and discipline of the barracks in managing the affairs of the country? Nigerians would love to know from Mark how many U.S. soldier-presidents have been accused of stealing money and transferring it to banks overseas? The current state of the country is not only an indictment of the military but a sufficient reason to exclude any general from coming anywhere near the presidency. Enough of David Mark’s inanities! It is great that the president is speaking out on the type of person he would like to succeed him. The danger with the president’s position, however, is that he is sounding less like a democrat and more and more like a military despot. The more I hear rhetoric like “the past, the track record will be considered. And you do not just change over night. A man that is bad is bad. Conversion à la Paul on the way to Damascus does not always happen”, the more I sense that the next president of Nigerian will be selected rather than elected. When you listen to the president, the feeling you get is that Nigeria is a family business. Certainly, it does appear so from the standpoint of the PDP. A few days ago, the Guardian reported that leaders of the party in the North-West zone had called on the national leadership to respect a 1999 agreement that power will return to the north in 2007. If there was an agreement amongst PDP leaders in 1999, where does that leave the rest of the country? If the PDP honours this agreement, it does mean that the party will produce the next president no matter what happens at the polls.
The president ought to know that his responsibility is to hand over to the winner of the next presidential election. This is a democracy and the most important thing in a democracy is due process. And that process involves citizens going out to cast their votes for the candidates of their choice. It also involves the ability of citizens to change these candidates when they fall below expectation.
Mr. President, the most important rule in this marathon is that everyone who is “qualified” is allowed to participate in the race. The constitution has set the limits. Let Nigerians elect their president in an open, free and fair election.
If you are looking for a legacy to bequeath, nothing could be more rewarding.
|