|
Preview on Nigeria’s Open Political Field By Emman Ozoemena
For those who can hear very well, the drumbeat signaling the 2007 election is increasing in tempo each passing day. The signs of impending elections usually characterised by electioneering campaigns, political activities are in the air across the country. For most citizens, the ubiquitous posters of aspirants, media appearances, and visits to communities by vote seeking politicians are indicators for the approaching elections. Just like the hoof beats of horses in war times, the harder the noise, the more obvious it is for to see that it is yet another election year.
Though in the midst of all these some die-hard pessimists and non-tough minded optimists and if you may merchants of crises are busy inventing web and spins that casts doubts over possibility of an elections next year. Some months ago, new fears crept into the nation’s political circles under different euphemisms. They were crafted by professionals who know how to stalk fear in the system.
Just after the third term imbroglio failed the Interim National Government (ING) hoax surfaced on the nation’s political scene. Like any political currency, speculations trialed it while denials and counter-denials followed in tow. What made its rather curious then was that the alleged purveyors of ING option were men not given to idle talk. Take Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, for instance. He was associated with the ING idea. He is a serious minded fellow, though he later vehemently denied mooting such thought. I believe no progressive politician would ever fall for an inane thought as ING. Then enter Chief Sunny Okogwu, the avid public commentator. He was also reported to have canvassed for the ING idea in media report. Aside from the two, swarms of voices joined in the debate for desirability or otherwise of ING in Nigeria.
But then just like a well orchestrated drama the focus shifted to the imbroglio in the Presidency leading to PTDFgate which further polarized the polity into three identifiable camps namely, President Obasanjo Supporters, Vice President Atiku supporters and the Obasanjo-Atiku Must Resign campaigners respectively. As a follow to the PTDFgate was the EFFC Report that jolted the political landscape with every politician “taking cover” for his life as Mallam Nuhu Ribadu led anti-graft commission released damming score cards on elected public officials whom we elected to keep public trust.
Finally, the current impeachment spree that is now looms over some states where the chief executives and the lawmakers are slugging with the Judiciary waiting in the wings to either remain an unbiased arbiter or be consumed in the ambition of its members to climb to the exaltation seat of acting Chief Judge without due process. Daily, it is increasing, at the least count; scores of political actors, NGOs and campaign organizations have reportedly made their position on the issue public.
But, then we should ask; what is at the heart of the issue? What do people of Nigeria want? Does posturing of the political class and/or power elites represent the heart beat of the citizens? Are there verifiable indicators that Nigerians are ready for elections in 2007? Are members of the political class laying booby traps to truncate the process through these events coming under several guises and antics? The fear being expressed by many is that if care is not taken, the ghosts responsible for failure of the nation’s electoral process in the past to produce credible electoral process may be back to work to foist the usual “never-ending transition programme”.
It is important for us ask ourselves we want to be in next six months in our journey to democracy. This question is becoming a stark reality given the events of the recent past weeks, which has stirred up collective indignation by the citizens. What expectations would the 2007 elections deliver for the electorates? The questions are rather endless. As we review the emerging scenarios in the country against the backdrop of series of events, it is important to know that there is no choice facing the country other than make up our mind that it is the process of democracy in action.
A similar example is found in political historiography of the United States of America between 1963 and 1973. The period has been described as “the decade of tensions” in American history, similar to the civil war year during the 19th century. A recap of the US experience history may suffice. Owing to the unfortunate assassination of President John F. Kennedy in May 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, took over as President to complete his term as President. When the term ended in 1964, Johnson contested as Democratic Party’s presidential candidates and won the election. With the 1964 victory, he was elected to lead the American people for another four years ending in1968. By the provisions of United States Constitution, he was free to run for two terms of 4 years each in his own right. Though, President Johnson was eligible to run in 1968 presidential election, there was palpable tension concerning the race to the Presidency. There was suspended animation in the country; his supporters were expectant that the President would declare interest to run for a second term. But within the ruling party, the Democratic Party there was intractable internal crises. Some wanted the President to seek re-election others thought otherwise. Two camps within the party were divided along supporters of President Johnson and his ardent opponent and fellow Democrat, Senator Eugene McCarthy, who decided to put up a strong resistance to the president’s dream for a second term.
As political activities were heating up, power elites within the party in an expected move impressed on President Johnson to break his silence on the re-election bid. He equally responded in an unprecedented way, he backed down his ambition for a second term. Like any thing in nature, he lined up behind another candidate for the top job, who happened to be the brother of JFK, Senator Robert Kennedy. With this development, Robert and McCarthy, both serving senators had to slug it out at the Democratic Party’s convention slated for Chicago in the summer of 1968. But again another unexpected happened. A contender in the Democratic Party, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated in Los Angles by a young Syrian Immigrant, Sirhan Sirhan on his out of the a victory party after the California primaries, which he won. The Johnson camp reached out produced another candidate, Hubert Humphrey, the vice president.
Obviously, the Democratic Party, a battered party lost the 1968 election to Richard Nixon, the Republican Party candidate. It is important to note that Nixon has previously lost presidential election to President J.F Kennedy in 1959 presidential elections in a narrow victory the closet in the American elections. Most historiographers have rightly described the tempers of this period as “seasons of tempest” in American history.
At this point we need to need to look at the following posers: Are there lessons to learn from the American experience in managing open political field? For those who take time to study democratic movements and processes across the world one thing that stands out is that elections years in which an incumbent president is not seeking re-election is usually tension soaked. May be there are lessons to learn to take from the US experience that could help us strengthen our democracy. These lessons will enrich political practices.
For purpose of this treatise, lets brief explain the “Open Field Phenomenon”. It is simple an election year involving the incumbent president or president that has served out his term and thereby barred by the constitution from running in an election. When attempts to amend the 1999 Constitution failed on May 16, the presidency of Nigeria technically speaking became open beginning from May 27, 2006. Naturally, this is bound to create a scenario with contenders for the race to presidency work hard selling their programmes and manifestoes to Nigerians. The political firmament is filled with new tensions arising from struggles for space by legion of aspirants. This could be rightly described as politics of succession. It is common presidential system than in parliamentary system as the later do not have tenure limits on the executive positions.
In analyzing, the Nigeria’s case study, it is important to bring to the fore key factors, which according to the theory of “causes and effects” impact on each other one way or another. Philosophers over the years have argued that events most invariable the effects of some causes. Let’s briefly look at the emerging scenarios. One, Nigeria is standing at a critical stage in her political development. The outcome of 2007 elections will impact greatly on the nation’s ability to develop a democratic culture. With the army of aspirants at the national and states levels aspiring to run for elections into the various positions at executive and legislative are indicative of renewed interest and faith in the system by the people. It is equally a strong indication that democracy is on course in Nigeria. It is important to say that due to the nature of the open political field at least the incumbent president and 58% of governors are not candidates for the elections. Fresh hands are taking part in the contest. Secondly, number of aspirants in most state jostling to succeed state governors has considerably increased from what it was in 1999 and 2003 elections. Again could increase number of registered parties in the country impact on the system as per providing more platforms for aspirants? With the expanded space, do we assume that aspirants now have more platforms to run? Even though as common in most developing countries and post-transition economies, political class would want to operate largely from point of aliening with winning political party.
This account for increased competition within the ranks of ruling parties as is the case in the first and second republics, even in the present dispensation. Some time, there is the temptation to ask why most aspirants want to run on tickets of ruling party in a state or at the centre, while membership of other parties are scanty, while some are without candidates running for offices. The bandwagon effect of “join the winning party” is a common phenomenon which demands our attention as build an enduring culture of democracy.
The third scenario is the challenge of how to resolve the internal crisis and leadership tussle and fictionalization in the parties. As in United States case in 1960s, the ruling party was badly fractionalized by internal power play and intrigues. The ruling People Democratic Party (PDP) and the opposition parties are all factionalized and crises ridden. How this would impact on the polity ahead of 2007 is open to conjectures and refutations. Even the newly registered political parties, which their leaders initially were operating as private estates not exempted from internal bickering. Media reports are replete with information on the crises infested new parties.
It is not doubt that political parties in Nigeria operate poor internal governance mechanism. The leaderships are accused of arbitrarily exercise of powers, which excludes its members that are hardly consulted on key decisions. This is one area that requires serious work from the political class and the electorate if democracy would grow in the country. There is need for concert effort to ensure that parties’ leadership are accountable to their members if democracy will be deepened in Nigeria. Without mincing words, most parties were built under faulty foundations with no binding principles and ideology, and where they have its observance level is zero. This type of hollow politics concomitantly translates into what we have today, “politics driven by desire for power, not issues driven politics that seeks to either provide leadership or alternative and credible opposition. If you dare conduct a survey on the nation’s political class on the core ideology of governance, chances are that the result would be zero.
And again, I have tried to see debate in the polity by leading aspirants at all levels in the media. What came out is that most aspirants are yet to come to terms with what constitutes campaign issues; focus of development and core expectations of the people. It was funny hearing some aspirants to the presidency simply muttering the trite cliché: If elected I shall continue with Mr. President’s economic reform agenda”. A couple of weeks I chuckled while listening to a front runner presidential aspirant saying in a media interview that he intends to be committed to President Obasanjo’s economic reform agenda as if Reform Agenda is a magic wand that would sway votes to his side. These legions of aspirants cutting across political parties fail to explain to Nigerians what in real term the underlining philosophy of the economic reform.
As we get closer to the 2007 elections, it is important to note that there need for the key actors begin to learn how to manage contestations for power in such a way as to ensure that the nation comes out of this season unscathed as one indivisible entity that cares for the poor and excluded in our society. There are several lessons to learn from the US political history of the late 1960s as we approach 2007 elections.
Emman Ozoemena, a Public Policy Analyst is based in Abuja. He can be reached on ozoemman@yahoo.ca |