|
What Kind Of Change Does America Want & What Change Can She Get In The 2008 Election? By Dr. Wumi Akintide The simple answer is very little, because most candidates promise change as a rule, but once elected, what they bring is either worse or purely cosmetic box shuffling at best. So if I have to choose between candidates promising change or experience, nine times out of ten, I will choose experience. Why? Because experience is nearly always the best teacher, and any change not anchored on experience is really a gamble. A wise nation will not choose her leaders based on the promise of change alone, but on experience. If an Hausa man or woman in Nigeria is very sick, and you offer her a potion that could instantly cure her sickness, the next question he or she will ask you, is whether or not you have suffered the same illness and using the same potion to get a cure. If your answer is "No", he or she will not accept your offer. The Hausas as a group more often that not take that position, because they value experience that has been tested and proved. Having lived and worked in God's own country for long as I have, I continue to be amazed and impressed by how seriously American voters take their elections. That was one reason I struggled so hard to pursue my naturalization the very day I qualified to apply for citizenship. I don't care what anyone may say about American Democracy and the way it is practiced, even with all its imperfections and foibles, it still remains the best any where in the world when all is said and done. I can say that not because I am a sell-out as some among my readers would conclude. I am saying so, because it is the truth. Capitalism and Free Market despite their shortcomings have trounced Communism. That is why the Soviet Union lost the cold war, and that is the reason Deng Xiao Ping, the Chinese leader had no qualms incorporating into the Chinese communist ideology some elements of Capitalism and openness that are now working for China in a way the West can no longer deny or ignore. I would be the first to admit that the American Presidential system is very expensive, and may be difficult for many third world countries like ours to want to adopt. That is why countries like India, Pakistan, the State of Israel and some other countries around the world have adopted the variations of the Westminster Parliamentary system in Britain and some parts of Europe. I took advantage of my postgraduate studies at the Center fort Management Development at Cambridge and the Royal Institute of Public Administration, Mabledon Place London in the 70s and 80s to do an in-depth analysis of the British Parliamentary system and the American Presidential system. My analysis has confirmed that the Presidential system is by far more sophisticated, more complicated and expensive. The research has clearly underscored some in-built contradictions like the Electoral College abracadabra in America which stipulates that a candidate can lose the popular vote by as much as a million vote like we saw in Albert Gore's score card in the Year 2000 against George Bush, and still lose the election on the Electoral College presumption. That is part of the element that makes the American presidential system to often sound like the mathematical formulation in a Marriage which says that one plus one is one regardless of whether or not the holy matrimony or civil union, as they in America, is between two consenting adults of the same sex. America seems to have carried the whole concept of freedom into its absurd limits, by allowing many of its component states to feel free to adopt gay marriages, even though gay marriage per se is officially banned under Federal Statute which takes precedence over State laws in the event of a conflict. When you factor in those idiosyncrasies of the American presidential system, it is understandable why some other countries around the world are reluctant to embrace or jump into the bandwagon of the American system for fear of becoming another Sodom and Gomorrah as stated in the Holy Scriptures . The few countries that have adopted the American system like Nigeria and, South Africa to mention a few, have done so with some circumspection, taking pains to explain why their own presidential system is not a carbon copy of the American system. Yes, they share the principle of "We The People", and that men are created equal and free but are still every where in chains put on them by their fellow human beings. That said, I want to address myself in this periscope column to what I see as the beauty of the American system and how the three tiers of Government namely the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary despite their separation of powers, do try to work together in a symbiosis you will rarely find in most third world countries around the world. Another observation that separates the American system is the role of the fourth Estate of the Realm, meaning the Press and the News Media and their growing power and leverage in information dissemination since the good old days of J. F. Kennedy. The Media were far more restrained in probing the privacies of public figures. There followed a drastic change beginning from the Richard Nixon era of Watergate break-in, till now when any politician's life has now become an open book. I have been watching the various debates by the candidates struggling to get their Party nomination in the Primaries of the two major political parties in America. Electioneering campaign now starts in both Parties almost two years before the election, is significant, and we have read of candidates like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to mention a few, starting their quest for the presidency have actually spent a life time trying to position themselves for the Presidency, and what they would want to do, if elected. The situation is a far cry from Nigeria where a candidate who does not have any core values or position on any issues concerning the nation can be foisted on the people just like that and elected a president in less than six months of his declaring his candidacy. Nigerians are just getting to know our new President, just like happened with Shehu Shagari whose life ambition was to run for the Senate, way back in 1979 , if the choice were left to him alone. He found himself catapulted to the presidency kicking and screaming, all the way to the State House in Lagos. He had little or no idea of what to make of his new office. He had to rely mainly on praise singers whose only interest was to tell the President what they thought he wanted to hear, and to keep him far away from the realities of the country. since they knew he had no agenda of his own on what it was he wanted to accomplish as President. The rule in Nigeria is "elect him first and he will learn on the job as he goes along". It is the worst way to govern a country, but who will bell the cat is the question? Nobody! Neither Shehu Shagari nor Olusegun Obasanjo or our current President Shehu Musa Yar Adua was ever called upon to debate each or all of their opponents and to tell the whole nation their manifesto, how they intend to govern, their priorities and methodology. The Party that nominated them need not worry about putting together a party platform beyond telling the nation that they represent the majority and that keeping Nigeria one is a task that must be done, as if keeping Nigeria one was going to bring food to the table or provide gainful employment to several millions of Nigeria who find it difficult to eat three square meals a day. In 1999 the Nigerian press working together did make some concerted efforts to have the two major candidates ,of the NRC and the SDP, namely Obasanjo and Olu Falae face off each other in a television debate. Olu Falae, an alumnus of Yale University and a former Secretary to Government showed up ready to convince the whole nation about his fitness for office. Olusegun Obasanjo waited till the last minute to inform the moderators he had to travel out of country due to some last minute commitment, but he had checked himself into a room at the NICONGA HILTON at Abuja, leaving Olu Falae to debate an empty chair. Left to Obasanjo, it was a waste of his time bringing him to debate Olu Falae. He believed he has already won the election, even before a single vote was cast. "Bi o ti e dibo o ti wo le" That was Obasanjo's mind set. He confirmed the same scenario, 8 years later, when he single-handedly masterminded the election of Yar Adua in a charade of an election, working in collaboration with Professor Maurice Iwu in a day light robbery of the peoples' mandate Such a charade of an election hardly ever occurs in God's own country. I am not saying the elections in America are perfect. Not by a long shot. There could be election malpractice's here and there, but never at the same scale or magnitude we all witnessed in Nigeria where a Deputy governor was caught red-handed stuffing ballot boxes, and running away with them in broad day light, with his security detail offering him all the cover he needed to get away without anybody lifting a finger. Only in Nigeria! Despite the recognition that American politics is far superior to ours in Nigeria, one can still find some problems here and there that deserve more articulation that could better inform the voters of America and from which their Nigerian counterparts could also learn some useful lessons. Some have argued that the next Presidential election in 2008 has now come down to a choice between Change and Experience. Change as represented by the new comers like Barack Obama and John Edwards and Experience as represented by Hilary Clinton. if you ever think that the debate is as clear-cut as that, you just don't know America. I don't see any kind of change that Baarack Obama can bring to this nation, beyond being the first black ever to be elected President. If he can claim that to be a major change, so can Hillary Clinton who will be coming into office, as the first female President in the history of America. If the word "change" is such a magic word, how come john Edwards was only able to serve a term of six years in the US Senate? What kind of changes was able to bring to the Senate in the six years he was there? How come he lost the seat to a Republican after quitting the Senate to run as Vice President nominee with John Kerry in South Carolina? How come his candidacy could not win South Carolina for John Kerry at the same election? That he recorded some legal victories as an attorney representing certain individuals or interest groups in his home base of South Carolina, does not mean he can repeat the same feat as President. The American system is so deeply rooted and grounded that an Obama or a John Edward presidency cannot do much, no matter how much they try. The Democrats narrowly won the 2006 elections but not with a majority large enough for them to be able to overrule the veto pen of the President. They just don't have the 67 minimum votes required to overrule a presidential veto. For them to pass any legislation they have got to secure some Republican votes to do so. it takes a lot of experience and working across party lines to make that happen Those who are today blaming the new Democrat majority in the Senate for not being able to do much, just don't have a clue as to how the Senate works in America. You can say all you want about bringing change, if you lack the experience to make it happen, forget it. When American voters say they want a change, it is not a change to amend the American Constitution which has more or less become the eighth wonder of the world by how well it has served the nation for over 200 years with only a few benchmark amendments.. The American founding fathers were super men who had put such a great document together, to begin with. Obama and John Edwards say they are not going to ever take money from lobbyists and would not allow them undue influence in Government affair. I say "easier said than done". The capitalist system is founded and predicated on the input and contributions of lobbyists, and that is not about to change any time soon, regardless of what Obama and Edwards may be saying. The nation will be taking a big risk to entrust the destiny of the country to relatively inexperienced politicians, based on some audacity of hope. . What is needed is Leadership qualities like those some of the candidates like Hillary and Guilliani and even Mit Romney, John McCain and lately Senator Thompson have been talking about and are beginning to articulate. What Hillary is promising is far more realistic and doable than what Obama and Edwards are suggesting. If there is going to be any change, it is going to be small or incremental at best, but it is not going to change any of the fundamentals of American Politics. You better believe that That a candidate receives contributions or support from the rich and influential interest groups like the Unions and Wall Street and Multi nationals like the famous Drug and Oil industries across the nation, does not mean they are necessarily going to be their captive. Ronald Reagan had overwhelming support for his victory in his second term, but he had no qualms cutting down to size the Labor Unions and some of the interest groups that voted him into office. The name of the game is leadership anchored on Experience, and that is what the nation expects, and that is what is going to inform the victory of Hillary Clinton at the polls come November 2008. The real change is that many of the draconian policies of the current Administration which have put the nation in total jeopardy, are going to be modified, where needed, and American reputation and image restored back to the "status quo ante Bellum" by a peace time president who knows how to lead and how to get the job done without antagonizing the rest of the world, left, right and center. Hillary to me is that kind of President, and that is why she is going to win big in 2008. I rest my case. Dr. Wumi Akintide
|