|
Jonathan's Single Term Proposal By Anthony Akinola I write on the single-term proposal as one who believes in its necessity, even as one is equally aware that politicians can be dishonest. President Goodluck Jonathan’s proposal of a single, six year tenure for president and governor is not seminal.but significant nevertheless. The idea of a single-term enjoys informed opinion and was in fact forcefully presented to the Political Bureau established by the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida in 1986. General Olusegun Obasanjo, one honest critic of the politics of the Second Republic (1979-1983) specifically suggested a single-term of six years to the Body. The Political Bureau identified with the informed views of many Nigerians regarding the desirability of a single-term presidency in the context of the history and ethnological realities of our nation but the military leadership rejected their recommendations of a single-term of five years in favour of the existing two-terms of four years each. It is not as if the recommendation of the Political Bureau would have mattered; the transition engineered by the then military regime led to nothing! Be that as it may, the idea of a single-term executive – once or twice approved by the legislative arm of government – continues to be trumpeted by individuals and groups. A group of well-informed and well-meaning Nigerians, The Patriots ,amplified the idea as did also members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) – in the early years of the current Republic. The proposal by President Goodluck Jonathan calls for thorough debate, not least because of its importance to our democracy and our nation. Of course this proposal may not be the most pressing issue of the moment. The length of time a political leader spends in office is important. We in Africa know what its pernicious consequences could be, as elected leaders are transformed into monarchs of some sort. Presidential tenure has not been the most contentious issue in the United States of America whose constitutional arrangements inform ours. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected president in 1932, it was always assumed that the American president was conventionally limited to two terms in office. However, Roosevelt was the only American President to have spent more than two terms in office; he died in 1945 during his fourth term. His successor, Harry S Truman, established the Hoover Commission in 1947 to look into the prospect of presidential term limits. The outcome was the 22nd Amendment of 1951 which limited the American President to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years where a President had started off by completing the tenure of another. The idea of a one term presidency was however seriously considered in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The two term presidency is rationalised in political or academic argument. It is argued that a second term ensures that a hardworking President has enough time to complete his or her programmes. It also serves the purpose of rewarding hard work, as the less successful President is replaced after a term in office. These arguments resonate in Nigeria , even when native wisdom should inform us that the nature of one’s political environment is the most important consideration in all of this. The political arrangement of Switzerland , the second oldest written constitution after the USA , comes to mind here. The fact that one has been limited to a single term in office would not mean that he or she would embrace non-performance as a policy. Every individual wants to be remembered for something. In any case there is always a mechanism – impeachment, for instance, by which a pathetic President can be removed from office. There is also the political party machinery which will not go to sleep while its candidate messes up its prospects in a future election. The single-term presidency is not without its checks and balances! This writer has himself been one advocate of a single-term executive; here are the extracts from the arguments he once advanced in support of this idea “… firstly, when the Executive is not in a position to seek re-election, there will be little or no inducement to use the instrument of state to facilitate electoral fraud. This is to say that the President would be wary of any scandal that could tarnish the reputation of his administration … secondly, the President would be induced to devote more of his attention to office, rather than dissipate energy over the question of re-election. It is common knowledge that a reasonable part of the first term is devoted to seeking re-election … Thirdly, the President would be more of a father figure advancing the national interest to secure a place for himself in history. He may have been elected on the platform of a particular party, he can nevertheless afford to be non-partisan in certain circumstances … finally, a one-term provision could not but be reasonable in Nigerian society where the ethno-regional origin of the national leader would for a very long time be a major issue. It would be hypocritical not to acknowledge this (see Anthony Akinola, Rotational Presidency (1996), pp 56-57)”. The proposal by President Goodluck Jonathan should not be disregarded because of a history of leadership dishonesty. His spokesman, Dr Reuben Abati, has told us that the proposal does not seek to have a retroactive effect. It will take effect from 2015, after which Dr Goodluck Jonathan will have vacated office based on his self-proclaimed determination to serve a term of four years only. If this is the case, the law makers do not lack the knowledge of how they can craft an amendment that would give meaning to it. In fact, the proposal should be blended with the principle of “rotation”, ensuring that the presidency shifts to another region of the Nigerian federation in 2015. The leadership question remains the Nigerian national question, we saw this in the violent reactions to the presidential election in April 2011. It is the responsibility of the Nigerians of today to seek to resolve the problems of their time. |