An Analysis Of President Jonathan’s Proposed Single Six-Year Term For The President And State Governors In Nigeria

By

Dr. Emmanuel Ojameruaye

emmaojameruaye@yahoo.com

Within a few weeks after he was sworn into office on May 29, 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan (GEJ) stirred up a hornet’s nest when he came up with a proposal for a single six-year term of office for the President and State Governors in Nigeria. In the midst of strong opposition to the proposal, the President retreated but he did not give up on the idea.  In a recent media interview on Monday, September 12, 2011, he revisited the issue with a claim that a single six-year term of office is the "ONLY way to reduce unrest and stabilize the polity". He reiterated that the country cannot “withstand the tension created as a result of the tug-of-war for second term of office among politicians”. He went further to state that “the nation had never experienced a stable political climate since 1960, when it got independence” and insisted that a single six-year term was “necessary to stabilize the country and its economy”. He justified his position by saying that “As we speak, there are people holding meetings because of 2015. This creates so much tension, which the country cannot stand. The idea (i.e. of a single six-year term) is not being newly raised, it was proposed during the administration of the late President Umaru Yar’Adua”.  He then urged critics of the idea to “wait and see the provisions of the pending bill” which means that he is going ahead to present a bill to amend the constitution to pave way for a single six-year term of office for the President and Governors of the country. He was quick to add that the idea is not driven by selfish motive, i.e., to enable him secure an extension of his tenure through the back door (i.e., without an election).

If the proposed bill is presented to the National Assembly and is passed, the President and the Governors will stay in office till May 2017. Given the fact that the President was first sworn into office on May 6, 2010 following the death of President Yar’Adau on May 5, it would effectively mean that by the time he leaves office on May 29, 2017, he would have served as President for about seven years and four months (almost 8 years!) if you add the period when he was Acting President during the illness and absence of President Yar’Adua in Saudi Arabia. To counter the suspicion that the motive for the proposal is for the elongation of his tenure, the President has stated that he will not benefit from the proposed bill, which translated means that he will leave office on May 29, 2015 when his current tenure expires!  Critics do not buy this because they see it as a decoy to get the National Assembly to pass the bill, and once the bill is signed into law, the President or his cronies will go to Court for the interpretation of the law. Expectedly, the Court will rule that the seating President cannot be excluded from the law while the Governors are benefiting from it. Therefore, GEJ will be “compelled” to remain in office till May, 2017. In a country where money (“Ghana must go”) talks and decides, the National Assembly (dominated by the President’s party) is almost certain to pass the bill and the Court will most likely decide that the President cannot be excluded as a beneficiary of the law. Moreover, all the Governors who stand to benefit from the law will be more than willing to contribute handsomely to the huge “bribe” money which will be too tempting for both the legislature and judiciary to resist.

Understandably, many Nigerians are leery about the single six-year term proposal because the President has not made a convincing case in contrast to the current two four-year terms. The claim that a six-year term is the "ONLY way to reduce unrest and stabilize the polity" appears preposterous, unsubstantiated and cannot be supported by facts. Gone are the days of “tell me” in public policy. We now live in a world of “show me”, where propositions must be based on facts or empirical evidence. Therefore the President and the apostles of a single six-year term must prove that it will indeed reduce unrest and stabilize the polity based on evidence from other countries that practice a single six-year term.

The hypothesis that a single six-year term will reduce unrest and stabilize the polity cannot be sustained on the basis of cross-country data. A quick survey of presidential term limits in some 114 countries[1] shows that only two countries (Mexico and The Philippines) currently have a single six-year term for their Presidents. The vast majority of countries (62 countries or 54% of the sample) practice a two five-year terms while 17 countries (i.e. 15%) practice a two four-year terms. Six countries practice a two six-year terms, five countries practice a two seven-year terms, and another five countries practice a single five-year term. Two countries each practice the following: unlimited non-concurrent four-year term, two non-concurrent five-year terms, one four-year term, and unlimited terms. Only one country practice each of the following:  single seven-year term, unlimited non-concurrent one-year term, three four-year terms, three five-year terms and two three-year term. Taken together, only 10 out of the 114 countries practice one form of single term. Of these, five countries practice single five-year term while only two practice single six-year term. The vast majority of countries practice two or three terms of three, four, five, six and seven years. This finding is corroborated by a study based on data from the Comparative Constitution Project which concludes that “While one-term limits are relatively rare in modern era, they are nearly all found in Latin America (with most such cases allowing non-consecutive terms). In the post-Soviet and Sub-Saharan African countries, on the other hand, two-term limits are more popular, and while the post-soviet countries are split on non-successive terms, the Sub-Saharan African countries tend to explicitly prohibit such a return by the executive”.[2]

Therefore, GEJ’s proposed single six-year term is not a popular practice in world presidential democracies. If indeed a single six-year presidential term was capable of reducing unrest and stabilizing the polity, then a far greater number of countries would have adopted it. As a matter of fact, a back-of-the-envelope comparison of presidential term limits and the Political Instability Index of the 114 countries do not show any correlation[3]. The Political Instability Index table shows that of the 165 countries surveyed, Zimbabwe was on top (No. 1) in terms of political instability with a score of 8.8 points. Nigeria was at No. 44 position with a score of 7, Philippines was in No. 54 position with a score of 6.8 while Mexico was in No. 79 position with a score of 6.1. In fact, Nigeria, the Philippines and Mexico were classified under the same category of “High Risk” countries. Countries such as Ghana with two four-year terms, and Benin, Tanzania, Malawi and Mozambique all with two five-year terms and Ethiopia with two six-year terms are politically more stable than Nigeria, the Philippines and Mexico. Malawi, Mozambique and Ethiopia came under the category of “Low Risk” countries like many Western democracies. Norway was the most stable country at No. 165 position with a score of 2.0 followed by Denmark with a score of 4.0.

Going back to the two countries that currently practice a single six-year term presidential democracy, it must be pointed out this was borne out of crisis situations and it has not guaranteed stability in the two countries. In the case of Mexico, the single six-year presidential term limit was adopted in 1917 following the 1910 Mexican Revolution, and the tradition has remained ever since. Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1810 and the successive presidents ruled for varying terms. President Diaz ruled from 1897 – 1880 and then 1884 – 1911 for five consecutive terms. The electoral fraud that led to his fifth re-election sparked the 1910 Mexican Revolution which forced Diaz to resign in 1911. His successor, Madera, was overthrown and murdered in a coup d’état two years later. This led to a civil war that claimed almost 900,000 lives in a country of about 15 million at that time. At the end of the civil war, the 1917 Constitution was adopted which included, for the first time, a single six-year presidential term limit without possibility of re-election at any future time. Although the country experienced significant growth between 1940 and 1980, it was dominated by one party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), founded in 1929, that became increasingly authoritarian and repressive whilst the country grappled with a troublesome social inequality which was a source of social discontent.

In 1980s, the monopoly of power by the PRI came under severe challenge by the opposition parties.  In the 1988 elections, the opposition candidate Cardenes was denied victory as a result of electoral fraud perpetrated by the PRI whose candidate, Salinas, was declared winner. This led to massive protest that was suppressed. On January 1, 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZNL) started a two-week long rebellion against the PRI government. In November 1994, Salinas was succeeded by Zedillo, also of PRI.  A month later, the Mexican economy collapsed, but thanks to the rapid economic rescue package by US President Clinton and major macroeconomic reform strategy by Zedillo, the economy rapidly recovered. In 2000, after 71years of ruling, the PRI lost the presidential election to Mr. Vincete Fox of the opposition party, National Action Party (PAN). In 2006, another PAN candidate, Filipe Calderon, won the presidential election, narrowly defeating Manuel Obrador of the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolutionary. This sealed the dominance of the PRI. Thus, the single six-year term presidency that has been in effect in Mexico for almost 96 years has not translated into political stability. In fact, within Latin America, countries such as Nicaragua, Brazil, El Salvador, Uruguay, Chile and Cuba rank better than Mexico in terms of political stability. Today, Mexico is notorious for an ongoing drug war that has claimed about 40,000 lives since 2006.   

The case of The Philippines appears more complex. The country first adopted a single six-year term (without re-election) under its 1935 Constitution. However, in 1940 the Constitution was amended and the term of the President was amended to two consecutive four-year terms subject to re-election. The two four-year terms functioned fairly until President Ferdinand Marcos subverted the Constitution in 1972 by declaring martial law after completing his second four-year term in order to remain in power. In 1973, a new Constitution was promulgated which allowed the incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos to seek a new term. In 1981, Marcos was again elected as President. The assassination of the opposition leader, Benigno Aquino in 1983 led to political tension which forced Marcos to call for a snap presidential election in 1986. The election, believed to have been won by Corazon Aquino, wife of the assassinated opposition leader, was rigged by Marcos who declared himself the winner. This led to the People Power Revolution which forced Marcos to go into exile in Hawaii, and the declaration of Corazon Aquino as President.

With the return to democracy in 1986, the Constitution was amended in 1987 restoring a single six-year term for the President without re-election. In 1992, Fidel V. Ramos was elected president and was succeeded Joseph Estrada who was ousted by the 2001 EDSA Revolution amid charges of corruption and a stalled impeachment process. He was replaced by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Like most of her predecessors, in 2009 President Arroyo made a surreptitious attempt to amend the constitution with a subtext that would have extended her stay in office beyond the end of her single six-year term in 2010. The attempt failed, and in May 2010, Mr. Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III was elected for a single six-year term. In summary, the history and experiences of the Philippines and Mexico clearly show that a single six-year term is not a guarantor of stability in the polity. In fact, many countries in Latin America that once practiced single term presidency have since amended their Constitutions to pave way for two terms of either five or four years. If the single term worked well, why did they change?

The above facts clearly put a hole in GEJ’s case for a single six-year term for the President and Governors of Nigeria. If he was not quoted out of context, I think it is fallacious to insist that a single six-year term of office is the "ONLY way to reduce unrest and stabilize the polity". Such a statement is an incomplete diagnosis of the causes of unrest and instability in the country. Clearly, there are more effective ways to reduce unrest and stabilize the polity. The simple question is "how does a six-year term reduce unrest and stabilize the polity compared to two terms of four years?" If a single term of six years can reduce unrest and stabilize the polity, why can't a single term of four years perform the same magic? Rather than pushing for a single term of six years, the President could push for a single term of four years in order to quicken the rotation process. For instance, it will take 24 years for the Presidency to rotate among the six geographical zones under a single four-year term as against 36 years under the six-year term proposal. This could reduce the fight for the Presidency among the "zones" but it will not eliminate election-related tension. 

 If a President or Governor fails to perform well within four years, there is no guarantee that he can perform well or better within six years. In fact, under the six-year term proposal, we will be stuck with a non-performing President or Governor for six years and this can increase the risk of upheavals, greater unrest and a military coup! The advantage of the two four-year terms is that it provides the electorate with an opportunity to reward good performance and "punish" poor performance within four years if elections are free and fair, and the electorate is enlightened. On the other hand, a single six-year term does not provide the electorate this opportunity, and there will be little or no incentive for the elected President or Governor to perform well or deliver on his promises once he secures a single six-year term. Furthermore, before the end of his single six-term, he may either seek to change the constitution to two terms of six years (as leaders in Philippines and elsewhere have done) or install a puppet or preferred successor, a process that can lead to unrest and destabilize the polity as we have seen in Nigeria when a president or governor who has served two four-year terms tries to "dictate" or choose who will succeed him.

The moment a seating president tries to change the term of office of the Presidency, he generates suspicion and tension. It is usually a slippery slope. President GEJ should learn from the misadventure of President Obasanjo (OBJ) who attempted to change the two terms of four years to three terms. That action contributed in no small measure to the devaluation of his presidency and person.  Even if GEJ succeeds in amending the constitution to pave way for a single six-year term for the President and Governor, there is no guarantee that he or some future President will not attempt to amend the Constitution again to either revert to two four-year terms or two six-year terms or other terms as the experience in other countries have shown[4].

In conclusion, it is advisable for President GEJ to abandon the idea of a single six-year term[5]. Pursuing it will create more political tension similar to OBJ’s pursuit of the third-term agenda[6]. It will also amount to an unnecessary distraction and a dissipation of energy and resources. The President should focus on “delivering more” during the next three years. If he performs very well (more than his predecessors) during the next three years, Nigerians, irrespective of their ethnic and religious backgrounds, will draft him to run for a second four-year term in 2015 which he could win. Nigerians are not stupid; they can judge and reward performance just as people do in other countries. Above all, GEJ must change his motto from “promising less and delivering more” to “promising more (than his opponents) and delivering as promised”. Voters are not happy with candidates who promise less (than opponents); they prefer candidates who promise the most and are able to deliver as promised. The President did not win the last election because he promised less. He or other politicians cannot count on luck or on promising less or on the power of incumbency alone to win future elections. For instance, voters will prefer a candidate who promises to increase the reliability or availability of electric power supply from 50% (i.e. power supply every other day – one day light, one day darkness) to 90% (21.6 hrs light and 2.4 hrs darkness) but delivers 80% (19.2 hrs light, and 4.8hrs darkness) within four years than a candidate who promises to increase it from 50% to 60% (14.4hrs light, 9.6hrs darkness) and delivers 70% (16.8hrs light and  7.2 hrs of darkness). Similarly, voters prefer a candidate who promises to reduce youth unemployment from 30% to 15% and achieves 18%, than one who promises to reduce it from 30% to 25% and achieves 20%.

Dr. Emmanuel Ojameruaye

September 21, 2011.

Endnotes