Reflections On Jonathan Presidency

Reflections On Jonathan Presidency

Suraj Oyewale

As a student of Nigerian political history all my adult life, one thing I have observed as common to all Nigerian heads of government since independence is the ability to make positive impressions, real or spun, at the first few months in office. Another striking observation is, the most regarded heads of Nigerian governments are those that spent few months or years in office, raising the question among some pundits that those positively rated leaders could also have lost their good rating if they had stayed longer. Generals Murtala Mohammed and Muhammadu Buhari are arguably the most highly commended Nigerian leaders and both spent six and twenty months in office respectively. In his first coming, General Obasanjo spent 3 years in office, and he got good ratings during this period, majorly for dousing the tension in the country aftermath of Col. Bukar Suka Dimka's failed coup and going ahead to hand over to civilian president. President Umaru Musa Yar’adua also gets a decent public review of his administration despite his illness. He spent 3 years too. The short-tenure theory may not be applicable to General Aguiyi Ironsi(6 months) giving the condition of unrest and mutual suspicion, leading to coups and counter coups, in their era, making it difficult to assess their performance; moreso assessments were made of the regional premiers, as was practiced then.

Nigerians are almost unanimous that Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Olusegun Obasanjo (second coming) are the worst people to occupy the number one seat in the land. And both of them spent 8 years respectively, and their challenger to that unenviable medal, General Sani Abacha, also spent 5 years. General Yakubu Gowon also spent long term - nine years – but with war and post-war reconstruction the major pre-occupation of the time, history is favourable to him as he doesn’t feature prominently in the list of frontline Nigerian villains. He is an exception to the length of term theory. In all cases, most Nigerian past leaders – short and long termers – started on popular (or if you like, populist) note.

My expectation, therefore, as Dr Goodluck Jonathan came on board last year was to see the president come up with articulated plans and hit the ground running. Despite the general anger that trailed the 2007 general elections – regarded as the worst in the history of the country – President Umaru Yar’adua’s immediate reversal of his predecessor’s hike in pump price of PMS and sale of refineries, earned the man wide accolades that did not only overshadow the raging displeasure over the polls but also earned his government some public confidence. One would therefore think President Jonathan would or be advised by his minders to tow this path too, but unfortunately, the President is failing in this simple strategy and one seriously doubts he can recover from the damage already caused by these initial missteps throughout his tenure. From tenure elongation proposal to subsidy removal, the manner the president went about his policies is a perfect illustration of how not to start a tenure. I will come back to that.

Although this intervention is just an observation of a worried Nigerian, it is important for me to declare that I never supported Jonathan in the run-up to the April 2011 polls. With the information in public space, I seriously doubted Jonathan’s ability to run a country as complex as Nigeria, especially at that critical period. I aligned myself with General Muhammadu Buhari principally because I believed that at that point in time we needed a strong character to paddle the country. Forget about Obama’s strong institutions rhetoric, our institutions are already so weak that only it takes a man of steel to strengthen before soft men can take charge. If history is lost on us on how Meiji restoration in Japan, industrial revolution in Europe and other turning epochs in history were achieved under tough leadership, how strong man Jerry Rawlings laid the foundation for a now better Ghana is too recent to be forgotten. I did not see this in Goodluck Jonathan. I would have graciously voted for an Obasanjo at that period than Jonathan, if Buhari was not contesting. Rather than discuss issues that go down to the roots of our problems, Jonathan played the game of appeal to emotions, through a compelling tale of grass-to-grace. I am not aware of any country in the world where a presidential candidate’s selling point is his poor background and what I called ‘luck theory’. Inane as such arguments sounded to me, millions of Nigeria bought it. Coupled with the breach of zoning agreement which we all hypocritically ignored, voting for Jonathan was not an option for me then.

But after the elections, I believed it was time to bury the differences and forge ahead for a better Nigeria. I did a piece in the newspapers to condemn and caution the post-election rioters. I refused to get bitter about the results of the presidential elections, despite my putting a great deal energy and even personal resources (including co-sponsoring radio jingles) for Buhari, without the man’s knowledge. I strongly believed Jonathan won that election, warts and all. Even if we discount the wonder numbers from South-East and South-South, Jonathan would still have the majority votes. I therefore believed the Otuoke man should be given a chance. But nine months down the line, the incurable pessimists about his presidency seem to be right after all.

Or how else can one describe a situation when a president that comes with so much goodwill could fall in public rating so quickly? A lot of theories are being bandied around to explain the turn of events. Some people believe that those that lost to Jonathan in the 2011 polls are the ones behind his travails. In the area of insecurity, this argument, weak as it is, can be examined, but are his enemies also responsible for his other misjudgments like tenure elongation proposals and fuel subsidy removal?

On post-election violence, I hold the opinion that it was a misguided reaction to loss of power by the North aided by their AGIP (Any Government in Power) politicians, but I do not subscribe to the school of thought that sees Boko Haram’s resurgence as an offshoot of this reaction. This is simply because Boko Haram’s fight against the state predates Jonathan. But clearly, Boko Haram has been infiltrated either by some unscrupulous politicians or some international terrorist networks. The puzzle still, is even international terrorist networks are not known for attacking churches as the current Boko Haram have done.

I have personally refused to join the bring-down-the-roof critics in blaming President Jonathan over the Boko Haram mayhems. Truth is terrorism is not easy to deal with as we think. In fact my opinion is Boko Haram will fizzle away, but how many innocent lives will be lost before this happens? This is why government must be seen at making efforts to combat them, starting with overhauling of security systems.

Perhaps president Jonathan’s weakest point, aside his sometimes unpresidential comments, is his timing of policies. Bringing the issue of single-term policy to the table few weeks after mounting the presidential saddle cannot be more ill-timed. But if one thinks the president learnt a lesson from the wide outrage against the proposal, one cannot be more wrong: the timing of his downstream sector deregulation was poorer.

On the first day of the new year, the country still seething from the terror visited on it by the men from hell the week before, the president chose to spoil the returning joyful mood with what has been dubbed ‘economic bomb’. But worse than the date the president chose for subsidy removal is the manner it was implemented. With no framework in place to cushion the inevitable negative effects of the policy, the president rammed the policy on the nation and the consequence, in addition to spontaneous rise in costs, has been loss of lives and properties from the attendant protests, not to mention the wiping off of his political capital.

The series of measures being incoherently dropped by the government on daily basis since the policy announcement are at best inconsequential after-thoughts. A serious government would have come up with measured approach to the policy implementation at least six months earlier and the execution itself will not be less than two years, final removal of subsidy being the last of the series of actions. The manner the government removed the subsidy raises serious questions on whether something extremely serious is not being hidden from us, with the widest guess being the country is broke.

There are a lot of questions that beg for answer in the subsidy debate, but I personally hold that subsidy cannot be sustained forever, at one point it has to go, but the framework for an acceptable removal is far from being in place. A two-year, phased deregulation plan that will involve encouraging local refining, putting in place infrastructure, eliminating the inefficiencies in the subsidy payment system, and a widespread enlightenment for the masses, all culminating in the subsidy removal at the end of year two, I reckon, is a better way to manage this conundrum.

A few positives have nonetheless come up with Jonathan presidency. Whatever anybody may say, the 2011 elections, to me, is more of a success than failure and it is unfair to deny President Jonathan the credit, if not for anything for appointing a man of integrity as Jega as the Chair and not interfering in the work of the commission. Segun Adeniyi, late President Yar’adua’s spokesperson also related in his book, “Power, Politics and Death: a front-row account of Nigeria under President Umaru Musa Yar’adua”, how Jonathan refused to succumb to pressure to thwart CBN governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi’s banking reforms, especially as one of the culprits had already penetrated Jonathan’s inner circle but that did not stop her from getting a jail term.

I still have my doubts – and justifiably so – about Jonathan’s ability to take Nigeria to Promised Land, but like I resolved after April polls, I wish him well. But in the meantime, let him reverse the price of PMS to N65 per litre and if subsidy must go, work with all stakeholders to come up with an articulated deregulated plan over a period of time, while showing more commitment to the abatement of insecurity in the land.