The Presidency in 2015
By
Anthony Akinola*
anthonyakinola@yahoo.co.uk
One concept I tried to clarify in the run-up to the presidential
election of 2011 was that of “re-election”. I argued then that
President Goodluck Jonathan could not have been seeking
re-election because he was only a vice-presidential candidate to
the one elected president in 2007. One can only be deemed to be
seeking re-election to a position one had been elected to in the
first place. The clarification I was attempting to make may have
become clearer now that the political future of President Jonathan
has been enjoying some debate in academic and political circles
(see, for instance, Chidi Amuta, “Jonathan and 2015”, This Day,
3rd April 2012).
Dr Amuta, in the useful article referred to above, opined that the
constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as well as the
cause of democracy would be strengthened if Goodluck Jonathan were
not denied the constitutional right to seek re-election in 2015.
He was not saying that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) must
present Jonathan as its flag bearer, even if his lacklustre
performance had continued into the future. What Chidi Amuta seems
to be anticipating, just like the rest of us, is the controversy
the PDP “zoning” policy of alternating the presidency between the
North and the South could engender in the very near future. There
would be those reminding Goodluck Jonathan that his tenure had
expired, not least because the argument once conjured in favour of
his candidacy was that he was continuing with the mandate he
jointly held with the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. His
supporters said the mandate was inseparable but would their
argument still hold in 2015?
Of course, President Goodluck Jonathan can seek re-election in
2015 – if dictates of selfish interest prevail. The fact that he
had been sworn into office twice would not have meant he had
served a second term in office. One recalls the case of Lyndon B
Johnson whose ascension to the American presidency compares with
Jonathan’s route to office. Johnson had succeeded the assassinated
John F Kennedy in 1963, won an election of his own in 1964 and
would have sought re-election in 1968 but for the fact that he had
become very unpopular because of the negative outcome of America’s
conflict in Vietnam. Not constitutionally barred, he took the
decent route of withdrawing from seeking his party’s nomination.
Goodluck Jonathan is not unaware of the possible crisis his
wanting to continue in office beyond 2015 could generate. His
declaration of an intention not to seek re-election in 2015 may
not be unconnected with this. However, a promise made out of
desperation or expediency may not always hold, not least because
what we are talking about here is power and its alluring
influences. The President had warned his ministers and assistants
against unguarded statements about 2015; however, he could be the
very one encouraging them to sing his praises and sound public
opinion in the not too distant future. The PDP is in for a major
crisis but can the so-called opposition parties benefit from this?
Chidi Amuta explored this question in his excellent article.
The opinion here is that the very reasons the PDP may run into
crisis in 2015 also explains why the opposition parties might not
be able to take advantage of their situation. The so-called
“progressives” have a disappointing history as they have been
unable to progress beyond the confines of ethnic boundaries.
Regional sentiments have been the dominating influence in all of
this. There are all sorts of progressives in the various regions.
The regional element in our democracy must be addressed in an
improved constitution if we were to have a national progressive
party. Being myopically pre-occupied with a political arrangement
that has worked elsewhere may not have helped the cause of our
democracy.
I say it is futile to be preoccupied with political arrangements
that have worked elsewhere because what we have not been able to
photocopy are the cultural elements that sustain them in the host
nations. In Britain, for instance, the institution of the Monarchy
has provided stability to the parliamentary system of government
which originated from that great nation. What we celebrate in
Nigeria is exactly what truly – republican America rejects –
privileges arising from the circumstances of birth. It is clearly
stated in their constitution that “no American citizen shall bear
a title of nobility”. Here in Nigeria, politicians envy
traditional rulers for the unsolicited respect they command, while
the latter also envy the former for the monies they are able to
steal!
I should be suggesting to those with the powers to review or amend
the national constitution that rotational presidency is most
appropriate for Nigeria. Zoning the presidency could be the most
assured way of inducing competitive political parties and
ideologies to traverse the various divides. In a society that is
as divided as ours, it could also be the most assured way
objectively, of fishing out our political leaders, based on merit
rather than primordial affiliations. Zoning could be our own
contribution to the principle of federalism which, more than
anything else, emphasises equality and fairness in the
relationship of participating units. Democracy itself should be
about peace and stability in one’s own nation.
*Akinola is a political writer based in Oxford, UK