|
PEOPLE AND POLITICS BY MOHAMMED HARUNA
Still On Yar’adua and Politics 2011
It was two and a half years or so ago, the reader may recall, that former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, declared a state of emergency in Ekiti State. He did so against a background of palpable, but probably contrived, potential chaos in the state; then we had three PDP stalwarts each claiming its governorship, two other gentlemen claiming its chief judgeship and a House of Assembly divided right down the middle over impeachment proceedings against the original governor, Chief Ayo Fayose. It was hard to imagine a case more inviting of a state of emergency.
Not many people must have been surprised then when President Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in the state on October 19, 2006. “We must,” he said, “save democracy and preserve our Constitution and that was the oath of office I took. We must save Ekiti State from anarchy. And we must preserve law and order, good governance and ensure probity in governance in Ekiti State.”
Two and a half years on, the state is once again on the brink of chaos but this time most Nigerians, I guess, would be shocked and scandalized were President Umaru Yar’adua to follow Obasanjo’s example. The reason is simple. Last time around the crisis was essentially an intra-party affair and the ruling PDP had become notorious for sweeping its problems under the carpet using the pretext that they are “family affairs”, to use its own usual refrain.
Second, by that time Obasanjo had proved beyond any doubt that he was a grand master of double-speak - someone who hardly said what he meant or meant what he said. For example, even as he was pontificating about his commitment on oath to save democracy in Ekiti, the man had been far gone in his determination to recreate our democracy after his own image by imposing his choice of a weak presidential ticket on his party and eventually on Nigerians once he saw his unconstitutional Third Term Agenda collapse around his ears. The difference this time is that the crisis in Ekiti is not a PDP family affair. And, of course, President Yar’adua is not President Obasanjo. Not that Yar’adua is in this respect a study in contrast to his benefactor. On the contrary he has often enough said one thing and done another. So far, however, he is yet to achieve the notoriety of the former president in the display of that vice. In other words he is, unlike his benefactor, hardly beyond redemption.
You will recall that last week I wrote on these pages about the president’s declaration at the April 20 PDP convention in Abuja that he will not play politics with the electoral reform he promised this nation in his inaugural speech nearly three years ago. His declaration of honest intent was against the background of widespread criticisms of his handling of the report of the Justice Mohammed Uwais committee he had appointed to recommend reforms for entrenching free and fair elections in the country. He appointed the committee in the wake of the near universal condemnation of the 2007 elections that brought him to power.
The on-going Ekiti electoral debacle is as good a chance as any, probably the best, the president has had to prove that, unlike his benefactor, he is a man of his words. Any fair minded person can see that PDP lost the state’s governorship re-election last weekend fair and square. This much is obvious from the fact that the INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner of the State, Mrs. Ayoka Adebayo, who I understand is a relation of Obasanjo and might have had an axe of sorts to grind with the old man, has had to flee the state for dear life. Reports say she had come under tremendous pressure to declare the PDP winner but had refused.
Her refusal seems to have prompted INEC’s National Commissioner in charge of the state, Mr. Dayo Soyebi, to announce an indefinite postponement of elections in the two wards in one local government whose results had led to thuggery and the breakdown of law and order. Mr. Soyebi was said to have made moves to take charge of the state in the absence of the resident electoral commissioner but this has been challenged by the Action Congress which seems to have won the election.
If Yar’adua is sincere about leaving a legacy of a free and fair electoral system behind, this is his chance to prove it. He should intervene – and I’ve used the word intervene advisedly to avoid any charge that I am asking him to interfere with INEC - by allowing the will of the Ekiti people to prevail. The Constitution and the electoral law are unambiguous about who is in charge of governorship elections. It is the Resident, not the National, Electoral Commissioner. The poor lady on the run for her life should be allowed to conclude the elections in accordance with the rules and should be given all the protection she needs to do so.
When I suggested last week that about the best, if not the only, way the president can show he is not playing politics with his commitment about reforming our electoral system is to disavow any intention to run for a second term I did admit that it was a tall order. For one thing the man is within his constitutional right to run again. For another power is so sweet it is not easy to let go.
On the eve of the current Fourth Republic which started in 1999, Alhaji Umaru Shinkafi, Marafan Sokoto and himself a perennial presidential candidate, suggested that about the only way we can get our fledgling democracy to develop is for the retired generals who have ruled Nigeria for the better part of its exist to voluntarily stay out of power politics. I thought his suggestion was asking for too much. I still do. I thought it was also an indirect admission by members of the civilian arm of the political class, in which Shinkafi is prominent, that they could no longer compete favourably with their military counterparts for power.
On the surface at least my suggestion that Yar’adua should stand aside from partisan politics if he truly wants to bequeath a legacy of free and fair elections to future generations does look like Shinkafi’s suggestion. Scratch the surface, however, and you’ll see the difference. First, though it is, as I said, a tall order to ask an individual to sacrifice his personal ambition in the interest of the collective interest, it is not the same thing as asking an entire class to sacrifice its interests.
Second, even in terms of his personal interests, Yar’adua, if only because of the state of his health which has had a telling effect on his work regime, stands to lose little but gain a lot were he to disavow a second term simply because of the way this single act will raise his stature and transform him into a statesman. Ironically there is perhaps no more conclusive evidence for this than the seemingly voluntary way his benefactor relinquished power as military head of state back in 1979.
Obasanjo’s terrible legacy of “do or die” politics as a retired general suggests that Shinkafi may have been right after all to have asked soldiers to stand aside in the contest for power from 1999. I am not so sure that if they had done so things would have been different. Similarly I am not so sure that if Yar’adua disavows partisan politics henceforth Nigeria will be guaranteed a future of free and fair elections. But unless he does Nigeria stands a worse chance of getting it right than was the case with the soldiers’ insistence on their right to run for elections in a democratic Nigeria.
However, whether the president disavows partisan politics or not ahead of the next general elections in 2011, his handling of the on-going Ekiti re-election debacle will be the litmus test of the sincerity of his declaration that he will not play politics with reforming our electoral system which has remained jinxed since Independence in 1960. |