POWER-SHIFT AND ROTATION: BETWEEN EMANCIPATION AND OBFUSCATION
By
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
Since
the deaths of General Abacha and Chief Abiola, political discourse in the
country has been dominated by talk of a power-shift, rightly or wrongly defined
as producing a president from somewhere below the rivers Niger and Benue, but at
any rate south of Ilorin which though geographically in the South, is
politically and historically a component of the Sokoto Caliphate courtesy of the
Kakanfo Afonja who played into the hands of the Fulani Jihadist Alimi- in the
early 19th century.
There
have been several arguments both for and against the principle of a rotational
presidency, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Being a topic loaded
with a great deal of sentiment, politicians have been quick off the mark in
positioning themselves as ethnic champions of rotation or of the status quo. As
a consequence, Nigerian politics has become deprived of real issues leading to
what at least one commentator has referred to as “the death of ideology”.
Nigerian politicians are calling for a return to the First Republic, that
long-forgotten era of tribal chieftains viciously attacking each other, fighting
each other for their regions’ share of the nation’s depleting wealth rather
than pooling human and material resources for the betterment of the nation.
The
result is that the quality of political discourse has degenerated to the old
level of calls for Oduduwa Republic and Biafra by another name. Although the old
war horses are, in the main, dead, the next generation (which constitutes their
supporters and goons) and which we all thought had had its turn in the Second
Republic and was finished by the Third, has hijacked the mantle of leadership
once more.
The
experience of this country in the past decade or so but particularly the trauma
and crises of the last five years seem to have had a lasting negative impact on
our collective psyche. We seem to have allowed the “Abacha years” as they
have come to be known, to block from our memory two centuries of Nigerian
history, beginning from the links and contacts between the Sokoto caliphate and
the kingdoms and tribes of the South, to colonial invasion, amalgamation,
independence, civil war and successive periods of national pride and shame, hope
and despair, success and failure. We have allowed our vision of this country to
be shaped not by the dreams we had of a great, united country, which we hope to
bequeath as a legacy to generations yet to come, but by the memory of a
nightmare which is over. In a dawn full of promises and a ray of hope, we have
resolutely pulled down the blinds preferring to remain in the darkness of
suspicion and mutual mistrust. In this, Abacha, though dead, has earned a final
victory. He has succeeded in reducing the best amongst us, the brightest of
minds, to myopic, close-minded tribalists. In each part of the country, but
particularly in the South-West and South –East, a small band of ethnic bigots
seems to have assumed political leadership. The Awoists have manoevred their way
back to political relevance in the South-West. Ojukwu has come out of political
obscurity and Igbos have forgotten what he threw them into three decades ago
only to run-away. He is becoming a hero once more. Perhaps in the North, soon,
someone will raise the flag of Uthman Dan Fodio and call for a holy war against
the ‘infidels’ of the South. So in the year 2000, Nigeria will be exactly
where it was in 1960. Maybe another civil war will be fought and the whole
process will run its course once more.
Will
no one raise the alarm before it is too late? Shall we ask, or rather, are we
permitted, dear tribal chiefs, to ask, what is the sense in all this? How can
people present as progress the pursuit of a path that will lead to political
disintegration such as the world has seen in Lebanon, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda
and Kosovo? Let us, if you please, address the issues on power shift and zoning.
I shall argue in this paper that they are not the same thing, and are not even
necessarily correlated.
For
the sake of argument only, we will grant that the presidency is equivalent to
power. It is a ridiculous dictum unless the president wishes to disobey the rule
of law. In a democracy that works (even imperfectly) the president shall soon
find that he can have no project sited, no ministers and advisers appointed, no
ambassadors posted, no law promulgated without the support of the entire nation
as represented by its elected legislature. But we shall assume all the same,
that the presidency in a democratic system means power (of the sort wielded by
say, Abacha).
The
argument is that with the exception of the brief periods when Ironsi, Obasanjo
and Shonekan headed the government, Nigeria has been ruled since independence by
the “north”. The time has therefore come for a “southerner” to be the
president since “northerners” have failed to move the country forward and
are responsible for the nation’s failure
Several
opponents of rotation have proffered arguments to counter the position of
pro-zoning politicians. It is my opinion that these counter arguments so far
lack merit and have not addressed the fundamental weaknesses in the arguments of
the pro-rotationists. Some have argued that “northerners” have never ruled
alone and every northern leader had many “southerners” in his government as
allies. To this, one would reply that in every society and polity, the leader is
held responsible for the conduct of his officials. His selection of lieutenants
is based on his judgement and if he selects corrupt and bad advisers he can not
absolve himself of responsibility for their actions.
Others
have argued that the very idea of zoning or rotation is antithetical to
democracy. Again, although this argument is intuitively strong, it has technical
weaknesses. If the majority of Nigerians choose rotation then it is democratic.
Besides, quota system is not exactly democratic and the north has benefited from
it at least in some respects.
For
me, the issues in the current debate are more fundamental.
The
first is the question of whether at all zoning the presidency is necessary. If
one good thing came out IBB’s jump-start then aborted transition, it was that
it presented us with multiple and convincing examples that Nigerians have
matured beyond the ethnic/tribal politics of the First and, to a lesser extent,
Second Republic. In the SDP primaries running up to the first attempt at
producing flagbearers, Olu Falae, Yoruba politician from the South-West,
defeated Shehu ‘Yar Adua, Fulani aristocrat from Katsina, in Kano and Jigawa
States. Shehu ‘Yar Adua, on the other hand, roundly defeated his Yoruba opponents in Southwestern States. In June,1993
elections, M.K.O. Abiola defeated his opponent, Bashir Tofa in his home states,
Kano and Jigawa nay, in his ward, Gandun Albassa. No one had to zone Abiola into
Kano. No one needed to tell voters that he should be voted for because they felt
he was less bad for Nigeria, for them,
than Tofa. Now our politicians want to reward Nigerians by insulting their
collective intelligence and urging them to return to the primitive era of
tribalism.
The
second issue is the formula for the rotation. Proponents of zoning are yet to
agree on what formula to apply. Some say “North”and “South” Others want
the nation zoned into six. Both of these matrices are purely geographical with
the exception of the second, as it applies to the South-West and South-East. The
citizens of the South-west, practically 100% of them, are Yoruba. Citizens of
the South- East are Igbo. It is not by accident that in 1998, only two tribes
still have tribal political organisations with an explicitly ethnic agenda –
the Igbo (Ohaneze) and the Yoruba (Afenifere).
The
presidency from the South-West means a Yoruba presidency. From the South-East it
means an Igbo presidency. Citizens of those zones can then actually feel power
has shifted to them if their zone wins. But would an Ijaw man feel the same if
an Itsekiri or Bini or Asaba Igbo president emerged? Would a Tiv man feel the
same if an Idoma or Ebira man emerged? Would
the Fulani of Yola feel he has power if a Bachama, Jukun or Mumuye emerged?
Would the Babur feel that way if a Bobole or Kanuri won the presidency? If a
Fulani or Hausa from Zaria city won, would the Kaje and Kataf feel they have
power? The answer in each case is no.
The
intent here is to show, in clear and simple terms, the futility of defining
power, a social and political category that is only perceptible in its historico-political
context, in terms of “zones”, which are a spatial category devoid in
themselves of social and political character. Power does not “reside” in a
geographical area called the “north” and can therefore not be “shifted”
to the “south”. It is and has always been possessed by a class, or if you
like a group or cabal whose defining characteristic is their ability to gain and
retain control of the means of production, the means of persuasion and the means
of coercion – a characteristic that gives them dominance and control over all
the social beings living in the geographical area called Nigeria.
It
was Chief Awolowo who called Nigeria a geographical expression. In a fundamental
sense, and from a particular perspective, he may have been completely correct.
But no less so are such expressions as “north” or “south” as we have
shown, with the exception of “south-west” and “south-east” which are in
reality not geographical expressions, but a craftily employed diversion aimed at
obfuscating and camouflaging essentially ethnic and tribalistic agendas for the
Yoruba and Igbo. This is why the Igbo and Yoruba are the most vociferous
elements in the clamour for a power shift. It is also why the most tribalistic
elements in the two camps, such as Ojukwu and Nzeribe on the one hand and
Adesanya and his Afenifere on the other, have assumed the mantle of
spokespersons and raised once more spectre of Biafra and the Oduduwa Republic.
Finally it explains why the proponents of the “Power-Shift” to the south are
not likely to be satisfied in a complete sense. The Yoruba will never accept
that power has shifted to them because Ojukwu, Nzeribe or Ekwueme, for instance,
has won the presidency. Nor are the Igbo ever going to consider power as finally
shifting to them with Ige, Falae or Adesanya as president.
To
claim that the “north” has “exploited” or “marginalised the south is
linguistically incorrect and politically nonsensical. It is the equivalent of
claiming that all or most of the human beings who are from the “north”
possess or control the means of production, persuasion and coercion which are
the source of power, while all or most of those in the South are dispossessed of
these. Only the most hypocritical of analysts would pretend that he holds this
to be even possibly true. A group made up of people hailing from different parts
of this country controls these means to varying degrees and the vast majority of
Nigerians, northerners and southerners, have been dispossessed and exploited by
this group. What we have on the political stage today is an internal conflict
among various subsystems of this class of oppressors, each trying to drag us
into his camp by appealing to native instincts.
Balarabe
Musa, respected PRP governor of Kaduna State, is credited with introducing a
novel dimension to the argument. He says the “north” has not benefited from
northern leaders and for that reason he supports “power-shift” to the
“south”. The logic seems to be that those in power are more likely to
promote the interests and development of regions other than their own. But if
this is so, then why would the south now be clamouring for a power shift? The
answer of course is that neither the “north”
nor the “south” has benefited from crooks in power. The solution
is for good people to struggle to replace these crooks in the interest of
both the north and the south. The logical step for Balarabe Musa, a man known
for his credibility, should be to seek power himself and try to emancipate the
Nigerian Talakawa in the true spirit of NEPU and PRP. Instead he reduces the
political struggle to tribalism. Balarabe Musa is intelligent. But geniuses, it
seems, are not beyond occasional bouts of banality.
The
whole charade about zoning and rotation has
provided a camouflage for discredited persons to gain acceptance. Even Abdul
Rahman Okene’s Northern Elders
Forum which endorsed Abacha’s self –succession has joined the chorus,
because it is a ‘safe’ issue. If corruption were an issue, many Second
Republic governors who were convicted by the tribunals set up by Buhari for
corruption would today be explaining to the voters why they should be voted in
again. Governors convicted include some leaders of all major political parties
including the AD.
If
service to the nation were an issue, Ekwueme who was Vice-President, Lar, Rimi,
Ige, Gana, Adamu Ciroma, Wole Soyinka, Olu Falae, Bamanga Tukur, Jubril Aminu,
Nwobodo, Ani every one who was a minister, governor, head of parastatal or
public servant would today be accounting to Nigerians and telling us what he did
when he was there to justify his having a second chance.
But
these are not the issues because these are not questions politicians want to
answer. The issue is not one of emancipating any “zone” from marginalisation.
It is one of emancipating politicians from these disturbing questions and
providing them with a cloak in which to raise their shameless heads. If Karl
Marx were alive, he would probably recognise tribalism, rather than religion, as
the opiate of the Nigerian masses.
Let
me stress that criticism of the ‘zoning’ argument does not constitute
opposition to the emergence of a southern president. Perhaps the most appealing
of arguments in favour of a southern president is that a certain perception
which by accident or design, has come to pervade Nigerian politics needs to be
addressed. It is the belief that some Nigerians can not aspire to the highest
office of the land on account of their ethnic origin. This is a perception which
all Nigerians are willing to correct. Northerners are willing to repeat their
feat of electing a southerner in 1993. However, this is to be achieved through
dialogue, campaigning and the normal political horse-trading not through
blackmail or constitutional fiat. A forced situation creates a winner-loser
scenario fraught with instability. Those struggling for a change through threats
and blackmail are not looking for a sense of belonging. They are looking for a
victory and, worse, retribution.
The
president who emerges from an open democratic process will have the support of
the majority of Nigerians. No one, from either north or south, can win a
national election based on an ethnic or sectional agenda. The south currently
enjoys a tremendous amount of goodwill. Only reciprocity and assurances that a
southern president will be a president for all Nigerians are required for a
southern president to emerge. Such a president would be a Nigerian president,
his victory a victory for all Nigerians.
Zoning
stresses differences between peoples, and is based on a principle of rivalry
rather than cooperation. The signs are already very evident. Afenifere has been
making strident calls for a South-West presidency. The argument is that Abiola
was Yoruba and the nation owes it to the Yoruba that the next president should
come from the zone. The Igbos believe it is their turn because they paid the
highest price for justice in this country and have been marginalised for too
long. The South-South has joined the call and believes it is its own turn
because it produces the oil on which all other Nigerians have be parasiting for
three decades.
Meanwhile
the north looks on in complete fascination, amused by this comical spectacle of
politicians whose very utterances give the lie to claims on the positive impact
of zoning.
It
is time to return to issues, to go back to ideology and to discuss principles.
“Zoning” is a can of worms, its potential contribution to national unity
dubious and its negative consequences unpredictable and unmanageable.
Thank you all.
You can read more about my article from my web page at http://www.gamji.com/sanusi.htm
RETURN TO GAMJI HOMEPAGE