MONDAY DISCOURSE BY DR. ALIYU TILDE
Jonathan and the Northern Hawks
The Northern Political Forum that took place last week in Kaduna was a
significant attempt by the Jonathan camp to win the PDP ticket that will
enable him continue with his presidency until 2015, presumably. The
meeting was attended by some notable figures from the three northern
zones who, though short of rejecting zoning totally, unanimously
approved the PDP ticket for Jonathan in 2011, according to what was
shown on the national television. On the one hand, their decision raised
hopes for Jonathan and, on the other, generates some fears about his
ability to deliver on his promises.
After the welcome address by the Governor of Kaduna State who spoke the
usual official language of Nigerian unity, the ball was set rolling by
Solomon Lar who argued that zoning was adopted as a temporary measure
which was meant to be disposed of when our democracy has matured,
literally saying now is the time. Coming at his heel was Hassan Adamu.
After affirming that no one can win the Presidency without the support
of the North and recalling how the North has made sacrifices before to
ensure that the country remains united, he posited that this is another
opportunity where the region will exhibit its large heart. But this
time, in return for its support, the President must be given what Adamu
called a “northern agenda” which will protect the interest of the
region. Adamu’s stand was strongly supported by the Sokoto Prince, Shehu
Malami. The Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bayero
Nafada, also called on the North to make sacrifice for the sake of the
unity of the country. He was practical in his argument. The North, he
said, would have sought the same ticket were it in Jonathan’s shoes.
Then came the turn of zonal representatives of the PDP. Barnabas Gemade
started by presenting the position of the Northcentral. He drafted God
into the equation, saying zoning the presidency could be man-made as it
was in 1999 or God ordained as it is in the case of Jonathan. Impliedly,
Gemade is asking: Who are we to act against the wish of God then? But
more than that, Gemade hinted the core argument of the pro-Jonathan
group: the ticket of Yar’adua and Jonathan were joint and inseparable.
So Jonathan should continue in 2011 as if he were Yar’adua. Kaulaha
Aliyu from the Northeast joined the choir by arguing that zoning was a
child of necessity and it is not required now. Ibrahim Ida presented the
view of the Northwest PDP. However, the NTA transmission became
inaudible and he was cut short. But with Shagari and Shehu Malami at the
summit, I once can pretty right predict what Ida said.
Women, for the first time were called to express their opinion in such a
gathering. They said, in the words of their spokeswoman, Mariam Waziri,
that they are indifferent to zoning as “they” were not consulted when it
was introduced in the first place. Pubic office, she said, should be
given based on merit regardless of one’s religious and ethnic
background. Jonathan merits it, in short, according to “northern women.”
So came the communiqué, read by Jerry Gana the foremost propagandist of
Obasanjo’s third term bid, affirming the support of the gathering to,
one, free and fair elections; two, the development of the North,
promising a seminar to be held shortly on how the North would be
developed economically; and, three, Jonathan’s ticket in 2011 election.
The voice was Gana’s, but the logic was Gemade’s: the zoning ticket that
produced Yar’adua and Goodluck as President and Vice-President
respectively was a joint ticket that is inseparable; “the demise of one
does not invalidate the other”, said Gana. Shi ke nan.
Of course, I forgot to mention the names of people like Mantu, Muhammad
Abba Aji and so on. What these people said was obvious. I am rather more
concerned by those I did not see, Adamu Ciroma, TY Danjuma, Iorchiya Ayu,
Waku, Atiku and other proponents of zoning. Part of the problem is the
misappropriation of names where any group today can claim to be
representing a region. Are we therefore likely to see a counter-summit
of pro-zoning supporters from the North and the Southeast? Or have they
been beaten to submission? It is curious to note how appeal to national
unity and patriotism is used now to repeal zoning just as they were used
to introduce it in 1999.. If you have opposed zoning in 1999 you were
unpatriotic; if you support it now you are still unpatriotic! Mhmm.
Politicians can be good philosophers, I think. Even Aristotle cannot
argue better.
It is logical for a summit like this to arrive at this conclusion given
the track record of the politicians who gathered there and the nature of
the country’s economy. I cannot remember any of the politicians at the
summit who owns a surviving factory from which he earns a living. If
anything, they have only helped to ruin the few in the North established
by Lebanese and other northerners. Our political class, generally, is
completely dependent on government, a reality that makes them compliant
to the wishes of any incumbent. That is why coups were the only channels
through which undesirable regimes could be removed for most part of
African history. Jonathan, therefore, must not see their effort as
genuine. It is rather an expression of their dependency on whoever is in
power.
For now, their support will sound like music to his ears, but he must
not forget that the same class were responsible for the failure of all
previous leaders. They rundown the Shagari government and rigged the
1983 elections (Shagari attended the summit); they toed the path of IBB
in ruining our economy to non-recoverable levels and participated in his
ill-fated transition program. They served as ministers of Abacha and
approved his actions until when he failed to handover power to them.
They brought Obasanjo to power and assisted him in running the most
corrupt government and the worst civilian dictatorship. They conscripted
Yar’adua knowing very well that he was terminally ill after failing to
convince Nigerians to allow Obasanjo a third term. (One can say that
majority of those who attended the summit were pro-Obasanjo,
reincarnating the fear that Jonathan represents Obasanjo’s third term)
And now, they are racing to support Jonathan by doing everything
possible to deny the zoning they enacted ten years earlier when they
wanted to sell a southern ticket to Northerners.
It is understandable and expected that the President is becoming
expedient in his bid to win the PDP ticket. However, I have a number of
fears. First, I am afraid when I heard them speak at the summit about a
“northern agenda” that will take care of the interest of the region
which they will present him with. Are they genuinely expecting Jonathan
to correct the injuries they inflicted on the North or are they using
such expression as subterfuge to make us believe that they have the
North at heart? When in the communiqué they said they support free and
fair elections, we are bound to ask when did any of them ever in his
life practiced free and fair elections? Did not they rig in the NPN? Did
not they abandon June 12 and followed Abacha? Did not they rig in 2003
and 2007? Only a fool would believe a person that has been rigging for
fifty years but who suddenly claims to be a prophet of free and fair
election.
Secondly, I see a lot of danger in their argument, for Jonathan, for the
North and for the so-called zoning formula. They have created a room for
further confusion in future in order to return and use the North again
as a bargaining chip with the President in 2015. By hinging their
support to Jonathan on the argument of “joint ticket” with late Yar’adua
instead of issuing a totally new one to the incumbent, they created a
room for the argument to be revisited at the expiration of the eight
years of Yar’adua/Goodluck ticket, i.e. in 2015. The President will then
need to come back and beg them for another term. Then we will be taken
again through another circle of arguments and summits on zoning,
allowing charlatans to raise emotions of religion and sectionalism
again. The Yar’adua/Goodluck ticket is a northern ticket, they said.
When it expires in 2015, are we expecting a bonafide southern ticket?
Why did they find it difficult to declare the demise of zoning, once and
for all, by accepting Baba Lar’s argument that it was only a temporary
measure which does not suit Nigeria today and forever? Incidentally,
they are free to do so because no other party is supporting zoning. I
hope the PDP will be bold enough to scrap zoning in their NEC meeting
this week such that the matter dies, once and for all, though not
without some implications for the future of politics in the country.
Thirdly, the methods of Jonathan in gaining the ticket leaves a lot to
be desired and I hope they are only short-term. The manner in which he
sacked the PDP chairman portrayed him as bereft of any superior talent
than Obasanjo. Power is the end. The type of people he recruited as foot
soldiers in his ticket campaign suggests that he can hardly lead the
reform needed by both his party and country. This inevitably leads to
the fourth fear: that he may not be committed to free and fair
elections, after all.
Going by the above, which people and methods would Jonathan employ to
garner his winning votes in 2011? We all know that it takes more than
Jega’s INEC to achieve that. In fact, most of the work remains with the
President who must contain the military, the police, and security agents
who in the past have been at the forefront of election malpractices. He
must convince the 27 PDP governors to respect the votes of citizens
bearing in mind that none of them was voted before freely and fairly. He
must subdue his party to give up rigging, its greatest strength and
largest constituency. He must abandon people like Obasanjo who tells him
that nobody can conduct a free and fair election. Finally, in case the
elections are rigged on his behalf, he must allow the judiciary a free
hand to decide on his fate and that of his PDP governors. I am beginning
to feel that this is a tall ambition. Jega cannot do this on his behalf.
I have raised this doubt in a previous article when I said that the
chances of free and fair election are bright only if Jonathan himself is
not running.
In conclusion we will advise the President to urgently review his
methods if he wants to live above the level of mediocrity of many past
Nigerian leaders. It is difficult in politics, admittedly, but not
impossible. But merit always comes with sacrifice. He can still reach
out to credible people – even within his PDP – in all parts of the
country, run an open campaign and genuinely win if he is able to achieve
the confidence of the majority. His present approach and companionship,
however, compel us to start entertaining the fear that under him
business will remain as usual. We have so advised his immediate two
predecessors. None of them listened. Would he make a difference? Only
time can tell.
Tilde,
19 July 2010