FRIDAY DISCOURSE BY DR. ALIYU TILDE

For Single 5-yr Tenure

aliyutilde@yahoo.com

 

 

The 1999 constitution, like its 1979 ancestor, has provided for the maximum of two terms for any elected president, state governor or local government chairman. For about a year now, and perhaps even before, there have been appeals for the contraction of such tenures to a single term only. Such voices have concluded that two consecutive terms could be deleterious to the survival of democracy in Nigeria.

The calls for a maximum of single tenure are largely informed by the fear that a sitting executive will be obliged by his desire for a second term to use whatever is at his disposal to ensure that he succeeds himself, no matter how unpopular he may be. As a result, during every civilian-civilian transition, the political entropy rises and Nigerians become overwhelmed by the apprehension of a military coup. To illustrate this point, we may quickly recall that election fraud formed a major premise for the both 1966 and 1983 coups.

 

There was the general fear that elections of 4-19, 2003 would be the same. Supporters of two terms, if any, will now, with the benefit of hindsight, assert that since there was no unrest that followed the last 4-19 elections and neither is there any significant apprehension of a coup, Nigerians have now accepted democracy as an eternal value to preserve at all cost, regardless of the electoral fraud that might be committed by a sitting president. Therefore, they will urge us to stop looking backwards and, instead, we should look forward by appreciating and exploiting the advantages of two terms.

 

The advantages of allowing a second term, they would claim, are many. One, it consolidates the gains of the first. Two, the executive is accorded the chance to learn and perfect the art of governance by having the chance to correct his mistake and discover better ways of handling issues. Three, he is given enough time to plan and execute development projects; single term, they will argue, is too short to allow serious projects to mature. Four, the lesser the frequency of changing leadership of a country, the more is its political stability. Five, and the most important, single term will exacerbate corruption, since elected executives know that they have only one term to loot the treasury. From Libya to Malaysia, from Egypt to Indonesia, supporters of two terms can cite examples to illustrate the gains of more than one term. Some may even argue that America would have been better had Clinton continued as its president than what it is today under George W. Bush.

 

However, when recommending a single term for Nigeria, we are compelled by its necessity, not by the luxury of its advantages. It is necessary to protect democracy by liberating it from the destructive penchant of a man bent on retaining power longer than the duration desired by his people. There was no form of malpractice or fraud that was not committed during the 4-19 elections. The fact that people are silent over it has nothing to do with their convictions over democracy, just as Mobuto and Mugabe were not toppled as a result of election unrest. Tenacity does not confer legitimacy to any regime; if anything, it is more associated with despotism than with democracy. In any case, another Nigerian president in future may not enjoy the ethnic and sectarian interests that were used to gloss over the 4-19 fraud. Therefore, the likelihood of unrest as a result of such fraud when committed in future by another president from a different ethnic background, as we had it in 1983, remains very high.

 

I am also suspicious about the seemingly plausible arguments of the prospects of better development and the fear of pervasive corruption canvassed in support of two terms. Two terms in a country like ours are detrimental to development because during the first term the incumbent concentrates on appeasing people and securing their support for his second term. And since in Nigeria politics is largely about money, the incumbent cannot secure a second term without greasing the palms of party officials and convention delegates, or without spending stupendous amounts of money during national elections. During his second term, he and his supporters will focus on looting the treasury such that he does not return to penury forever. So really there is no difference in the vulnerability of the treasury to plunder between single term and two terms tenures.

 

The issue of increased political stability supposedly engendered by a second term is also questionable. Instability has more to do with internal discontent than with the frequency with which governments come and go. If any government is just and transparent there will be little ground for acrimony or unrest. Such governments will undoubtedly be popular, regardless of the basis of their legitimacy, whether monarchical, military or democratic. But so long as injustice prevails and people are governed more by expedience than by rule of law, so long will discontent, rancor and unrest become their lot. Across the world there have been many regimes that lasted for decades but their countries are still far from being regarded as stable.

 

The same logic stands against the issue of development. It is easy to think that a second tenure will consolidate the gains of the first or it will afford the correction of past mistakes. The reality in Nigeria, however, points to the contrary. On the one hand, a president or governor who knows that he has only one term and who, at the same time, desires to leave a good record will face development with the greatest possible commitment. That commitment will be reduced or even delayed by the contemplation of a second tenure. On the other hand, a corrupt executive will mismanage his office even if he were allowed hundred tenures. Of course, under single-tenure, we will lament the departure of a leader committed to social justice any time we are lucky to have one; we may even shed tears when listening to his valedictory speech, but instead of turning him into a liability, it is our responsibility to elect an equally competent successor to replace him.

 

We have people who have ruled this country for eight years with little to show except waste, destruction of institutions and pervasive corruption. Today, they are under the illusion of returning, claiming that they have realized their mistakes. Let us compare Murtala and Obasanjo in terms of duration, vision and achievement. Obasanjo and most governors are spending their second terms and, going by the arguments canvassed in support of more than one term, we expect them to have a better vision of their task and show signs that they intend to correct their mistakes. But over 100 days now after their “re-election”, each of them is proceeding with his previous style and indulgence. Only the number of the President’s (not the governors’) overseas trips appears reduced; other things remain the same. In contrast, the vision of Murtala Mohammed was clear right from his first speech and, though he spent only six months in office, that vision is still with us; his achievements can be enumerated as well. If he would have 5-yr tenure today, his achievement, which will include the return of Obasanjo to prison, would have been monumental. As far as Nigeria is concerned, there is no correlation between duration of tenure and achievement.

 

I strongly feel that democracy in Nigeria will be served better by a single term. Apart from what is said above, single term will reduce the influence of money in our politics. The need for an incumbent to loot the treasury to finance his return bid will be absent. He only needs to finance the bid of another. And since men are less committed to the success of others than they are to their own, the appetite of an incumbent to devour the treasury for election purposes on behalf of his successor is lessened.

 

When an incumbent is contesting elections, the electoral process will usually come under his heavy influence. Elections will be more transparent if he is not returning because INEC, the police and the judiciary will be less compelled by the persuasion of an aspiring successor than by the pressure from a returning incumbent. In addition, in spite of the support an incumbent may lend to his party’s candidate, the gap between the latter and his contender will be reduced.

 

For those who believe in power shift (I am not one of them), their whims are better served by adopting single term. And since power is likely to shift from one zone to another, the transition will be greeted more by the optimism for change than by the boring continuity of an incumbent, who is more often corrupt.

 

Finally, if only to grant us the cause for that optimism once every five years, not even for the more formidable reason of avoiding the risk of a total shut down that is the backbone of our argument for single tenure, the constitution review committee should limit tenures of our local government chairmen, governors, and presidents to just one term. It should quickly do so before supporters of the president come pressing for a third term with gifts that its members could find difficult to resist.

 

Postscript: This article was published in Thisday newspaper four months after the 2003 elections. Today, in 2006, supporters of the president are not only here pressing for a third term but they are also here with bribes for members of the National Assembly as predicted three years ago when the Mantu committee was formed. The article is republished to remind members of the National Assembly about the virtues of single tenure, perchance they decide to debate the tenure of elected officials.