Evil is not reformable, it must be removed…We must never be tired of demanding that any government should chasten itself and give us the foundation and the example to propel us forward. We must demand that any government should deal honestly with us and level with us. We must have the programme and timetable to be able to assess its performance. We must have accountability and transparency that we are not getting now. If any administration is turning evil we should spare no efforts and no sacrifice to remove it.
Evil is not reformable, it must be removed…We must never be tired of demanding that any government should chasten itself and give us the foundation and the example to propel us forward. We must demand that any government should deal honestly with us and level with us. We must have the programme and timetable to be able to assess its performance. We must have accountability and transparency that we are not getting now. If any administration is turning evil we should spare no efforts and no sacrifice to remove it.
General Olusegun Obasanjo, Keynote Address to the participants at the Workshop on Nigeria: The State of the Nation and the Way Forward, Arewa House, Kaduna, 1994, p.29
It was no more heavy weight than the erstwhile Emeka Anyeoku that started it all. And like play like play, it is real, clear, present and apparent danger that our decidophobiatic President has decided to thwart the constitution and be in the array of the dark side of history. Nigerians should by now be wary of unwilling leadership, who by the time they wake up, time is up and they will look for more time. The bastardization of the whole process has produced non-dreamers as leaders at all levels.
The recent ‘jonaleaks’ and the President’s swift reaction to a keen observer of events in the normal discontented salariate can quickly conclude that turbulence and tempests have returned in due course, leaving an intact nomenclature that whenever a President rebuts, that when it is more true. The time has come when the long hidden bloated enduring image of the President and his PDP’’s desire to stay beyond limit (for fifty years according to Vincent Ogunlafor) is playing itself out distinctly and more transparently. The harsh and brutal reality of Nigeria’s public is that when leaders talk, they don’t believe. So the denial and counter denial from the villa and the PDP on their plot for tenure elongation, I think is not making any sense. To argue as these charlatans do that it is cluster tenure elongation that is capable of taking our country out of its PDP afflicted doldrums or its dire straits, is as preposterous as it is irresponsible. Indeed it is an admission of failure that twelve years is not enough for them to perform one of the major functions of a political party namely that of political recruitment of able future leaders, training them and equipping them with skills, knowledge and experience. Indeed as Cohen noted…‘Having regular turnover of power actually engrains, it institutionalizes a democratic process’. Indeed as again noted by Cohen,
“It’s extremely important in Africa to respect term limits because it allows for the grooming of new leadership, (and) supports the rule of law. In contrast, “societies...countries that have had …20 to 30- year presidents have not developed. Having regular turnover of power actually engrains, it
institutionalizes a democratic process”.
One of the basic conditions for democratic rule anywhere in the world is the acceptance of constitutionally imposed limits to the holding of elective office. As many political philosophers have argued over the ages, such limitations are necessary in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the people by constantly reminding those who offer themselves for public service that they are servants of the people, not masters. This is why many political observers are astonished by the sinister move to transform the Nigerian presidency into a civilian dictatorship by a clique around the President. They are all the more flabbergasted that our President, who has of recent been going round Africa insisting on respect for democracy and the rule of law (for example his intervention in Ivory Coast), is seemingly behind this move. The clamor for cluster single term by the sycophants around the President and the President’s acquiescence cannot be understood without taking the factors at play into consideration. Since the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan and those of the National Assembly members and governors of most of the states of the federation were inaugurated in May 2011, their preoccupation had been to force an amendment to the Constitution, not because of any fundamental progress made in Nigeria but to pave the way for them to sit tight in office. It is clear then that from the actions of the President and the pronouncements of his close lieutenants, the foisting of authoritarianism on the country will be a reality sooner than later, unless Nigerians mobilize to resist.
There is nothing wrong in constitutional amendments per se. Indeed, since 1816 Thomas Jefferson, one of the foremost American political thinkers and statesman, argued that,
“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truth disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times”.
Jefferson was, however, quick to add that he was: “Certainly not an advocate for frequent untried changes in laws and constitutions”
For the reason that, “Moderate imperfections had better be borne with, because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.”
The framers of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria did also envisage that one day there might be the need to amend the constitution; hence they inserted section 9 dealing with the Mode of altering provisions of the Constitution. However, to make us live with the constitution’s “moderate imperfections” they made its amendment laborious. Nowhere was it implied in the constitution that it could be amended to satisfy the lust for power or the whims and caprices of a tiny clique apparently totally drunk with messianic illusions of themselves.
This issue of whether an incumbent could benefit from the amendment of the constitution of a country the government of which he or she leads was settled long ago. As Thomas Paine argued in the 1770s, constitutions create governments and give them their powers. They also regulate and restrain the powers so given. Therefore, as he argued, “It is not for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of Government that Constitutions, and the Governments issuing from them, are established. In all those matters the right of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not those who receive. A Constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who exercise the Government…a Constitution is a thing antecedent to the Government and always distinct therefrom”
Hermann Cohen, former United States’ Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, recently echoed this position when he correctly argued that, ‘’It’s very undemocratic to change constitution to benefit the person in power. If people want to get rid of the two-term limit, they should do it for the next president. The same goes for the president’s salaries. Not long ago our president’s salary was increased by Congress but the law went into effect for the next man in office’’.
One of the justifications often put forward for the attempt elongate the President and those in power for a longer term than it is presently is, is the nonsensical argument that Nigeria would experience stability, simply because there would be continuity of leadership at the top. This argument is not only nonsensical but dangerous because as we have seen in Africa, wherever it had been advanced the result had been repression, bloodshed and stagnation. This is because desperate leaders, who are bent on “turning evil”, can do desperate things. In the sixties right through the seventies, African leaders modified their constitutions to keep themselves in power. The process itself was marked by repression and in some cases violence. Those who opposed the amendments were termed traitors and arrested on trumped up charges of treason. They were either put behind bars for as long as the dictators wished, or given some kangaroo trial, hanged, or executed. In some cases opposition leaders or their supporters were simply eliminated. In his bid to become the Secretary General of the United Nations, General Obasanjo once tried to distance himself from African depots by writing a book critical of them.
Analyzing the institutional patterns in post-colonial Africa he noted that,
‘’In most Africa languages, the word opposition has the same meaning and connotation as the word enemy. Can we possibly conceive of a loyal enemy? Yet, the institutionalization of opposition was one of the pillars upon which the structures and processes that were bequeathed to us were supposed to rest’’.
Democracy in Africa, according to Obasanjo, faced many challenges. These challenges were the reluctance of political leaders to share power, strive to build consensus and show respect to those who challenge them. He urged African leaders to do away with over-centralization of power and try to build legitimacy by promoting the principle that,
“The people’s participation must find expression in the political process”.
Castigating the “new crop” of African leadership who tend to lose their bearing almost immediately they come into power he wrote:
‘’The new crop of leadership that is emerging must avoid the pitfalls and undoing’s of their predecessors. I say this because recently, someone observed that while it took the former president, an African, ten years to begin to lose his bearings, his successor took less than six months to lose his own”.
He further added that not only do these leaders lose their bearing rapidly but unlike their predecessors, they were also bereft of a vision which is rooted in nationalism. Having articulated these essential elements of democracy and good governance, General Olusegun Obasanjo warns that:
‘’ An irresponsible, arrogant or careless leadership breeds disenchantment, antipathy and disenfranchisement in the followership”.
He therefore recommended very strongly that:
‘’A democratic government protects the different and most times, conflicting interests of the various segments of society. Democracy must strive to include most, if not exactly all segments of society in the run of things. Consensus or compromise must always be sought. A society that is run otherwise risks antipathy from within it’’.
But as we shall show later, President Obasanjo didn’t only tried doing exactly what he has accused the new crop of African leaders of doing, but also institutionalize this evil phenomena of tenure elongation. Leaders who are bent on enthroning authoritarianism are known to be both as ruthless as well as reckless in the pursuit of their inordinate ambitions. Unfortunately, our President is increasingly shaping into that frame. While he flaunts his credentials as a patriot who has built a bridge to keep Nigeria one, his recent actions cut him in the mold of those who easily forget the lessons of history. Ironically, it was the same President who recently said that history does not repeat itself but rather it is people who forget the lessons of history. There is no doubt that the President and a tiny clique around him are trying to steer Nigeria into murky waters full of political bombs. All well-meaning Nigerians should, therefore, rise up, as they have done in the past, to nip in the bud this cynical and dangerous move. As for Jonathan, he could do well by heeding the advice of President Matthew Kerekou of the Republic of Benin to Obasanjo that;
“If you show your wish to remain in power or try to insist on staying there and the people don’t want you, you are heading for the sort of trouble, which Benin managed to avoid in 1990.”
Because anyone, “Who fails to leave power, power will leave him.”
However, should President Jonathan choose to ignore this brotherly advice, he may very well be reminded of what his boss Obasanjo is believed to have told former President Ibrahim Babaganda, in a speech at a 1992 Council of State meeting, in response to the calls by some groups for him to prolong his stay in power:
“As someone who was in the battlefield during the Nigerian Civil War and who unexpectedly but providentially assumed the mantle of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria and the leadership of the government, I beg you in the name of Allah not to mistake the silence of our people for acquiescence or weakness and the sycophancy of the greedy and opportunistic people who parade the corridors of power as representative of the true feelings of our people. Nigeria needs peace and stability. It is too fragile to face another commotion. In God’s good name drag it not into one. This is the time for you to have some honorable exit. May God help you and help our country.”
With the recent Senate President David Mark rationalization of the scheme by simply pointing that it is only President Jonathan that can provide the dividends of democracy, Imagination does not have to be stretched too far to discern the objectives of this open attempt to hoodwink our people. It is obviously aimed at creating a state of tension to justify President Jonathan’s continued stay in office. The dangerous signals are already beaming, for even the blind to see.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
But this strategy is fraught with serious dangers especially during a period of transition such as this for, if care is not taken; the extreme political tension it is likely to generate could lead to chaos and possibly military intervention. Such kind of pronouncements from David Mark had in the past led to the intervention of the Nigerian Armed Forces, who, since independence have sworn to fight for the indivisibility of Nigeria and have often used as the excuse for their intervention, political tensions such as is being roused by the President and his hangers-on. Mark’s statement is interesting as it is very instructive when linked to the cluster six years term agenda. The attempt by the President to stay put in Aso Rock beyond 2015, is pregnant with similar consequences for Nigeria. For one, if it succeeds, it will truncate the country’s transition to democratic rule and entrench civilian dictatorship. For another, if care is no taken, the very process itself, whether successful or not, could lead to the same end. So far the President and his henchmen have advanced no convincing arguments to justify their inordinate desire to cling to power nor do they tell the world that the President is not contesting after 2015 as he is constitutionally eligible. Their actions however, are strong pointers to the dangers ahead. Some of these actions and the dangers they portend are emanating from the Senate President. The weaknesses of people who lead Nigeria are revealed by the day through such behaviors that portend ineptitude and the lack of willingness to lead by example and unquestionable capacity to lead. These politicians are a disgrace to the polity and therefore all hands must be on deck to chase them out of the political arrangement of this country. I am of the opinion that there is need to redefine the pattern of politics in this country by ensuring that every political aspirant is weighed on a scale before he is eventually elected. I think we are paying the price of our docility. People who forced themselves on us through the manipulation of the electoral process are free to take us for a ride as long as we remain incapable of holding our destinies in our own hands.
The great concern is the dominance of evil, corruption, coercion and shamelessness in the ruling party which they belong. Before the day dawns, I wish to bring to the notice of those with Nigeria in mind, that time is running out for Nigeria. If the nation survives this time, it may not survive for a long time.
[email protected]
MUKHTAR KABIR USMAN IS A PhD FELLOW AND WROTE IN FROM UNIVERSITI ANTRBANGSA ISLAM MALAYSIA
KUALA LUMPUR
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });