|
Presidential debate: Bring back yesterday
By Levi Obijiofor
Friday, 10 October 2008
Two of the endearing features of the 1993 presidential election were the fascinating political campaign advertising and the televised presidential debate between Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC). The highly engaging presidential debate and the high quality of political advertising helped to spice up the 1993 election campaigns.
Abiola and Tofa, separated by distinctively different ideologies and political programmes, engaged each other in serious debate in an attempt to win the attention and support of undecided voters. They used the debate to showcase their individual talents, their political experience, their organisational and managerial skills, the sharpness of their business aptitude and their understanding of national politics and international diplomacy. Beyond all the rhetoric, however, television audiences were interested in finding out how each man planned to improve the nation’s economy, the decrepit infrastructure, the poor public utilities, the decadent healthcare system, and the declining quality of tertiary and secondary education.
Apart from the high quality of the debate, Abiola and Tofa showed that it was indeed possible for political candidates in Nigeria to engage in “politics without bitterness” (apology to Ibrahim Waziri). For once in the second half of the 20th century, presidential candidates in the country were able to conduct politics without the complexities of constant references to ethnicity, religious differences, regional arrogance, and claims of educational superiority and inferiority. It was a fairly polished and violence-free election campaign.
There was one particular television advertisement that continues to play in my mind 15 years after supreme dictator Ibrahim Babangida rudely interrupted a political process that would have been celebrated as Nigeria’s moment of genuine political transformation. Exuberantly happy women, clad in colourful SDP uniform, sang and danced in praise of Abiola, their party’s presidential candidate. That advertisement was simply captivating.
Unfortunately, informed political debate and high quality television advertising seem to have all disappeared from our national politics. It was as if Babangida’s termination of the 1993 presidential election results also killed off the future of general elections in Nigeria. Where happiness and a general willingness to participate in the political process marked the 1993 election, the mood of the nation during the 2003 and 2007 elections was grim. Fear and indifference pervaded the nation.
Fifteen years on, Babangida’s annulment of the 1993 presidential election results remains a major blot on our national image and history, regardless of how Humphrey Nwosu, the cowardly election umpire, laboured to re-write history in his turgid and roundly ridiculed book. When a dictator such as Babangida destroys his own political program, as he did in 1993, he destroys not only the nation’s political soul but also public trust on national leaders and the general belief in the political process.
Compare the conduct of the 1993 presidential election with the 2003 and 2007 general elections which were seriously marred by unprecedented levels of rigging, extraordinary violence sponsored by thuggish elements within the political parties, and other grave misdemeanours such as election eve stuffing of ballot boxes and the audacious snatching of ballot boxes from polling officials. If the 1993 presidential election was devoid of violence and fraud, the 2003 and 2007 elections introduced new and dreadful elements into our political life.
In the 2003 elections, Olusegun Obasanjo and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) introduced into our political lexicon new theories for conquering political opponents in general elections. In the 2007 elections, the new theories were refined, re-applied and validated by the PDP hierarchy in concert with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Enlightened debate by presidential candidates is one of the things we miss sorely in national elections since 1993. Although presidential debates may not determine how people would vote on election day, there are very good reasons why we should reconsider the re-introduction of presidential debates in future elections. A presidential debate provides a forum for voters to assess the programs and policies of each candidate. It enables voters to examine the mental strength and mindset of those soliciting their votes.
A presidential debate can reveal how articulate and well-informed the candidates are in regard to their understanding of critical national and international political, economic and social issues. Any presidential candidate who fails to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the basic principles of governance ought to disengage from the political process. There is no point in electing a clumsy politician as a president.
With specific reference to the 2007 election, a presidential debate could have given the nation a revealing glimpse into the inner qualities of Umaru Yar’Adua, his inner strength of character, what motivates him, his state of health and his political philosophy. Judging by the way Olusegun Obasanjo single-handedly picked Umaru Yar’Adua and suppressed internal party dissent, judging by the way Obasanjo used vile allegations of corruption and threats of imprisonment to scare other quality presidential candidates within the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) through the tacit cooperation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), it is now imperative that presidential candidates – willing or unwilling – should be compelled to participate in televised presidential debates in order to answer questions from journalists and members of the public.
Presidential debates may not make a good president but they offer the candidates an opportunity to address issues of concern to the electorate. For example, a presidential debate in 2007 would have provided the nation an opportunity to confront rumours about Yar’Adua’s health and his ability to govern. And Yar’Adua would have had a golden chance on national television to confirm or deny rumours of his health.
Now, Yar’Adua and his minders have been forced to issue seasonal press releases to deny constant rumours associated with his health condition. No president would like to see his administration dominated by rumours of his health. Unfortunately, in the past 16 months, the nation has – formally and informally – been pre-occupied with rumours of the president’s health rather than engage in rigorous assessment of Yar’Adua’s performance. Yar’Adua too must be worried that constant chatter about his health is diverting public attention from his government’s achievements, if any.
A presidential debate in 2007 would have given the nation a chance to ask questions about how Yar’Adua and other candidates planned to tackle electricity problems, the endless conflict in the Niger Delta region, the collapse of the healthcare system, the worsening state of federal roads, improvement in the quality of education at all levels, as well as a general improvement in the economy.
There are major challenges involved in organising presidential debates. They include picking a non-partisan broadcaster that is agreeable to all the candidates, selecting credible and non-partisan journalists along with impartial audience members who would constitute a panel of interviewers. Add to these the difficulty of organising a series of debates for a large number of presidential candidates. There are also other problems to be considered when we weigh up the idea of organising presidential debates. Consider language and illiteracy. If the debate is conducted in English, high levels of illiteracy may constrain the ability of the vast majority of voters in the rural areas to follow the television debate. These are not insurmountable problems.
We must also keep in mind that questions posed to presidential candidates in an impromptu way can unsettle the candidates and their supporters. Some questions could be viewed as unfriendly, confrontational, and biased. Harmless questions which fluster a candidate are likely to be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to impugn the integrity of the candidate or to cast aspersions on his ability to govern. In our politically explosive environment, no one should discount the possibility that disaffected party supporters might seek to extract some kind of revenge on journalists and audience members for performing their civic duty in a democracy.
Our kind of democracy is the democracy that confers authoritarian powers on the president and state governors. It is the democracy that preaches respect for rule of law but secretly encourages the law of the jungle. Our democracy does not tolerate public questioning of political leaders. And it certainly does not accept open communication by public officers. If in doubt, ask presidential assistants and advisers who were recently administered with oaths of secrecy meant to keep the public perpetually in the dark about how the affairs of the state are being managed by political leaders. It must be a crime in our system for the press and the public to scrutinise the president and state governors.
|
Authors 
Posted by Robot| 10.10.2008 09:41