25 Feb 2007 |
|
2007 Elections: Nigeria's Dilemma In 1979, President Olusegun Obasanjo, General of the Nigerian Army and Head of State of Nigeria as he then was, was praised for handing over power to civilians, and for organising an election that was largely considered credible. This was despite the protests from the Unity Party of Nigeria, that its Presidential candidate, the late Chief Obafemi Awolwo actually won the Presidential election, there was also the emergent controversy over the meaning of twelve two thirds. Obasanjo rode on the back of the goodwill that this singular achievement as a soldier who allowed democracy in his country, brought him; it became the basis for his subsequent pre-eminence in world affairs; his influence, his acceptability, his credibility and in part the reason why he seemed a good choice for Nigeria in 1999. Less than 50 days to Nigeria's 2007 elections, with Nigeria now under Obasanjo's watch as President, it can be said that Obasanjo has burnt his bridges; if the April elections hold, and succeed, this would be in spite of the President's politics, and when Obasanjo leaves, he may not receive praise but condemnation. That prospect is self-inflicted, the product of an odd process of self-demystification, and there is no better evidence of this than the dilemma into which the Obasanjo government has thrown Nigeria even as it pretends to be busy working on a free and fair electoral process. The dilemma is worth defining. I begin by reiterating the trite point that the people's ownership of the electoral process is important for its credibility and legitimacy as the true expression of the will of the majority. General communal enthusiasm for democracy and faith in its outcomes help to build a culture of trust and co-operation, a bond, and consensus about future directions. Where this is absent, where democracy is based on a foundation of doubt and anxiety, mutual distrust, and so much disbelief, and creative distancing and division, it becomes a mere ritual and no more, it is at best sheer procedure, and not a platform and occasion for national renewal and growth. This is the point where Nigeria finds itself at the moment. {mosgoogle right}There is so much talk about democracy and elections, but the people are grossly discounted. They want the elections to hold; the alternative of military rule or a revolution, is too costly to be contemplated, but the electoral process that is being played out is neither of the people nor by the people. There are millions of Nigerians holding voters' cards, having registered for the elections, but they are not under any illusion that those cards confer any special powers of choice. The people are overwhelmed by the evil of excessive politics in the environment. They are forced to doubt the future because the electoral process has been reduced to a conflict of egos. In 2007, we are dealing so far not with Nigeria's future and the people's place in it, but conflict between the President and the Vice President and how that alone defines everything else in the political sphere. If the 2007 elections take place, and there is transition in form of the emergence of new governments at all levels, the people can only heave a sigh of relief. This would be an expression also of genuine surprise. The political scene ahead of the 2007 elections is the picture of a house that is divided against itself. It should be noted that whereas the majority of our people appear to be willing to wait and see what happens, there is a significant number within this same society that is already preparing self-preservation plans, should the possibility of violence and a blow out become too real. In many of the multinational companies operating in Nigeria, the workers, both expatriate and local, have made arrangements for their families to travel abroad while Nigeria struggles with its elections. Many privileged Nigerians have also made travel plans to enable them monitor the polls and the aftermath from afar. Speed boats are also being made ready in case certain persons need to make a quick dash for neighbouring countries by sea. Nigeria's politics may not reach this critical end, we are invariably a lucky country, but the anxiety in the land is real nonetheless. The short of it is this: if the people are outside the process, if they have no faith in the preparations, where is the basis then, for the legitimacy of the outcomes? Post-April 2007, we are likely to have electoral outcomes which do not inspire public confidence, resulting in greater alienation between the people and the ruling political class. The ancillary question that is now being posed by certain members of the National Assembly and even the populace is: will the elections in fact, hold in April? And really, is Nigeria prepared for the April elections? Are there any reasons to believe that the Electoral Commission as well as other institutions, the police etc are ready? Living in Nigeria at the moment, the impression we get is that the polity has been over-heated, that the future is uncertain; that INEC is not prepared. The electoral process is in a state of so much flux. INEC has been busy playing politics, it is body and feet involved in the quarrel between the President and the Vice President. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has been accused of turning itself into an Alsatian dog, which is being used to embarrass whoever the President dislikes. There are so many cases in court challenging aspects of the electoral process. If the elections take place in spite of all these, that is, in the absence of confidence in the process, the outcome may be unacceptable, particularly to those who are bound to feel that the elections have been contrived to serve the President's purpose only. Many of the persons who have been disqualified from contesting in the elections have followers and constituencies. Atiku for example has been going round the country building a support base. It will be na�ve to think that those who have been excluded from the process will stop fighting after the elections. It is also difficult to predict the form that their protest will assume. What can be said is that by insisting on alienating the people and the opposition, the Obasanjo government is offering the country a poisoned chalice, thus sowing the seeds for instability. Unfortunately, it is too late for the President to extricate himself from the elections. His politics, and the opposition to it, pose the biggest threat to Nigeria's democracy. The beauty of democracy lies in its inclusive nature and purpose; an exclusionary electoral process wilfully constructed to be so, can only breed discord and instability. If this is the case, the question has also been asked, and it is being debated: should the elections be postponed to allow more time for reconciliation and preparation? Ordinarily a postponement of the elections can be contemplated, but public opinion is opposed to this for the clear reason that all the problems that have been identified are all entirely contrived. The deduction is that this is so because President Obasanjo does not want to leave office in May 2007. He wants more time. He wants to achieve the agenda of tenure extension through the back door. Create a crisis, make the electoral process appear so difficult, and the future so uncertain that even the people themselves will be the ones begging for an extension of tenure. Not surprisingly, some of the lawmakers in the National Assembly are already lobbying for such an extension. But this cannot work. It will be resisted by the opposition; the people will not accept it either. The opposition: because it would amount to an open defeat for it. For the average politician who has spent so much money getting ready for the April polls, it will be a disaster. The people will also reject such a proposal because they are simply tired of the Obasanjo government and its many quarrels. In the past one year, there has been no real governance in Abuja, only fights. The people will rather opt for change in any form. And this is where the dilemma lies: the April polls are not about expectations of quality or integrity. For the purpose of change for its sake, the people are willing again to accept democracy as a form of blackmail. It is sad that in every election, the Nigerian people are always prepared to lower standards for the sake of stability. To solve the problem and set the country on a better path, some lawmakers in the National Assembly are reportedly collecting signatures for the commencement of impeachment proceedings against the President. This is sequel to the censure of the President by the Senate on the ground that the man talks too carelessly and should mind his language henceforth. But I don't see how the National Assembly can impeach President Obasanjo. The idea itself can only spread more tension in the country and further make the April polls unrealisable. Obasanjo's impeachment will mean victory for the Atiku camp. If the President is impeached, Atiku will automatically become President. Obasanjo has already vowed that this will never happen. He should be taken seriously. Those who are calling for his impeachment at this time ought to consider the larger implications in terms of cost and the nation's interest. In the light of this dilemma, the view has also been expressed that both Obasanjo and Atiku should be impeached. Even that option is an open invitation to chaos; that is not the road to take. Nigeria is truly at a crossroads. Every road leads to one accident or the other. The man to hold responsible for this is President Olusegun Obasanjo. By using public institutions to pursue his private idea of politics and morality, he has managed to alienate too many constituencies in the country; he has also compromised the country's political future. He has created too many desperate camps in Nigerian politics, too many wounds that may not heal too easily. INEC, which is supposed to be an unbiased umpire in the whole saga, has shown itself too early in the day to be incapable of impartiality. The security agencies at all levels are only interested in taking directives from the man of power. My fear is that the people are left with no option but to accept once again, the blackmail of democracy. They are likely to go through an election which they believe will be rigged, yet they have no option but to go through the motion of participation for the sake of Nigeria. Unlike their leaders, the people love Nigeria and are willing to make sacrifices for it. They make too many sacrifices. It is important that the Nigerian people do not give up easily. Civil society has surprisingly been too complacent; it must re-awaken itself quickly and stand sentinel on the issues of integrity in the April 2007 elections. It must display the kind of vigilance that we have received from the law courts in the past one year. The people must be mobilised to find their lost voice and return to the centre of events. Speaking up for democracy could be a starting point; a resolve to defend the electoral space against all clandestine plans is another; running away from the country and the elections is not an option. We need to rescue the country and the present electoral process from professional politicians and their depraved agents.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.