By Reuben Abati The hottest issue in Nigerian politics at the moment is the matter of alleged plans by President Olusegun Obasanjo to extend his tenure and do either an additional two years or six years. Northern lawmakers are planning a meeting in the next few days to issue a joint statement warning the President not to even think about the idea of an extension. In the South-West, both the Alliance for Democracy and the Afenifere have called on all progressive forces in the Nigerian society to be on standby in case there is need to confront those who may be tempted to shift the political goal-post at half-time. Last week, the Speaker of the House of Representatives as well as other political figures across the country also publicly opposed the idea. The emerging debate is not only heating up the polity; it is distracting public attention. But looking at the issues afresh, I am convinced that we have nothing to fear. President Obasanjo cannot impose himself on Nigerians beyond May 29, 2007; even if he wishes to do so, he won't be able to do it. The sit-tight syndrome, the most lucid indication of the onset of full-blown tyranny, has been effective in other African countries. Indeed the political history of the continent is littered with examples of sit-tight leaders who would stop at nothing including the manipulation of parliament and amendments to the constitution to remain in office, in violation of their original contract with the people. These include Arap Moi (Kenya), Houphouet-Boigny (Cote d'Ivoire), Omar Bongo (Gabon), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Kamuzu Banda (Malawi) and Eyadema (Togo). Because of these precedents, it is possible to aver that a similar situation may arise in Nigeria. And also because Nigerians tasted large-scale tyranny under General Sani Abacha, they have learnt to stop boasting that certain things that have occurred in other African countries cannot happen here. Military rule robbed Nigerians of their innocence, we have been socialised to expect the worst of all circumstances and to distrust persons in positions of leadership. Nevertheless, the current debate over whether or not President Obasanjo will succeed himself contrary to the 1999 Constitution which brought him to power and under which he has been elected twice as President, should be placed in a local historical context. To date, there is no Nigerian leader who has toyed with the idea of staying beyond his welcome who did not leave the office either in disgrace or unceremoniously. When former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon began to quibble about his promise to vacate office as Nigeria's military Head of State in the early 70s, he was eased out by his own officers in a military coup which was widely supported by the Nigerian people. When in 1993, former President Ibrahim Babangida started playing games with the political transition programme, including the annulment of a free and fair election, he was hounded out of office as Nigeria's Head of State. If it were possible for him to do so, he would have remained in office. He and his wife loved the power and the glamour that the office of President brought, so much that the wife was variously quoted as saying that only God could remove them from the Aso Presidential Villa. In the end, God removed them earlier than they had imagined with their public image in tatters. General Sani Abacha also wanted to defy the Nigerian people and make democratic rule impossible, but God also removed him. Today, his name evokes instant and ready objections. Only two leaders in Nigerian history, although as military leaders, have been able to leave office with their heads in the sky, and that is because they facilitated a return to civilian rule within the shortest possible time. And these two are General Olusegun Obasanjo, now President and General Abdusalami Abubakar. In 1979, General Obasanjo faithfully handed over power to the politicians and it is on this singular act, at a time when Africa was notorious for its vicious military rulers that the foundation of Obasanjo's reputation and relevance rests. When he acted in this seemingly atypical fashion, Obasanjo drew international attention to himself and gained a moral stature far in excess of what he should ordinarily have been entitled to. There are two deductions from these bits of Nigerian political history. The first is that any attempt by President Obasanjo to stay in office beyond May 2007, will be fiercely resisted by civil society and other political forces. The threats now being issued by certain groups in society should be taken as mere, idle threats. The struggle between 1993 and 1999 taught us one lesson which is that the struggle for democracy and against tyranny is ideological and economic, collective and individualistic, with definite advantages. Those who seized the platform at that time have been relatively idle since 1999; if they are provoked, the level of capacity that they will mobilise and display will be astonishing. If anyone is tempting Obasanjo to ride the tiger of public anger, all he needs to do is to re-read the stories of Babangida and Sani Abacha. The second point is that Obasanjo himself is fully aware of his place in history. He is in fact a man who loves history and would always want to be on the good side of it. When he left office in 1979, the international community opened its doors to him. He was made a member of the Group of Eminent persons, he got involved in the dismantling of apartheid and nuclear armament projects, he helped to conceptualise and design the development process in Africa, in a word, he became a moral symbol, a kind of example which the West wanted to identify with. While other former military rulers hid their heads in shame, Obasanjo travelled around the world. He became an outspoken critic of military high-handedness. No other Nigerian, with perhaps the later exception of Wole Soyinka as Nobel Laureate, enjoyed the same influence and international acceptability. Significantly, Obasanjo was appointed to the boards of such bodies as the Ford Foundation and the Transparency International. He also set up a successful think-tank on leadership called the Africa Leadership Forum which supported discussions of research into democracy, development and good governance processes. When Obasanjo leaves office in 2007, he may not exactly need the likes of Greg Mbadiwe, that fellow who says "there is no vacancy in Aso Villa", he should have enough to occupy him at the Africa Leadership Forum, the Obasanjo Library in Abeokuta and his Ota Farms. He can pick up his international connections and continue with his former career in retirement as an international statesman. That was one aspect of his life which he used to enjoy very much. As a former Nigerian military ruler who handed over power to civilians, there was no country in the world where Obasanjo was not treated with great courtesy. I do not think that he will throw all that away. He should know that if he does, he would have destroyed his own basis for relevance. If he violates the will of the Nigerian people in any way, he will become a prisoner in his own house after 2007, the same doors that used to receive him will be shut against him. IBB is yet to recover from what he did in 1993; only a few weeks ago, some British diplomats were asking President Obasanjo in London whether Babangida is still alive. If anyone were to say that about Obasanjo at an international forum, that would be a great personal tragedy indeed. The suicide represented by an extension of his tenure should be undesirable. Our attention has been drawn to a number of signs which we are told is enough proof that the President does not want to go. The first is that the National Conference was conceived to achieve only one objective: namely the extension of Obasanjo's tenure, and that the Governors will also benefit from this. But of course, this was strongly opposed at that Conference, and those who participated in the exercise have said that what they recommend is a maximum of two terms of four years as in the 1999 Constitution. There are persons who are purportedly close to the President who are working on the 2007 project, and who have been telling him to remain in office. Such persons are fortune-hunters; they are interested in themselves not Obasanjo. They want to remain close to the corridors of power and enjoy the privileges of authority. After 2007, and Obasanjo is out of office, he may never see many of them again; they would have moved on to a new master. The other argument in favour of whatever it is that Obasanjo is said to be planning is that as at this moment, there is no successor yet. And that the Obasanjo beyond 2007 consultants are deliberately trying to contrive a situation whereby the absence of a successor will compel Nigerians to ask Obasanjo to continue in office. I agree that the office of President is not the kind of office that a man can just wake up one morning and walk into. This almost happened in 1993 when one man called Bashir Tofa tried to become Nigeria's President. But to suggest that there is a short-supply of Presidential materials in this country would be unfair. Besides, the Presidency is not anyone's birthright. After Obasanjo, there will still be Nigeria. The view that Obasanjo has to groom his successor since he obviously does not want his Vice President to succeed him is discourteous. Obasanjo's mandate under the Constitution does not include helping Nigerians to groom the next President. Only Nigerians can decide for themselves who should be their President. When Obasanjo's term is up, we would be glad to see him leave. There is also the role of the National Assembly which has now been asked to look at the reports of the National Conference and amend the constitution accordingly. The truth is that the national assembly is not under any compulsion to look at those reports. It can decide in its own wisdom to set those reports aside. If that happens, so what would anybody who may have an Obasanjo-must-stay agenda do? Those lawmakers also ought to know that if they allow themselves to be used for any anti-democratic purpose, many of them will not be able to return to their constituencies. If they must amend the constitution and introduce a single six-year term, that would be for a future government elected under that new constitution. The Constitution cannot be changed to keep Obasanjo in office by all means. And why would the National Assembly help to extend Obasanjo's tenure when nobody has said anything about their own part of the deal? The passion with which we discuss Obasanjo's alleged third term, simply shows the fragile nature of our democracy and the problematic nature of the power equation in Nigeria. But I remain optimistic: Obasanjo will go in 2007. He must know that in or out of office, he will remain relevant in Nigerian politics, and to strengthen that relevance, a bigger stake is for him to organise a successful transition in 2007. So, why would he destroy the achievement of a lifetime, to make the political jobbers who surround him, whose loyalty he cannot be sure of, happy? Why would he take a step that would him push him down to the same level as Babangida, Abacha, Eyadema, Kamuzu Banda, Mugabe and the rest of that class? Is it not even possible that we are all being manipulated? The 2007 Consultants may be playing mind games with the Nigerian public, such that when Obasanjo then leaves in 2007, we would be expected to praise him for refusing to be tempted, when in fact the whole debate is being contrived for image-laundering purposes in the future. The only thing Obasanjo may be worried about is the verdict of the historians when he is gone. But he must wait to read what will be written when that time comes. For now, we are still taking notes.
|
# 
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.