*JONATHAN'S DECLARATION: He cannot declare on PDP platform — David West
* Red alert: Election'll end in chaos– Balarabe Musa .
* Nigeria on the Brink: What Happens If the 2011 Elections Fail? - John Campbell
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VANGUARD
JONATHAN'S DECLARATION: He cannot declare on PDP platform — David West
Politics Sep 11, 2010
Prof. Tam David West, was the Minister of Petroleum Resources during the military regime of Ibrahim Babangida.
In this encounter, the professor of Virology writes off President Jonathan's perceived ambition to fly the presidential flag of PDP, saying the zoning formula of the party is currently in favour of the North. He also dismisses him as the best for Nigeria saying Jonathan has never campaigned for any election and has a shallow track-record politically. In his assessment, General Muhammedu Buhari is the best man for the job. Excerpts.
What's your view on the preparations made so far towards 2011 general elections?
David West: Let him respect zoning
Well, I have looked at the scenario at hand and I want to say that Nigeria cannot have credible elections if we don't have any thing down to suggest it. We cannot keep deceiving ourselves.
One of the problems against Prof; Maurice Iwu's INEC was the lack of credible voters' register and do we have that now? With the release of the new timetable and seeing what we saw, would we have a credible election?
So, we should get serious and tell ourselves the truth. We have said we want free and fair elections and we want elections by January. How will that be? There is no voters register yet and we want free and fair elections.
INEC is already working on a new voters register.
The current chairman of INEC who we believe is better than Iwu should be careful because his reputation is on the line. If he already has a new voters register, let him tell us. He should tell Nigerians about it by addressing the nation.
INEC should address the nation. INEC should buy pages of newspapers to tell the country what is going on with voters register. Everybody knows that Iwu's voters register is beyond repair and we don't have confidence in it.
We should not manage it for any reason and we must get this election right. Nothing should stop INEC from sacrificing all that needs to be sacrificed for free and fair elections. You cannot have credible election without a credible voters list.
Voters registration is yet to commence but the fear now is whether the January date for elections would be right if we want to achieve results.
January cannot be okay. We are in September already and to prepare a new voters register, we need at least three months to register 120 million people. A new voters register must be durable for us to get better election results. We must get it right for the future of this country.
We must remove the time constraint of January. If we don't get it right this time, we will continue to have problems. The time is too short but INEC knows best.
What time do you think will be best for the elections to commence?
I don't know what time but we can't put absolute time when we are not yet prepared, when we have not solved the problems. But my position is, if Jega needs a longer time, let him have it.
A new voters register is a must. We need a credible voters register if we want the elections to be credible or we will be heading for turbulence. Anyone who tries to rig this election is asking for trouble but the time is short. If Jega says the time s okay, let him address the nation and tell Nigerians January dateline is okay, that he needs no extension.
Let Jega address the nation and tell us that the time limit is okay so that in future, nobody would use it as an excuse for anything. The confidence of the voters is on him. He must speak up.
But you know some Nigerians would crucify INEC if the date is shifted.
That would be penny wise, pound foolish. It is better to be late and get things well, than to hurry into problems. We criticised Iwu. We want to discard of everything Iwu and yet we don't want to give all it will take to have credible elections. That would be foolishness.
I think our problem is poverty. We don't talk and insist on our position. We want Jega to give us credible elections and to get credible elections, we need credible voters register. We cannot have free and fair elections without that and that is the basic truth or we are back to where we started.
Besides INEC, would you say the parties are ready. In the ruling party, they are not done yet with the argument on zoning and nothing much is happening in other parties.
It is the PDP that is throwing itself into confusion. Zoning is a PDP problem and whether the party likes it or not, it must provide a Northern candidate. If it gets its candidate from any where other than the North, there will be problems because its constitution says so. PDP should change its constitution if it insists that Jonathan will contest.
If that change is not effected, then, Jonathan cannot contest on the platform of PDP. If he goes ahead, he will be asking for trouble. That section 7: 2(c) of the PDP constitution must be removed. The party agreed it's eight years to the South and eight to the North and must abide by it.
I am not a politician, I belong to no political party but I have the interest of the country at heart. As at now, in the interest of PDP, a Northerner has to be the candidate.Jonathan should go and declare on another platform.
Nigerians believe PDP will produce the next President and I think that is what the problem is about.
How do you know PDP will produce the President? Who can explain that? Is it because PDP is in control now? Will PDP rig the election? If you say PDP will produce the next President, its like rigging the election in advance. I don't believe PDP will produce the next president.
But you said the party must field a Northerner because its eight years to the North and eight to the South. It's saying the same thing.
It's about the constitution of the party and the fact that some people want Jonathan to contest. I'm not saying Jonathan should not contest if he wants but it should not be on the platform of PDP.
But what PDP NWC has said is that Jonathan has inherited Yar'Adua's tenure including the right to a second term in office.
Please don't even try that explanation. Jonathan is on Yar'Adua ticket. That mandate died with Yar'Adua. Jonathan can only conclude the remaining four years and we all know this. Why are we doing like this? Jonathan cannot contest another four years on behalf of Yar'Adua.
The doctrine of necessity is not applicable here. It is not in our constitution. There is nothing like Yar'Adua/Jonathan joint ticket. It was Yar'Adua and he picked Jonathan as his running mate.
Things should not be mixed up. Jonathan was irrelevant when Yar'Adua was around. It was not his mandate. The constitution is clear on this. The presidential candidate will choose his running mate. Yar'Adua chose Jonathan. He was just lucky to be chosen by Yar'Adua.
As Vice-President, Jonathan was nothing without Yar'Adua because the Constitution is clear. It is the presidential candidate that chooses who will run with him. To say Jonathan has inherited the right to a second term in office is not true.
He was Vice-President and now President and has chosen his Vice President in the person of Sambo.
It was convenient for him to become President because of circumstances at that time. That is coming to an end and PDP must field a northern candidate. Jonathan is the President on borrowed terms. If you lend me N1,000 and you gave me IOU and my son countersigned, if I refund N500 and die, my son will pay you the remaining N500. It is the same thing here.
Yar'Adua was voted for four years and he served three and died. Jonathan will conclude the remaining one year and hand over to the North . That is how it should be, not the other way round.
PDP is owing the North, one more tenure of four years. If PDP does not field a Northern candidate, that is the beginning of the end of that party. It is still the turn of the North to produce the president in that party.
The leadership of the party has accepted that all their aspirants are free to contest primaries.
PDP cannot say all the aspirants are free to contest primaries. The party has a constitution and must abide by the dictates of that constitution or abrogate it.
It is expected that Jonathan will declare from today. Are you saying he shouldn't?
Jonathan can declare in the moon, in the sun or anywhere he likes but he cannot be the presidential candidate of PDP. Anybody can contest but in PDP, zoning is their policy. So, let him declare anywhere, it should not be on the platform of PDP.
He cannot be the presidential candidate of the party because there is no justification for that. It is also wrong to say that anybody who contests on PDP platform must be president. That is a lie. It cannot be like that.
It was reported you are supporting General Buhari.
Buhari is the best amongst all those who have been there before that are trying to stage a come-back. He has a track-record. He is principled. Remember, I was part of a government and I am speaking from experience.
I was not speaking with Buhari, I don't have his number even now but I know what I am saying based on his record from the past. He is disciplined and he achieved results. Buhari is the best and I'm saying it loud and clear and history is backing me up.
Today, we complain of corruption in leadership. Buhari is the only leader who has not been tried for corruption. He doesn't know me, we don't talk and he didn't even know when I was writing a book on him. Buhari is the best.
The South-South where you come from has not produced a president before and one expects that you should support Jonathan.
That is not the way it goes. I don't support that line of argument. I'm not against Jonathan contesting but I don't support him. What has he done before? In terms of track records, what is his?
Does he have experience? His records are very, very shallow. Jonathan has not contested elections before. He rode on the back of Alamiesegha to become Governor of Bayelsa and on the back of Yar'Adua to become President.
He never campaigned on his own to become governor or president. So, he has to start from that basics. He has to stand on his own and contest election.
He should not be used as a stooge of somebody. I am from the South-South but supporting Jonathan because he is from the South-South is not the right approach. We need the best to lead Nigerians and based on track-records, the best is Buhari and not Jonathan. We have to tell ourselves this truth without sentiments of any sort.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE SUN
Red alert: Election'll end in chaos– Balarabe Musa .
Sunday, 12 September 2010 05:30 administrator .Balarabe Musa
.From ISMAIL OMIPIDAN, Kaduna
Former Kaduna State governor, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, is not a member of the Northern Elders Forum or part of any known group in the north insisting that power must return to the north in 2011. He is also not part of the Jerry Gana-led group or any of the pro-Jonathan group in the north.
However, he is of the view that President Goodluck Jonathan is too young to be desperate for power.
In this interview in Kaduna, the first civilian governor of old Kaduna State and current leader of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) asked: "Why is he in a hurry? The consequence is that if he insists on contesting in 2011, under the present circumstances, he will destroy his chance of winning and even contesting in 2015". As usual, he bares his mind on a wide range of issues.
Excerpts…
You are known to have radical views about issues, what is your candid advice to Nigerians and President Jonathan on this zoning debacle?
My advice is first to Nigerians and then to the President. To Nigerians, it has now been proved that the controversy on zoning or rotation or power shift is unnecessary and dishonest, because these things are what happen in our life in Nigeria. Zoning or rotation or shifting on political matters is what we have been doing. The only new thing is that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as a party, has made it a policy but they did not originate it. It was originated by the clamour of Nigerians to ensure that there is justice in the sharing of power between the North and the South; it went even further to provide a legal base for it by providing for federal character in the constitution of Nigeria.
So, the situation now is such that even you, as a private individual in your private life, if you have for an instance an industry in an area, you will like to employ people from various parts of the country, particularly if you are establishing such an industry in areas like Lagos, Abuja, Kano, Jos, Enugu, Port Harcourt etc. This is part and parcel of our sense of sharing, fairness, so why the controversy? It is simply because political parties want to manipulate the situation, for an agenda which can be very dangerous for the country, because everybody can now see now that if we continue the controversy beyond the present position, we will be undermining the stability of Nigeria.
The present position is that the PDP, just like in 1999, has formalized zoning; it said so clearly that it stands by zoning and secondly, it says it respects the position of the constitution which provides for the right of every Nigerian to contest any election. They respect this, but they are a political party, the same constitution allows them to nominate candidate for election so the construction has provided two things: the right of everybody to contest for any post and the right of a political party to decide which candidate to represent them. So, the PDP or any political party can balance this and when they come to their zoning, they would be in a position to decide in the interest of the party, and if they prevail, that is fine; if of course, the fundamental rights of the individual prevailed, they will also accept it.
Why do you think so?
Because the party in control of government in Nigeria is very strong, it has incumbency advantages, can you imagine the PDP wanting Atiku to be the presidential candidate and then he will not get it, because the constitution gives someone else the right to contest? I give you another example. You know that in 2003, in spite of the provision of the PDP constitution, and in spite of the decision of the PDP to zone the presidency to the South, some PDP leaders including the late Rimi went to the primaries and he was allowed because he has the constitutional right to do so, but what happened? But what am now saying is that let us stop this controversy, because we know that a political party has the right to nominate a candidate for elections, unless he is an independent candidate which is another matter and they will do so subject to the qualifications laid down by the constitution and the electoral act. We know this; so the matter now is in the court of the electorate and that is the best thing. The PDP may zone the presidency to the South in 2011, another political party may nominate candidates from the North and then it would be left to the electorate to decide which one is the best; so, let us have no more controversy over zoning or power shift. Let us exercise our rights to elect the best, let's now be talking about which party we will vote for and which candidate. Let us avoid this unnecessary division.
If you were in Jonathan's shoes, will you contest the 2011 Presidential election, if yes, why, and if no, why?
No, I will not contest; I believe he is making a very dangerous mistake, which some people may even regard as subversive, because of his leadership position as the President of the country and the Chief Security Officer of the country. He knows very well that he has only nine months or so left, because he must hand over on May 29, 2011, by any means. He must hand over otherwise, we will have another crisis. He knows the negative thinking of the nation; he knows the expectation on him, to make the difference and Nigerians expect no less from him; that is why Nigerians made the sacrifice of supporting him to be the acting President, when the PDP and the late President and his people were unwilling at the time.
Nigerians also campaigned for him to be the President, even when the President was still active because there was no hope of the President coming back. So, he should know that he has a lot of goodwill and Nigerians will be let down if he gets himself confused.
Issue number two, is election and legitimate government, in order words only an election which is transparent can guarantee this. Now, how can 2011 election be transparent when he is a candidate for that election particularly under the circumstances of zoning? Will he not be seen to be serving his own interest, that is number two.
Three, he is a young man; why is he in a haste? According to the zoning arrangement of the PDP, the North will finish its term by 2015 and the next zone will be South-South or South-East; virtually every Nigerian accepts this, now why can't he use this 10 months, not for the purpose of contesting elections in 2011, but proving his capability during this difficult time, so that when it comes to the turn of the South-South, where he comes from, he will stand a good chance more than anybody. He can do that because that was what Obasanjo did. Obasanjo performed very well when he was military Head of State and in spite of the fact that we have been against military men participating in our democratic experiment, Obasanjo was presented, and sponsored to win a free and fair election in 1999. Why can he (Jonathan) do the same thing? Why is he in a hurry? The consequence is that if he insists on contesting in 2011, under the present circumstances, he will destroy his chance of winning in 2011 and destroy his chance of even contesting in 2015, it will have to be someone else from the South-South or South-East, why is he in a hurry? I don't think he is up to 50 years now, is he not undermining the expectations of the young ones, making people to think that the young ones are too opportunistic to be relied on? He is not like me that is getting to 75, I may wish to join the fray because, I don't have much time left. But he has a lot of time left for him, so I don't see any reason why he should insist on running in 2011.
The South-South believed that having been with the North for long, 2011 is payback time, but Yakassai said there is nothing like that; what is the situation like, having been around since the First Republic?
I think Yakassai is right in his attitude on zoning, but you know sometimes he can miss the point. But it is not a question of the South-South owing the North; I think the South-South and the North owe each other to continue this relationship in the interest of the continuity of Nigeria.
The first of such relationships is with the South -East when there was power tussle between Tafawa Balewa and Azikiwe. In the end, the South -East gave up in the history of Nigeria to allow Tafawa Balewa become the President of Nigeria. Now during the Second Republic, the South-South and the South- West led the campaign for a northerner to be the President of Nigeria. Because the South West, due to their combatant position in the politics of Nigeria, because of their influence in the media, told the ruling party in Nigeria that it was more realistic to let the north have the Presidency in 1979, because the north was more capable of restraining the military from taking over after they have handed over power in 1979, because there was the possibility then.
So the South- West did the North a payback. The South-West took that position secretly, it did not go to the public, but we and others who could understand, knew when they took that position. The South-East in spite of their grievances agreed, the South-South which in any case was in a kind of gentleman agreement with the North, also agreed and Shagari who was not expected to be anything more than a local government chairman and he said so himself became the President of the country, by the good will of the South-West. The North did the same thing to the South -West, and that made Obasanjo President in 1999. Obasanjo who was even disliked in the South -West, against the wish of the South- West, the same North convinced the South-East, convinced the South-South that in the interest of their 'class', let Obasanjo be.
Now the only time when this did not happen was when the Northern leaders as represented by Babangida annulled the June 12 election. However, in 1999, that was even taken into account in favouring the South-West and making an unpopular candidate who turned out then to be the President of Nigeria.
Now in the case of the South-South, the relationships have been there since in the 1950s, and the most dramatic was during and after the Aburi conference when the Mid-West under Osadebe prevented the disintegration of Nigeria. This happened, because, the North did not care about the continuation of Nigeria. They wanted to leave the Nigeria federation. The South-West did not want it, they wanted the Oduduwa Republic, the South -East has already established a Biafra regime, so it was the Mid-West which convinced the North, that 'look let us stay as one Nigeria, even if the East and the West go, let we the South-South and the North remain as one Nigeria. You have a problem, you have no access to the sea, we have a problem, the South- East and West will be fighting on our ground because of our oil; we have a dilemma if we and you come together and remain as Nigeria, these people, let one go to Biafra and the other Oduduwa. We have your protection and you have direct access to the sea.' It was not written but this is what was decided. Now why should a person like Jonathan upset this arrangement which has worked for the whole Nigeria; every section of Nigeria has done favour to the other politically. When you go economically, it is the same thing. Why should anybody because of his own ambition upset this? We are now hearing things, threats that we did not expect to hear from people, except from immature people.
I told you a few minutes ago what somebody from the West told me that as much as N10 billion has been earmarked for people in the six geo-political zones for the purpose of convincing them to uphold the Jonathan presidency in 2011. Some people have gone to the extent of alleging that some people have been promised oil at $25 per barrel, if they can support the project, it might be rumour but with this level of corruption, stealing and waste in Nigeria, it is not impossible because everything about oil is now under the President; he can do anything, there is little or no control from the National Assembly, and the Nigerian people because they are not combatant.
Are you surprised that there are some northerners working for the actualization of the Jonathan presidency?
Of course, it is a question of money; one of the politicians in Nigeria once said, 'everyone has a price,' you have problem with him only if the price is not high. So if the rumour and the allegations are true that N10 billion has been earmarked to convince people in each of the six zones, and then oil lifting is been made possible at the cost of only $25 per barrel, and the world market price now is about $78 per barrel, you can see how many Nigerians will not go for that.
Will you go for it if you are approached?
The fact is that I cannot even be approached, because what can I do with that sort of money; of course, it can help a lot to build the PRP, but then PRP would have been built on an immoral ground and it would fail and I don't want the PRP to fail. For my person, what will I do with that money, I am not like people who came to their position after they left university. I have been struggling since I was 11 years old. I started work as a third class clerk in the treasury. Now if all these time money cannot make me a liability to the nation, why should it now, when am 74, am not like somebody who started like an official after he left the university, without any social experience and they are many people like that.
Talking about transparency, we heard that there was a time the Obasanjo administration gave you a job, can you confirm or deny that?
Let me tell you what happened. First, my relationship with Obasanjo is such that he was the only President of Nigeria that I tried to relate to openly and practically because I campaigned for him to be the President of Nigeria in 1999, even though I was in the PRP and he was in the PDP. Because we all believed that taking the situation in Nigeria into consideration then, Obasanjo was the least risk that we could take in 1999. So, I campaigned for him openly through the media and at one stage the PDP was so happy with my analysis of the suitability of Obasanjo against the other candidates that they bought pages in 11 newspapers and publicized my position.
And my position then was in agreement with the decision the PRP took long time ago. In 1983, when the NPN did its worst with elections, we sat down in my house here, in my bedroom and decided that we will transform ourselves if necessary from a political party to a national movement for the purpose of ensuring social reconstruction of Nigeria; in order words, we will continue to exist, whether we are registered or not, whether we can contest or not, we will continue as a movement seeking for change, using our fundamental human rights which is contained in the 1979 constitution.
So, when 1999 came, we were not registered as a political party, so we could not contest, but we believed that Nigeria needed a capable President because we will continue to be a political party, so there was no question of we opting out. We can have a different strategy, but we decided that of all the candidates contesting, Obasanjo was the least risk Nigerians could take, we did not approach PDP, it has nothing to do with PDP, but we took this decision that we should support Obasanjo's aspiration, because he was the least risk and we did.
In my own case, in the polling station, in front of my house, I acted as an unofficial agent to Obasanjo, using my social status to scare people from rigging him at that polling station. So, we also had the policy that we are not participating in any government that we have not helped to bring about. But in the case of Obasanjo's government, we helped to bring it about. By our participation as a party and by also my actions, so we were quite willing to participate in Obasanjo's government, but Obasanjo was afraid to bring us on board because he was warned by our opponents in the north in particular that he should not have anything to do with the PRP, because according to them, PRP in any form was dangerous. So I related with Obasanjo, and there was never a time, we were offered any appointment and there was never a time I ask him for an appointment but I visited Obasanjo regularly and I had no problem seeing Obasanjo. All I needed to do was just to speak to his PA and the young man, who apparently is a supporter of the PRP, he did not tell me but from the way he was doing, I know that will make it possible. Immediately, I speak to him, within an hour, Obasanjo will give me an appointment and I never stayed more than 15 minutes waiting to see Obasanjo in Aso Rock. So, during one of these visits, we were talking about farming, because both of us are large scale farmers, and he asked me and I told him that farming has now become a national service; you do it because you feel that you have to contribute to the welfare of the country and you have the capacity. So that is why I want to remain in farming but it is not commercially viable, so we talked about the problems and he asked me what I do for a living and I told him I am a chartered accountant, I am not in practice because politics makes it difficult for me, but I have a firm of accounting, that I associate with and get commission out of it. As a result of that discussion, he asked for the firm and I told him. And when I got back, I told them at the firm that this is what I did, if you get this business as a result of my influence, I will not just want to take commission, I will have to be an active participant. He gave us the job, and as far as I am concerned, they performed very well, satisfactorily and mind you I did not go beyond certain limits because I am just a commission agent and partner; so, there was a limit to what I could do. But from what I got, they performed very well and there was no complain.
But after 2003 you were no longer supporting Obasanjo, What happened?
Exactly, two things happened. You know we supported Obasanjo as a party, because he constituted the least risk putting everything into account, his capabilities, his history and so many things, among all those who were contesting with him at that time. I think we had Ekwueme, Rimi, and we did not consider any of them the least risk because of other deciding factors of money politics.
But before Obasanjo's 100 days in office, we saw clearly the possibility of him betraying the nation and if I can remember on the occasion of his 100 days, I made a statement to the effect that he was going to betray and in fact I was about to be arrested, because my comment was published by a magazine printed overseas and brought here in Nigeria for sale, but some people advised him against arresting me, because they have not started arresting people at that time. So, they felt that if they arrest me, people will say now this man is beginning to do what Abacha did. So they did not arrest me, instead, I was invited to go and see Obasanjo and I could not refuse, because I wanted to brief him, so I was obliged to respect him.
Can you tell us the things that you saw then and what transpired between the two of you during the meeting?
I think I did during our first meeting; we spent about 45 minutes discussing. I advised him against privatization, against allowing the allegation bordering on marginalization because he was expected to stop the allegation against marginalization. I also advised him against the continuation of organized violence. And after discussing with him, we both agreed that we should submit a memo to him on the issue and I think we submitted through the PRP, a 21-page memo. I think two things made us to abandon him. First, his failure to make the difference which Nigerians expected because I told him. He won under the circumstances, free, fair and transparent election just as Abiola won, in 1993; so a lot was expected of him, but he did not change, eventually we found out that arising from the probable allegations, he became the worst corrupt leader we had ever had. Of course, I could not have told him this, but I said so in several of my interviews. Then suddenly came the murder of Bola Ige, that affected very many of us all over the country, who were supporting Obasanjo, who continue to support him in spite of the problems we were already seeing, because at individual level, some of us were not happy over Ige's death because of the sacrifice Bola Ige made to join the Obasanjo government and look at the manner he was murdered, and Obasanjo could really not care about it and that could happen to any one of us who went there and made sacrifices, so we virtually abandoned him, and this is not just we or me, but so many other people.
In 2003, in spite of everything, you supported Obasanjo and not Buhari, what really happened?
Let me tell you, in 2002, we established the CNPP as an umbrella organization for all political parties, for the purpose of rescuing political parties from the machinations of government and its agencies particularly, the electoral body. So, when we formed that, I immediately became the chairman of that organization. For 2003, we in the CNPP were opposed to supporting a military man to be the President of Nigeria in 2003.
Why, when Obasanjo, is a former military man?
Because, Nigerians at that time generally felt that military rule was too dictatorial, it undermines the will of the people, in any case there were anti-military sentiments, so we were opposed to military in political power. So, we were opposed to Obasanjo and Buhari and every military man. We even went to the extent of campaigning for a third alternative that is a civilian candidate as opposed to a military presidential candidate at our meeting.
But at that meeting, there were 27 party chairmen and we were to support one civilian for the presidency, we had to go for voting and the only civilian who had a majority vote got four votes. They were so many Presidential candidates so the one with the highest vote got four, the others did not get any, some just one and we find it ridiculous for us in the CNPP after our votes to come out and say our candidate had four votes; it was ridiculous so what we did was to go to the public and say we could not decide on a presidential candidate and that every political party was free to decide its own candidate.
And for 2007 it was not different, though there was no voting this time, the same CNPP did not recommend any candidate and at that time, we had already abandoned the opposition against military in government, because the civilians were less credible so we said let us find a candidate who constitute the least risk and that is why we decided not with CNPP as a group, but another group made up of seven political parties from CNPP in 2006. And that group supported Buhari, as the presidential candidate in 2007, because he constituted the least risk.
So what will happen in 2011?
For the 2011 election, we are also doing the same thing. We are now 21 political parties and we are looking at the possibility of supporting one candidate for the 2011 elections and also anticipating same in all the elections. But up till now, we have not decided the candidate and the party. We may come out with something similar with what happened during the APP/AD scenario where one party had the presidential candidate and the other provided both the platform and the running mate. We may end up with that. On the other hand with the level of articulation now, we may just support one party and the candidate at the same time.
As we approach 2011, what is your advice to the electorate?
We will get it right, but only after a revolution. I give you an example, on the May 29, 2011, Jonathan must leave the presidency because that is what the constitution says. But with the development now, we are not likely to have a credible electoral process, leading to free, fair and credible election and a legitimate government by May 29, 2011; in fact, we may not even have an elected President on May 29. Which means one of three things would happen. The least painful is to have an interim government or administration to take over from Jonathan; the other alternative is that the military may move in, the third is that there may be anarchy which will lead to a social revolution in Nigeria to solve some of the problems. The interim government is a problem because it cannot happen without a revolution, because under a civilian regime, you can only have it with the National Assembly enacting law on that. And I can't see these National Assembly members legitimately do that because it would be against them.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66746/john-campbell/nigeria-on-the-brink?page=show
September 9, 2010
SNAPSHOT
Nigeria on the Brink: What Happens If the 2011 Elections Fail? John Campbell
JOHN CAMPBELL, the former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria from 2004 to 2007, is the Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. His book, Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink, will be published by Rowman & Littlefield in November.
The 2011 elections in Nigeria, scheduled for January 22, pose a threat to the stability of the United States' most important partner in West Africa. The end of a power-sharing arrangement between the Muslim North and the Christian South, as now seems likely, could lead to postelection sectarian violence, paralysis of the executive branch, and even a coup. The Obama administration has little leverage over the conduct and outcome of the elections -- and if the vote does lead to chaos, Washington may no longer be able to count on Nigerian partnership in addressing African regional and security issues such as the conflicts in Darfur, Southern Sudan, and Somalia.
Nigeria's current political drama dates to November 2009, when its president, Umaru Yar'Adua, was hospitalized for a kidney condition in Saudi Arabia. Yar'Adua refused to comply with the Nigerian constitution and hand over executive authority to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan. The result was a power vacuum until February 2010, when the National Assembly extralegally designated Jonathan the "acting president" by resolution, even though there is no constitutional provision for doing so. In April, Acting President Jonathan attended the nuclear safety summit in Washington, where U.S. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden warmly embraced him, not least because his designation forestalled a possible military coup. In May 2010, the first act of Nigeria's political tragedy ended when Yar'Adua died and Jonathan became the constitutional president. Now, Washington may be tempted to move its attention away from Nigeria -- but that would be a mistake.
Nigeria has held three national elections since the end of military dictatorship in 1998. In 1999, active and retired military officers, along with a few civilian allies, oversaw the transition from military to civilian rule. They established the nonideological People's Democratic Party (PDP); selected Olusegun Obasanjo, a Christian from the South, as the presidential candidate; and placed him in office with a northern Muslim vice president. An elite consensus formed around an unwritten power-sharing agreement, which dictated that presidential candidates would henceforth alternate between the Christian South and the Muslim North -- a system designed to avoid presidential contests that could exacerbate hostility between the regions and religions.
With the advantages of presidential incumbency, and access to unlimited oil money, Obasanjo secured elite support for a second presidential term in 2003. Northerners reluctantly acquiesced to a rotation cycle of two terms rather than the one they had foreseen in 1999. Once re-elected, however, Obasanjo reneged on his two-term promise by attempting to run again in 2007. This bid was defeated due to public anger and northern leaders' insistence on power sharing. Nevertheless, Obasanjo remained powerful enough to impose his handpicked candidates on the ruling party in 2007: Yar'Adua, a northern Muslim, for president and Jonathan, a Christian southerner, for vice president. Obasanjo's chosen candidates fit the terms of the power-sharing convention, and accordingly, they took office after the 2007 election, which was marred by fraud and irregularities. However, Yar'Adua's subsequent death and Jonathan's presidency upended the power-sharing arrangement.
Unlike in every previous election since 1999, no elite consensus exists for the 2011 poll, nor is there an Obasanjo-like figure strong enough to impose one. Although it is still dominated by elites and their patronage networks, the Nigerian political sphere is wide open.
Many in the North believe it is still their turn for the presidency, but the northern power brokers do not agree on who should be their presidential candidate. Several northern politicians, including Ibrahim Babangida and Muhammadu Buhari, both former military dictators, are running for the presidency. Other potential candidates are Aliyu Mohammed Gusau, the national security adviser under Obasanjo and Jonathan, and several northern governors. Nigerian democrats are advocating the candidacies of Nasir El-Rufai, the former minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and Nuhu Ribadu, formerly the head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the anticorruption agency. Both are seen as having the potential to restore public faith in the political system. But so long as the current elites remain the country's political power brokers, candidates operating outside the PDP will be long shots at best.
Jonathan, with the advantages of presidential incumbency, has also announced that he will run. This could mean the presidential contest will feature one or more northern Muslim candidates opposing Jonathan against the backdrop of ethnic and religious violence in the Middle Belt, Muslim extremism in the North, and an ongoing insurrection in the oil-rich Niger Delta. In such a fraught environment, supporters of candidates might exploit religious and ethnic identities, a dangerous and potentially explosive dynamic that until now has largely been avoided.
Logistical preparations for the 2011 elections have not started. There is no voters roll, and despite the president's signing of an electoral reform bill, some of these reforms remain unimplemented four months before the election. The election therefore will almost certainly lack legitimacy, especially in the eyes of the losers. This will further drive the country to the brink, especially if winners and losers are defined by their religious and ethnic backgrounds. There is at the moment no standoff between northern and southern leaders, at least nothing comparable to that between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe or between Kenya's Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga in the aftermath of the 2007 elections. Nevertheless, the danger of Nigeria plunging into postelection violence is a real possibility.
The Nigerian military still regards itself as the ultimate guarantor of the state's security, and most political elites agree. In the event of postelection sectarian violence and a political breakdown, it could intervene if the civilian government loses control. The army, given its history, could move quickly, and unlike in Kenya following the 2007 postelection crisis, there would probably be little time for the international community to try to facilitate a political settlement. Only if the military itself fragments would there be space for the international organizations such as the African Union to intervene in search of a political solution. Yet the return to power of the so-called men on horseback in Nigeria would pose special challenges for Washington, considering congressional requirements that Washington scale back contact with military governments that overthrow civilian governments. It would also be anathema to the African Union's principled stand against military coups.
Some Nigerians are privately urging the Obama administration to intervene behind the scenes to forestall a postelection crisis. Yet intervention on behalf of one candidate could do more harm than good. If Delta militants sense that Washington is opposed to a Jonathan candidacy, and should he withdraw or lose, they might escalate their attacks on U.S.-owned oil facilities, thereby cutting off production. If, on the other hand, northern leaders see the United States as supporting Jonathan, they are likely to become even more estranged from the federal government. The North would likely see support of Jonathan as part of the perceived U.S. war on Islam.
Given these realities, what can the Obama administration do? At present, the United States enjoys significant support among Nigerians, even though it lacks the capacity to have much impact on the 2011 elections. It cannot reform the electoral commission, nor can it change Nigeria's corrupt political economy, which is fundamental to vote-rigging efforts. It could, however, establish and publicize the benchmarks it would use to measure improvement in the electoral process. It could also focus election-related assistance on select states where polling in recent elections has been better than elsewhere; Lagos and Cross Rivers State are two such possible venues. As the elections approach, the United States must be scrupulously neutral on the presidential candidates while reiterating its call for free, fair, and credible elections.
The Obama administration should also look for ways to support such civil-society organizations as the Nigeria Bar Association, which actively works to strengthen the rule of law. The United States already provides assistance for civic groups involved in voter education and the strengthening of political parties as open institutions. That support should continue. In the event of a confrontation between the North and South over failed elections in 2011, these organizations could play a role in mitigating the worst excesses of a crisis.
Such steps by the Obama administration are worthwhile to promote the long-term development of democratic institutions. However, in the event of a bloody crisis that splits the country along regional and religious lines, neither the Obama administration nor any other foreign government or international organization will have much leverage. Faced with such a cataclysm, Nigeria's friends should seek to mitigate the humanitarian consequences and prevent the resulting instability from spreading to other parts of the continent.
Nigerians have long danced on the edge of the cliff without falling off. Yet at this juncture, the odds are not good for a positive outcome, and it is difficult to see how Nigeria can move back from the brink.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment