president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, with great interest. Nigeria has
had a checkered political history and this warped history makes any conversation
on how we might govern ourselves efficiently meaningful. So far, it has been
lively.
Nigeria experimented with the Westminster system that did not work—not
necessarily because of the model itself—but because the political practitioners
failed to apply the scheme successfully. The outcome was the emergence of an
unfortunate military rule and civil war.
After the military's mismanagement of the country and the return to civilian
rule, Nigerians were confronted with a debate as to now to construct an adequate
political system that would be sensitive to the national character of the
society. It was in this context that the political class came up with a
presidential system a la the United States. It was not enough for us to ape the
American presidential system, the country copied tenets of the US constitution,
too. My brother, Julius O. Ihonvbere, once argued that if we wish to emulate
America and its success, we must also copy its "social, economic, and political
specificities." Central to his argument then was the need for Nigerians to copy
the patriotism and work ethic of the American people. Indeed, how can we devote
out time and energy toward a development agenda when we are still enmeshed in
debating an issue that we refer to in Nigeria's political parlance as "The
National Question."
As to the issue of democracy, am yet to find many Nigerians who are opposed to
this genus of governance. Even while many of us embrace it, we have always
insisted, and rightly so, that our genre of democracy must and should reflect
the countries cultural and social specificities. We should embrace those aspects
of democracy in the West that are great and develop internal aspects that are
specific to our culture and society—within the framework of the Chinese policy
of walking-on-two-legs (Western and traditional). My view is that even in
borrowing from other successful democracies, we should be open to experimenting
with modalities that might be germane to Nigeria.
It is against the backdrop of the preceding suppositions that I would like to
express my opinion on the current debate regarding the bill on a possible one
6-year term for the president. My suggestions in support of it flow from the
nature of politics in Nigeria and they rest on the following rationales:
First, since the electoral process in Nigeria (as in other societies) tend to be
conflictive a one-term may be apposite. When candidates from all regions of the
country believe that whoever wins the top post will be in power for six years,
s/he might be inclined to throw his or her support to the victorious candidate
and wait for another 6 years to compete again. Let's say a candidate is 40 years
old at his or her first attempt, chances are that in a six year term, the
candidate could compete at least five times to become the flag-bearer of his
party and presidency (i.e. 40, 46, 52, 58, 64, for example).
Second, a one-term (six years) presidential campaign might be less expensive for
candidates, and might bring out the best and brightest to compete for
leadership. When candidate spends less on campaigns, they are less likely to be
mad that they did not win and therefore seek to destabilize the system with
assistance from their supporters. Such a candidate might appeal to the
supporters to support the current winner and may ask the supporters to be
patient for a second run for the presidency in 6 years.
Third, a two-term (six years) presidential system tends to be very expensive. An
incumbent who may have done a lousy job as president, and may wish to step down,
is often goaded by his or her ego or desire to stay in office in order to
compensate those oligarchs who supported him or her in the first election to go
for a second term. These oligarchs, generally pursuing their insular interest,
will do everything to recoup their investments in a presidential candidate by
hook or crook at the expense of the country's wellbeing. To many of these
entrepreneurs, the state exists only to the extent that they can exploit it for
their personal gains.
Fourth, a one-term (six years) president allows the leader to concentrate on his
or her manifesto. Let's say provision of electric power and high quality of
education. In a one term presidency, the leader would concentrate the country's
energy and resources to these agendas or objectives without concentrating on his
or her re-election bid. In this case, national resources would be directed to
the leader's objectives—providing adequate electricity and high standard of
education. The financial waste that goes into running for a second term can be
exorbitant. Recall, if you will, the financial waist that went into the third
term shenanigan of an ex-president. The cash spent by this president on his
third term bid could fix the infrastructure of many of our dilapidated
universities.
Fifth, a one-term (six years) president may render the concept of rotational
presidency—within the context of the so-called 5 geographical zones—irrelevant.
Personally, I have always contended that it does not matter where the president
hails from as long as he or she is an effective leader who places the interest
of the whole or entire country first. The constitution is very clear on the
issue of the national character—that is making sure that the states of the
federation are represented in the cabinet. A one-term president allows the
leader to appoint competent compatriots (regardless of political party) who can
facilitate the regime's programs. If they are inefficient, they will be sacked
in six years—period.
Sixth, a one-term (six years) president means we might have many presidents—say
approximately 17 in 100 years. Perhaps by electing this many presidents,
Nigerians may not "overvalue" the prestige and role of the president in the
daily life of the citizens. What would matter in any president is the
effectiveness of the leader in providing the country (through his or her
policies) with the society's basic infrastructural needs and his or her ability
to unite the country. The most effective leaders could be honored with a
national monument. Chief Obafemi Awolowo's memorial statue in Ikeja (Lagos
State) comes to mind. Our ineffective leaders would be relegated to the dustbin
of history.
Seventh, as a footnote, President Nelson Mandela (though his history is unique)
served one term and did so effectively. His statue is conspicuously displayed in
Parliament Square, London [not to mention his statue that would be displayed in
South Africa and other countries in the continent after he joins our great
ancestors].
I rest my case!
In Peace
Ike Udogu
--
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