The zoning war is raging. But chieftains of the two major parties – the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) – appear unperturbed by the ruination the political blaze could educe. They continue to continue to hide in the cocoon of an inexplicable prevarication. When will the two main parties face the reality?
The battle cry was first sounded by the Southern Governors’ Forum. Led by Ondo State Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, the forum’s chairman, the governors emphasised during their meeting in Lagos that power shift from the North to the South was non-negotiable.
But some northern governors felt upset by the position of their southern counterparts. Led by Plateau State Governor Sam Lalong, the chairman of the region’s governors’ forum, they called for power retention in the North so that the region could call the shots for unbroken 16 years.
By next year, the North would have ruled Nigeria for almost 45 years of the 61 years since Independence.
Other northern groups supported the region’s governors. But they only backed their clamour with feeble explanations. The National Publicity Secretary of Pan-Igbo socio-cultural group, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Alex Ogbonnia, observed that the resolution of the northern governors smacked of gross insensitivity. He said it also portends a bleak future for the country.
The constitution of the APC tends to support the push for zoning, although it is usually denied. It states that “without prejudice to Article 20(2)(iii) of this constitution, the National Working Committee shall, subject to approval of the National Working Committee, make rules and regulations for the nomination of candidates through primary elections.
“All such rules, regulations and guidelines shall take into consideration and uphold the principle of federal character, gender balance, geo-political spread and rotation of offices, to as much as possible, ensure balance within the constituency covered.” For the presidential poll, Nigeria is the constituency.
Also, zoning is not alien to the PDP. The six positions – President, Vice President, Senate President, House of Representatives Speaker, Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the party’s National Chairman – are often rotated between the North and the South. This is understood by its founding fathers, who frowned at the attempt by President Goodluck Jonathan to recontest in 2015, claiming that the ticket ought to be zoned to the North.
In fact, Article 7 of the PDP constitution specifically states that it will adhere to zoning of elective offices among the various regions.
In the past, no categorical pronouncement was made about zoning. But the party’s caucuses knew how to make it happen, unlike now. In 2015, APC had zoned the presidential ticket to the North, based on the understanding and agreement that it would shift to the South in eight years.
While the APC seems to be adjusting to the inevitability of zoning, the PDP appears to be confused about the way forward. The party is divided on the vexed issue. PDP governors who were part of the Lagos Declaration cannot recant. Their northern counterparts, particularly Sokoto State Governor Aminu Tambuwal and his Bauchi counterpart, Senator Bala Mohammed, are vehemently opposed to the agitation. There is no meeting point yet.
Few days ago, Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike threatened fire and brimstone. He maintained that the next PDP presidential flag bearer should come from the South or the party would be boxed into a risk. His position has upset Tambuwal, Bala Mohammed, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and ex-Senate President Bukola Saraki, who are eyeing the presidency. Former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido also chided Wike, saying his position is not backed by law.
Also, during the week, Ijaw Leader, Chief Edwin Clark, picked up the gauntlet, firing salvos at the northern political elite for lack of accommodation and sensitivity. He said the retention of the presidency in the North would violate the principles of justice, equity and fair play. In his letter to Atiku, Saraki, Mohammed and Tambuwal, the elder statesman advised the northern aspirants to shelve their presidential ambition in the spirit of understanding, balance, national spread and equity.
The mere mention of zoning underscores a serious problem. Nigeria is a marriage of incompatible social formations lumped together by British interlopers. Its federalism is premised on unitarism. The distribution of power and resources is skewed. The tribes are a multitude. Their differences are pronounced. The races do not subscribe to the same religion, ideas and values. There is fear of domination within each of them. There is fear of marginalisation. There is permanent suspicion.
The presidency has not been a unifying factor. The antagonistic ethnic groups only feel comfortable when a son of soil occupies Aso Villa in Abuja, the seat of power. To mitigate any conflict, the idea of ‘turn by turn’ has been a big issue. It sounds logical, persuasive and convincing. It seems to make zoning or rotation between the North and the South a plausible strategy to reassure the regional units that they are not excluded.
But, zoning does not seem to have a strong constitutional backing. There is no direct or specific provision for it in the 1999 Constitution. The constitutions of political parties are inferior. Zoning is a product of political experience. It is a convention that political parties have come to embrace. The assumption is that rotation could foster a sense of inclusion, participation, belonging and national unity and the numerous federating units.
Yet, not all party members have respect for zoning. Again, the position of such people is constitutionally defensible. The conditions for eligibility for the highest office in the land, as outlined in the constitution, do not include zoning. If the President of Nigeria can acquire a national outlook instead of decking the ethnic lenses, if he can redress injustice and promote equity and fairness in governance, his place of origin would not matter.
Also, if Nigeria is run as a true federation and states are allowed to substantially control their resources, there would be less acrimony and more of hard work, healthy competition and unity in diversity.
Too many resources at the centre breed a too powerful President and Commander-in-Chief who is not perceived as a national and unifying figure,
but as a product and representative of his tribe, despite being sustained by votes of the six zones but only in office to promote mainly the interest of his tribe.
Since Nigeria is not one, and the ethnic groups must compulsorily co-exist – as it now appears – the elite have championed power rotation to facilitate their access to power and resources. The masses across the tribes sometimes delude themselves into thinking that their zones will savour relative prosperity when their kith and kin are in the saddle. While the North has produced Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Gen. Murtala Mohammed, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Gen. Sani Abacha, Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua and now President Buhari, the Northern Region, minus Abuja, is not better than the South.
But, there is sense in believing that in a plural society like Nigeria, where integration is a challenge, rotating the presidency may foster a sense of inclusion and belonging.
Instructively, the arguments for zoning also have historical basis and justification. In the Second Republic, the leaders of the ruling National Party of Nigeria (NPN) knew that another northerner would not have succeeded Shagari in 1987, if the military had not toppled the civilian regime. What was not certain was whether the ticket should be zoned to the West or East.
The ill-fated Third Republic did not begin on the note of zoning. Babangida, who had designed the transition programme to fail, threw it open. After a lot of hurdles, the late Chief Moshood Abiola of the proscribed Social Democratic Party (SDP) won the June 12, 1993 presidential election. It was criminally annulled. The zoning agitation started afterwards, during the Abdulsalami Abubakar transition programme. Although zoning was meant to serve as compensation for the injury of June 12, it became a mechanism for resolving marginalisation and building trust and stability.
The pattern was set in 1999 when Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, from the Southwest, became President on the platform of the PDP. His challenger in the Alliance for Democracy (AD/All Peoples Party (APP), Chief Olu Falae, also came from the West.
The trend was sustained in 2007 when the PDP picked Yar’Adua as its presidential candidate. The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), in throwing up Atiku as its flag bearer, also considered zoning. The pattern was truncated by Yar’Adua’s death when Vice President Goodluck Jonathan assumed the reins in 2009 and contested in 2011. In 2015, he was stopped as agitations for power shift filled the air. In 2015, when Buhari contested, the PDP fielded Jonathan. He had the constitutional right to contest. But zoning was violated. So, he lost. But in 2019, when APC also fielded Buhari, the PDP corrected its mistake by fielding a northerner in the spirit of zoning. In those times, when the ticket was understandably zoned to the North, Southern politicians knew their boundaries and cooperated fully as loyal party members. They never joined the presidential race.
If the three regions in the South are united in the pursuit of rotation, it is most likely they will achieve the goal. If there is any crack in the wall, the North, as usual, would exploit the division.
However, zoning is not the end, if the tickets are zoned to the South. The three regions -Southwest, Southeast and Southsouth – must still cross the hurdle of micro-zoning.
Today, the argument about merit has been employed to whittle down considerations for zoning. It is misplaced. Is there any zone in Nigeria that does not parade competent Nigerians with intimidating credentials? If the ticket is zoned to any region, there is no shortage of experienced, patriotic and competent aspirants who can lead the country.
The onus is on the two major parties to deepen political practices that can engender unity, cohesion and equity among the regions, instead of playing up the ethnicity and religious factors to gain advantage, create mistrust and suspicion, and deepen disunity that would be detrimental to the future survival of the federation.