Category: Segun Gbadegesin

In the next three weeks my focus is on progress, hoping to pry a little into the foundations of progressivism as an ideology. I focus today on “imagining progress”. Next week I hope to focus on “thinking progress”, and the following week on “practicing progress”.

That there is an embarrassing poverty of ideological orientation in our national politics is no news to its theorists and practitioners. While the former lament the situation, the latter could care less. In this group, we may also identify two sub-groups.

First, there are those who don’t care about political ideologies because they rightly or wrongly see them as distractions from the practical objective of getting things done for the people and the nation. I think that they are wrong but I will not argue the point if, in fact, what they see as the important task of getting things done is actually achieved. The second sub-group is not bothered about ideology because for them, politics is not as much about getting things done for the people as it is about self-help and ideological niceties can get in the way of good self-promotion.

Neither sub-group has a good case. With respect to the first, a good response is that getting things done requires a clear vision of what must be done and why it must be done. That is what a clear ideological standpoint does. For the second, even a focus on self-help lends itself perfectly to an ideological grounding. Ayn Rand wasn’t bashful about developing and defending an egoistic orientation to politics and ethics and with a deliberate and deliberative ploy, this has been packaged and glorified as the ideology of the right.

In the absence of clearly identifiable distinction between political associations or parties, all pretending allegiance to the good of the people, the people blindly follow and make uninformed choices. Our political history has been a blend of personality and ethnic politics. Lately, religion has been put in the mix so that we now tend to throw our support for candidates for the very wrong reasons. While one cannot deny the right of a mature citizen to support and vote for a candidate of his or her choice for any reason or no reason, there is no doubt that if we all throw rationality to the dustbin, we are going to suffer the consequences of our embrace of its opposite.

To his credit, General Ibrahim Babangida had the insight with his introduction of a two-party system for the Third Republic. But apart from the indecency of an imposition, he failed the ultimate test of an investment of the political will to see it through.

There is a silver lining and the cloud is disappearing gradually. The merger of splinter opposition parties into one All Progressives Congress (APC) is a grand move that promises great dividends for our democracy, if not for particular individuals. But the will that brought it on must be complemented with a clear vision to guide it. The difference must be made clear for all to see. Without pretending to be an insider, I can at least pretend to suggest what the difference looks like to them going by their adopted nomenclature. It would appear that the ideal of progress appealed to them and they envision a progressive nation.

How did this come about? The status quo ante is unacceptable and we all have the ability to imagine things that are not real. This is the dictionary definition of imagination: the ability to think new things. Without that ability no change can be experienced, and no progress can be envisioned. The question for the typical imagining person is “what if?” It was Robert F. Kennedy’s question: ‘There were those who look at things the way they are and ask “why?” I dream of things that never were and ask “why not?”’

Why not? That is the question that must have motivated the initiators of the merger. Why not a single formidable opposition to give electorates a good basis for comparison and choice?

Since 1999, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has taken the nation for a ride. Its leaders once boasted that it would rule for not less than 60 years. It would be alright if Nigerians were dummies since they would have no reasoning capacity to question the actions and policies that have been clearly against their interests. But tension has heightened. Questions have been asked—in the matter of declining education, increasing insecurity, politicised religion, runaway corruption and executive impunity. And answers have been scarce or inadequate.

In the midst of the cloud of despair, we are asked to imagine progress. It’s not that difficult to imagine, as John Lennon once reminded us: “Imagine no possessions/I wonder if you can/No need for greed or hunger/A brotherhood of man (and sisterhood of woman)/Imagine all the people/Sharing all the world/.

Imagine progress then. Place before your mind’s eyes the prospect of progress from your present reality. Better yet, consider a baby born on this day. The happy parents look at her tiny fingers and toes, her small limbs and tender eyes. What do the parents see? What do they imagine? A beautiful girl in five years ready for pre-school, in 12 years ready for high school and in 18 years or less ready for college. They imagine a young woman ready to wed in 25-30 years. The parents imagine progress.

In imagining progress for their infant baby, the parents also imagine, contrary to their present reality, a political system that guarantees or, at least, takes seriously the security of the life of their girl, protecting her from sectarian violence and sadist rapists. It is not hard to imagine what progress looks like for a doting parent.

What is or ought to be in the imagination of a progressive party? When the leadership and rank and file of a progressive party form a mental image of the future of the nation, what do they contemplate? The answer to this question is what marks the difference between it and its rival.

Consider this. PDP cannot absolve itself of the present reality of the nation and its slide, at least, since 1999. That reality unfortunately includes a dismal public educational system, which appears to have been condemned to oblivion by its keepers; a dangerously sliding security system; and an economic system that features mass youth unemployment. In the midst of this calamitous reality that it has presided over for 15 years, the ruling party cannot conjure up an imagination of progress that has eluded the nation under its watch.

The message of a progressive party such as the APC is simple and concise. It stakes a claim in the arena of the progressive development of every citizen. It does not exist for the 10 per cent. The present reality has shown that where the fortune of the 10 per cent is the objective, there is no guarantee of peace and stability. Besides this instrumental and prudential reasoning, however, the progressive party’s rationale is substantive. The right policy is one that promotes the progressive development of all without bias or discrimination on any ground. It is an obligation which a government must discharge faithfully.

In the foregoing, I have discussed in general terms what it means to imagine progress, and what is in the imagination of a political party that is committed to progress. I have not discussed individuals because it is my considered view that the collective imagination of the whole is or ought to be the driving force and guide for individuals. In common parlance, the party is bigger than the individual.

Of course, individuals, especially leaders, not only have a role to play in shaping and crystalising collective imagination, they also have a responsibility to guide the party towards bringing it to fruition. The best guide to a good answer to the question whether individual leaders of APC are up to the task of imagining progress is to look at the reality they have presided over in their states since 1999. Lagos is the proverbial shining city on the hill. The imagination that brought it to light cannot be anything but progressive.

This is a tale of two recent events.  The All Progressives Congress (APC) Governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako, was impeached by the House of Assembly. His deputy, Bala Ngilari, purportedly resigned. Therefore the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Speaker of the Adamawa House of Assembly, Umaru Fintiri, was sworn in as Acting Governor. The deputy governor, who purportedly resigned, went to court and recanted his resignation on the ground that he did not legally resign because his letter of resignation was wrongly addressed to the speaker instead of the governor, a violation of the constitution.

Early this week, the Federal High Court agreed with Bala Ngilari and he was sworn in on Wednesday as Governor for the remainder of the term of his joint ticket with the impeached governor. The speaker, who had become Acting Governor, was let go. He has also appealed. These all happened in Nigeria’s Adamawa State. The political process as enshrined in the constitution played out in the impeachment of the governor. The rule of law prevailed in the appeal of the new governor. All the players and contestants on the opposing sides of this conflict are PDP. There was even a directive from the PDP hierarchy for its members to maintain the peace. After all, Adamawa is still in the grip of the party.

Here is the second event that is still playing out. Ekiti State had an election and a winner emerged. The loser, the incumbent APC Governor Kayode Fayemi, conceded as the final results were announced. He even pledged to set up a transition committee for a smooth transition. The winner, Ayodele Fayose, is a member of the PDP. APC, the defeated governor’s party, decided, independently of its candidate, to challenge the result. This is only following the provisions of the electoral law.

E-11, a social-cultural organisation of Ekiti indigenes had its own beef against the elected candidate. The organisation had approached the court to challenge his eligibility in view of his alleged perjury. The candidate and his party, PDP, won’t have any of these. The court cannot be allowed to adjudicate in the matters. With a retinue of followers, the governor-elect also approached the court, not to respond by way of a counter suit. Rather his was a Mano a Mano challenge to their Lordships. His die-hard followers descended on the Justices like hungry lions face to face with raw flesh. They had their feed while the governor-elect and the police watched with glee.

What stands out between the two contexts of political action and inaction? What is the difference between Adamawa and Ekiti? Where the PDP is in charge and its interests aren’t radically impacted, justice may take its course. But where it feels threatened by the law, and its interests may be adversely affected, the Temple of Justice is desecrated. Why is it able to do this with impunity? It controls the fetters of federal power with the monopoly of force.

To be sure, this is a new development. In 2007, both Governors Aregbesola and Fayemi challenged the victory of their PDP opponents in the courts and won. There was no sponsored violence. Governor Oshiomhole also challenged the victory of his PDP opponent in Edo State and won. Again, there was no violent eruption thereafter. What is different this time? Does it have to do with the high stakes of the 2015 general and presidential elections?

Since the 2007 elections and the court victories that saw PDP lose the two state houses in Osogbo and Ado-Ekiti to rival ACN, PDP has vowed to win back those states and in its calculation, it needed to field notoriously “popular” candidates, no matter what baggage they bring to the ticket. So it was that Iyiola Omisore and Ayodele Fayose, despite their despicable antecedents and controversial backgrounds, received the enviable gubernatorial tickets of their party. Of the two, however, Fayose has a legal albatross dangling over his neck. He had occupied the seat once and was legally impeached. Or was he not? He had to answer this question truthfully in the governorship election form for INEC. And he allegedly lied, committing what amounts to, if true, a grievous perjury.

How is the truth or validity of the allegation to be determined? This is what the courts of law are designed for. And this was where E-11 headed in May, 2014, before the June, 2014, election.Unfortunately, due to a variety of unforeseen events, including the strike of judicial workers, the court could not go on with the case before the election. Fayose won the new election. But that fact does not negate the preexisting fact of the case pending against him. That you win an election does not mean that you are eligible to contest and you cannot become governor by default. But Governor-elect Fayose cannot trust the courts and he must turn to self-help.

There was the second matter of the election tribunal. After the 2007 gubernatorial election in Ekiti, Kayode Fayemi challenged the victory of PDP candidate Segun Oni. The PDP and Segun Oni fought the battle in court from 2007 to 2009 and eventually lost. It now appears that the party’s takeaway (apology to Governor Fashola) from that experience was not to trust the courts and to frustrate the right of the aggrieved party to seek relief in the court. Even when the defeated candidate doesn’t appear to be a party to the suit, the victorious candidate is not confident of his case against the opposition party.

It appears to me also that 2015 has a lot to do with this edginess on the part of the ruling party and its attitude to the law suits against the governor-elect. The president is counting on winning a substantial portion of Southwest votes. With Ekiti in the corner of his party, he appears close to that dream; therefore losing Ekiti to a court judgment cannot be countenanced. This calculation wasn’t in contention in 2007.

In 2007, President Yar’Adua, himself severely bruised from the credible allegations of rigging in his favour, had pledged a more transparent and credible electoral system. Therefore he would not have been favourably disposed to blocking the access of the opposition to the courts. And in 2011, Goodluck Jonathan had the goodwill of the Southwest intact, winning in all but Osun State. There was, therefore, no pressure for him or the PDP to be obdurate. Now it is a different calculation.Based on the strength of the opposition party, the reversal of the gain the party has made in Ekiti cannot be allowed.

In the circumstance, what gives? We have come to embrace the courts as the hallmark of the civilising process. We abandoned the settlement of rifts and conflicts by duel and fisticuff for resolution by the courts and we are all better off. If some party to a conflict decide that duel is a better alternative because they have control of the means of violence, the other party would not rationally cow in or be cowed. They would also seek their own means and then a Hobbesian anarchy prevails. It is not difficult to predict that in such a situation no one wins.

There is a more baffling aspect to the Ekiti story. If one can understand the self-interested perspective of the governor-elect and his party, it is difficult to understand where the unusual intervention of traditional rulers with their recent communique fits in. Surely, it is understandable and commendable that they do not want violence in the state. But are the Royal Majesties also canvassing that the courts not perform their constitutional responsibilities? As keepers of our traditions, one would think that they are, or at least ought to be, in the forefront of the necessary advocacy for the observance of and respect for the rule of law. This is a sacred responsibility that must not be undermined by other considerations.

The reality of the health challenge that the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) poses to the West Africa sub-region in particular and the world in general has been substantiated beyond doubt. The virus, now transmitted via body fluid, can mutate and get transmitted by air. Then we would have a disaster of immense magnitude as the virus crosses borders without the restriction of thermometer screening at ports of entry. This is probably why the richest and most powerful nation on earth has decided to take the lead in the fight against the disease. It’s an act of charity but also an act of self-preservation. Individual and national responses to the outbreak of Ebola have demonstrated the pluralistic character of human nature.

Thomas Hobbes famously or infamously described human nature as egoistic, acquisitive and competitive. In other words, if there is morality at all, it is a morality of self-interest with each perceiving his or her survival as a prerogative. Where this is a generalised motive of conduct and there is no overall authority to moderate action, it goes without saying that life in society will be a hell; hence his characterisation of such a life as nasty, brutish and short. And that is why, in his view, rational human beings would want a political authority to moderate the conduct of egoistic human beings.

What has EVD taught us about human nature? Does it disprove or affirm Hobbes? Is there one human nature or several? If there is one, is it as selfish as Hobbes portrayed it?

In the past several months since the outbreak of EVD, there have been notable events, episodes, interventions and actions that may help us answer this important question. I refer to the conduct of Patrick Sawyer, the intervention of Dr. Adadevoh, and every other action or inaction—public and private— around this particular episode. We should also consider the action of families and relations of infected persons.

Starting with the conduct of family members, my attention was drawn recently to a front page Washington Post article on Sunday, September 14, 2014. The article was titled “Out of options, the dying sit and wait.” Beside the sadness of the narrative, which depicts how people in need of help were being turned away because the facilities available cannot cope, the featured picture of a mother lapping here sick infant and watching him helplessly captured for me not just the severity of the tragedy but also the anguish of a loving mother. In this particular case, the woman’s husband had died four days earlier from the disease. Her two sons are ill with the disease. Given the nature of the virus and how it is transmitted, she will most likely get ill in a matter of days. She was probably aware of this. But it didn’t really deter her from caring for her baby in a way that put her at risk of contracting the disease. That was by no means an egoistic nature.

Next is Patrick Sawyer, the Liberian American who carried the virus to Nigeria after knowing that he had contracted it from his sister who had recently died from the disease. Apparently, Sawyer had also cared for his sister. Was Sawyer a selfless caregiver or a selfish killer or a mix of both? What motivated him to leave Liberia against the instruction of his government and health agencies? Did he really desire to spread the virus or was he trying desperately to get cured as his wife believed?  Was it a flight from death or a calculated effort to have others suffer his predicament?

It is difficult to peer into human motives, and this was one grievous error with the Hobbesian theory. How do you know what motivates a person? Now, there was another side to the Sawyer story that was less difficult to figure out. According to the government, even after it was disclosed to him that he had the virus, he still tried to force his way out of the hospital and Dr. Adadevoh had to physically restrain him because she knew what the consequences might be for the population.

Why did Sawyer try to leave the Lagos hospital? Was it to try to get treatment somewhere else? Was it to deliberately spread the disease so he wasn’t the only one that was going to suffer death? Weird as this may sound, it is not an uncommon human motivation. A practice is attributed to a tribal group. According to that practice, one of the subjects of an emperor must mourn the loss of the emperor’s relatives so that the emperor does not have to mourn. So upon the death of the emperor’s relative, a subject’s relation would be killed. The subject is thrown into mourning and that pleases the emperor. It is unclear whether Sawyer had a similar mentality.

Other less clear cases, in terms of motivation include the nurse that fled to Enugu and the diplomat that fled to Port Harcourt. It would appear that fear of death was primary in these cases. At the beginning of the crisis, it was not difficult to understand the confusion that surrounded its management. Though the Lagos State government clearly put its resources where its mouth was, and though the authorities were actively in charge and information was disseminated appropriately, relatives of the first victims were not pleased and naturally anxious. Their complaints on the various media suggested that their relatives were being abandoned and this may have influenced the actions of the nurse and the diplomat to try and seek help outside of the government clinics. These cannot be attributed to anything but fear of death.

The acknowledged hero of the EVD crisis as it pertains to Nigeria is Dr. Adadevoh, and rightly so. Here was a woman professional who appeared to have turned Hobbes on his head. Adhering strictly to her Hippocratic Oath, the doctor did no harm to others but cannot, albeit with no suicidal intent, avoid harm to herself. She prevented Sawyer from leaving the hospital and in the process got infected. Call it professional responsibility. The point is that she could have done otherwise. With the knowledge that if she struggled to prevent Sawyer from bolting out into the public space, she could get the dreaded disease herself, she didn’t pull back. That is the very opposite of an egoistic character.

Compare now Dr. Enemuo, the Port Harcourt physician who treated a diplomat suspected of having Ebola. The doctor later developed symptoms of the disease and died. Ironically, his patient survived. What motivated Dr. Enemuo? Was it the principle of beneficence inscribed in the Hippocratic Oath? But in benefiting the diplomat, was he exposing others, including himself, to the potential risk of infection with the covertness of his intervention and failure to report the symptoms to the authority? Observers have attributed a more sinister motive of greed to the late doctor. I am not sure that this was the case since he must have known the risk he was taking. I would like to believe that he wanted to help but did the wrong thing by not helping to curtail the spread of the disease.

There are other actors and agents including the Lagos State government, Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Health in the various states, especially those at the frontline of action. While giving credit to the effectiveness of the intervention of these various agencies, one cannot ignore the fact that some aspect of human nature in the Hobbesian conception might have entered at strategic points creating the semblance of tension between individuals and groups.

 In the final analysis, however, whatever the motivation of individuals and agencies, Nigeria as a whole, and Lagos State in particular, deserve a pat on the back for stemming the spread of the disease. Now, we need to keep it up and avoid any self-regarding action that might reverse the gains. The original plan for a delayed opening of schools wasn’t a bad idea after all. It is hoped that reason prevails and states, rather than the Federal Government, have the last say in this matter. After all, it is the states that wear the proverbial shoe and they know where it pinches most.

As I prepare this week’s column for submission, President Jonathan is getting ready to receive the report of the National Conference. Therefore I do not have the benefit of his thinking on what he will do with the report or what is next for his motivation for setting up the conference. This much I remember. The President made a case for the conference upon its inauguration, citing his belief that “sovereignty belongs to the people and that their voices must be heard and factored into every decision” that government takes on their behalf. Jonathan went on to reveal his “sole motivation” for convening the conference as “the patriotic desire for a better and greater nation” and his determination that “things must be done in a way and manner that will positively advance that objective”.

President Jonathan told the nation that the conference was not a “usurpation of the role of the National Assembly or the Executive” but rather it is meant to complement the efforts of both branches of government.”

The following words of the President are especially germane to my focus here: “The National Conference is, therefore, being convened to engage in intense introspection about the political and socio-economic challenges confronting our nation and to chart the best and most acceptable way for the resolution of such challenges in the collective interest of all the constituent parts of ou fatherland. This coming together under one roof to confer and build a fresh national consensus for the amicable resolution of issues that still cause friction amongst our people must be seen as an essential part of the process of building a more united, stronger and progressive nation. We cannot continue to fold our arms and assume that things will straighten themselves out in due course, instead of taking practical steps to overcome impediments on our path to true nationhood, rapid development and national prosperity.”

Furthermore, the President urged conference participants to “patriotically articulate and synthesise our peoples’ thoughts, views and recommendations for a stronger, more united, peaceful and politically stable Nigeria, forge the broadest possible national consensus in support of those recommendations and strive to ensure that they are given the legal and constitutional backing to shape the present and the future of our beloved fatherland.”

From the above, it seems clear what the President’s expectations were. He wanted a robust document that provides a basis for a new constitutional order for Nigeria. He desired a conference report that boldly attacks the germs of instability and anarchical tendencies in the system. He charged participants to tackle the various issues ranging from “form of government, structures of government, devolution of powers, revenue sharing, resource control, state and local government creation, boundary adjustment, state police and fiscal federalism…..”  These were some of the items that President Jonathan himself believed to be crucial to the ultimate objective of a strong and united nation.

Now, the Conference delegates have done their part and I believe their best under the circumstance, including the background atmosphere of mistrust and distrust that has bedeviled the political class of the country since its birth. Compromises have been made, self-regarding interests have been sacrificed. In the spirit of give and take, a report has been prepared and is being submitted even as I pen these words. The question is: what next? What will the President do now?

It is now the turn of the President to demonstrate again the genuineness of his interest in a strong and united nation, show true leadership and deliver on his promises.  Of course, there is a lot that the conference has achieved and this must not be allowed to rot in the dungeon of our suffocating bureaucracy. There is also a lot that the conference failed to achieve, especially with regard to the most crucial issues of restructuring and fiscal federalism. The President has the right and responsibility to fill the blanks and close the gaps in the conference report. This is why it is his conference. But filling the gaps should not require the setting up of another commission to study the report. That would be an insult to the integrity of the conference participants.

How might the President proceed? The National Assembly has not been in the forefront of any discussions on this matter since the inception of the conference, and rightly so, in view of the fact that it is Mr. President’s conference. Now President Jonathanhas to deal with the legislative branch of government and how he goes about this may seal the fate of the report either positively or negatively. There is no doubt that while it is the case that the National Assembly is the assembly of the people through their representatives and senators, there are conflicting interests therein paralleling the interests across the nation. The leadership of the President therefore matters in how members approach the conference report.

Secondly, it is an inauspicious time as the general elections approach and Jonathan is expected to declare and run for a second term. Is he in a position to mount the proverbial bully pulpit or to use the carrot and stick approach to get the National Assembly to do the right thing? Here is the real issue. Yet, if the President fails to get anything done after raising the hopes of Nigerians on the matter of restructuring via the National Conference, can he count on Nigerians to trust him with another term?

Beside the personal interest in a second term, however, the President has an even more fundamental interest in his legacy. As he himself stated in his opening remarks to the conference, the issue of the structure of the country has been a political albatross on its back since the dawn of its creation. The “minority” populations have suffered the indignity of being relegated to the backdoor prior to his having the good luck of occupying the most celebrated political office in the land. The question is this: how have Jonathan’s people fared under his presidency? Has there been any drastic change in the condition of the generality of the Niger Delta population? If not, then it follows that it is not the occupation of an office by one individual that can make a difference in the lives of a people. The Yoruba had it worse under President Obasanjo! What matters is a structure that provides for the autonomous growth and development of each region, state and peoples.

President Jonathan must deliver on the conference report, fill the gaps where they exist, remove the dots where they are not essential and work with the National Assembly for a new constitutional framework, either by way of amendment or by way of a completely new constitution that incorporates the resolutions of the National Conference. Then he will go down in history as a leader, even if he doesn’t get a second term. Should he fail to deliver, he can rest assured that the failure will haunt him for the rest of his life, even if he gets a third term.

I don’t assume that there is a monolithic North. This is encouraging since the South has never pretended to be anything but heterogeneous. But at times there is a coincidence of interests when the North or the South appears to speak in unison. Such a time is this in respect of the South but unfortunately for the North, the Middle Belt appears to have found its voice.

The core North appears to have overreached in its lust for the return of presidential power as it now appears to invest its mental resources in bogus conspiracy theories. As it betrays its greed for power, it inevitably doesn’t mind losing long-term allies in the South. Historically, the Southwest championed the cause of ethnic minorities across the country. In particular, against all odds, Chief Obafemi Awolowo strongly supported the creation of Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers (COR) State during the First Republic. What did he get in return? His candidacy was rejected by those whose cause he championed. They preferred a northern candidate.

In the Second Republic, both the Southsouth and the Southeast aligned with the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) even when the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) picked an Igbo as running mate. And while the two-party system of the Third Republic attempted to put an end to ethnic politics, and both the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC) drew membership from across the nation, the annulment of the presidential election quickly brought back the old animosity with a majority of other southern nationality groups, especially the Igbo, snubbing the Southwest and supporting the annulment and campaigning for the military. It was what the North wanted and succeeded in having.

Now there is a new alignment going on. The North has lost its old allies in the Southsouth and Southeast, and it now appears that a southern solidarity front is emerging.

I am not sure what to make of this development and how long it will last. What appears to be fuelling it is the perception, especially in the Southsouth, that the North is not a dependable ally. Assume that the North drops its objection to President Goodluck Jonathan’s second term ambition, I am almost sure that the Southsouth, and most certainly the Southeast, will forgive and resume their friendship. Southwest has always been and will be left in the lurch.

Now, in its latest gripes, the North is either genuinely confused about what it wants or is deliberately confusing issues for maximum political effect.  First, its delegates to the National Conference accused other delegates of smuggling a Third Term agenda into the draft report and insisted that Jonathan must not run for re-election if he doesn’t want to plunge the country into crisis. Second, they rejected the inclusion of a draft constitution in the report of the conference on the grounds that it was neither part of the mandate of delegates nor within the legal bounds of the conference to draft a constitution or organise a referendum. Thirdly, the Northern Elders Forum demanded that Jonathan must bring back the Chibok girls by October or forfeit the support of the zone for re-election.

I sense confusion—whether genuine or contrived. First, the concern of a hidden Third Term agenda is without any sound basis. What we had in 2005 was totally different and very glaringly in favour of a Third Term for the president. It was also true that the agitation against such an agenda was led—as it always does in pursuit of freedom and justice when others blink or decide to side with the agents of dictatorship and retrogression—by the Southwest even when a southwesterner was supposedly to be the beneficiary of such a term elongation. How can any reasonable person or group now expect southwestern delegates to be part of such a scheme for Jonathan? On what grounds? If this was even contemplated, I expect that delegates from the Southwest would have been up in arms.

The northern delegates came up with this cock and bull story because of their belief that a “draft constitution” is included in the report. On the basis of this, they also believe that (a) the draft constitution has provision for a six-year presidency and (b) once a new constitution is adopted, the President can run under that constitution and in light of a Federal High Court ruling in 2003, he would be entitled to a third term. These are just too far-fetched and fuelled by unruly imagination. In the first place, the idea of a six-year presidency has been debunked since the “draft constitution” provided for the same two terms of four years each for the president and governors. Where did this false reading of the “draft constitution” come from? It’s pure hallucination; and a very unfortunate one as such.

Second, assume that the draft constitution makes it possible for the president to run a second term, why is it beyond the realm of possibility for this aspect to be brought up in the discussion of the draft and subject to debate and possibly expunged before a final vote? In other words, why throw away the bath water of a confused reading of the provisions of the draft constitution with the entire report of the conference for which every delegate has made substantial sacrifice of over three months? Are we missing something here?

Thirdly, how is it that the preparation of a draft constitution that simply combines the resolutions of the conference, which everyone agrees amount to amendments to the constitution with the extant portions of the constitution that were untouched in the deliberations of the conference, is considered illegal by northern delegates? What the conference leadership did was to not simply compile resolutions, but also to put them in rational form worthy of intelligent people. Why is this reasonable approach an anathema to northern delegates? More importantly, why do they have to see everything in terms of conspiracy to deny them access to political power?

As reported in the media, one of the reasons given by the northern delegates was that because conference delegates were not elected, they “lacked both legal and moral authority to draft a new constitution for the Nigerian Federation.” If they had exercised some patience and allowed the leadership of the conference to explain the rationale for the preparation of what they referred to as “draft constitution”, the fear of the northern delegates would have been allayed. It was simply a proactive approach from the intellectual vanguards of the conference with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda. It shouldn’t even have come to this.

But I take the last sentence back. It inevitably would have come to this. The North has been opposed to any change to the status quo. For them, nothing is wrong with the 1999 Constitution. Nothing is wrong with the structure of the country. Nothing is wrong with a revenue allocation system that truncates federalism and enshrines centralised dictatorship, with states having to beg for the crumbs from the master’s table. And certainly nothing is wrong with the direction the country is heading, with a President determining what revenue goes to the states and when they can receive such, for maximum benefit to him and his party. As far as the North is concerned, what is wrong is simply that the North is not in charge. With that mindset, the North’s grudging acceptance to participate in the conference was to ensure that nothing changes. If what the North seeks is a country at its beck and call, it should know that we passed that stage and that it is fast losing its old allies and not gaining new ones.

Finally, in the matter of the fate of the young Chibok girls, the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) simply played dangerously into the open trap of a presidency whose propaganda machinery is unparalleled. There is no doubt that the Federal Government has not only been caught napping about the rescue of the girls, but it has been criminally negligent in directing military resources to where it is needed. But why an ultimatum tied up with support for the President’s second term ambition? Given its record so far, the presidency knows that it is at the mercy of the girls’ kidnappers. Hitting back at the NEF is all it can do.

I start with a declaration of two categories of assumptions on elections and human nature from which I infer the conclusion of a clear difference between the two frontline candidates in the governorship election coming up tomorrow.

Concerning elections, I assume that they are crucial to a democracy and that all stakeholders, from the President to the lowliest citizens, have an interest in nurturing genuine democratic norms. In the light of our past history, the alternative is too horrifying to imagine.

Second, democratic elections are best conducted in an environment free of intimidation or harassment. For, it is in such an environment that the electorate can exercise their right to choose the candidate that, in their judgment, can provide the service they associate with a particular office.

Third, citizens have short-term and long-term interests ranging from the basic needs of food, health and shelter to the security of their lives and the education of their children. They guard these interests jealously. In a freedom-enhancing election, the electorate freely choose their candidates on the basis of their interests.

Fourth, when candidates are faced with a choice between two candidates, one of whom is an incumbent, they base their judgment on his or her performance in office, whether or not his tenure has added value to their lives, considered as a whole and in the longer term. If their answer is negative, they choose to not give him or her a second term. If their answer is positive, they return him or her to office to finish the good job. For the challenger, the question on the minds of the electorate is what has he done in the past? What does he/she promise for the future? Is he or she a better alternative to the incumbent?

It may be argued that my assumptions about elections apply to the ideal world and that we live in a world in which the ideal is the polar opposite of the real. I plead guilty as charged. But the real world that we prioritise is not the best we are capable of achieving. It is a world characterised by negativism and retrogression. It is a world in which we relish in our cleverness in subverting the will of the people and getting away with it because the silent majority find themselves outfoxed by those they trust with their lives. It is a world in which might has assumed the moral authority of right.

Our real world has persistently failed to learn from history and has been forced at every turn to face the ugliness of repeating it. Recall the use of federal might in 1964, 1965, 1983, 2003, 2007 and 2011. I have only included here the years in which a party in power at the centre was responsible for the conduct of federal elections. In various degrees, in each of those elections, the central government brought the force of its power to bear on the conduct of the elections, especially through the instrumentality of security agents. The first and second republics were brought down as a result of such machinations.

It is a sad commentary on our political development that we are engaged in the same game of betrayal of the people with what the Federal Government did in Ekiti and is currently acting out in Osun. In 1983, the Southwest was run over with the connivance of an Inspector-General of Police who hails from the region. This time round, as history is being repeated, the Minister of Police Affairs and the Minister of State for Defence are the instruments.

For those who stick to the real world, then, the challenge is to defend the atrocities that are committed therein. On the other hand, the ideal world is not in the ethereal realm. It is a world in which many human beings like us live and thrive. It is a world in which the basic right of citizens to choose their leaders without harassment is respected and a world in which citizens hold their leaders accountable. It is still a world of politics and political calculations. But it is one in which those calculations do not cross the line to diminish the humanity of citizens. I would rather wish that world be my real world.

In that world, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola towers above all his co-contestants in tomorrow’s poll. In particular, of all his opponents, the candidacy of Chief Iyiola Omisore would be dismissed as a non-starter. It is one of the ironies of our political culture and our real world that Omisore, with his antecedents in that state, could offer himself as a candidate and win the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election in the first place. Either someone just decided to dare the people or to trick the candidate into political suicide. Neither disjunction is healthy. I am almost certain that PDP has better candidates to contest against Ogbeni. At any rate, if Omisore is the best candidate that PDP has to offer against Aregbesola, it is not difficult for me to determine the better candidate in terms of character, in terms of past history, and in terms of performance in office for the people of the state. Aregbesola has a clear edge.

Aregbesola is a modern governor who thought deeply about the office before putting himself up as a candidate. He knew what he wanted to achieve for the people. He had a good understanding of the tragedy of our social fabric and what is needed to make it whole. It is therefore not surprising that on assumption of office, he just hit the ground running, churning out ideas and turning dreams into realities for many individuals. The list of his achievements in four years of office is simply amazing.

In addition to performance, Aregbesola towers above many of his colleagues in his closeness to the people. While I have not been in correspondence with him and have not visited him in office, many of his old friends confirm that he is still the same old friendly and accessible guy. In the currency of our political lexicon, he is a grassroots politician. In the world that I would rather live in because it is one that celebrates humanity and opens the door of opportunity for all God’s children, Aregbesola would be re-elected as Governor of the State of Osun.

This leads me to my second category of assumptions. Human nature is a tricky business. There are certain commonalities that warrant the reference to human nature. All humans have certain basic needs as pointed out above. The satisfaction of those needs leads us to behave in certain uniform ways. For one thing, we strive to satisfy our basic needs. But we may do so in different ways. Thus, while some engage in legitimate business to satisfy their need for food and shelter, others may choose to rob and kill to achieve the same end. Secondly, we all have emotions of joy, sadness, love, hate, etc. But we may choose to express them in various ways. That someone has genuine love for a person does not cancel hatred of him or her by another. So to talk about human nature is to talk about generalisations. My sense, however, is that for the majority of folks, the generalisations are valid. Recall our reference to the normal and abnormal.

The way human nature plays into the decision of the electorate as they thumbprint their ballot papers will make the difference. While I expect performance to matter to the majority of the citizens of Osun, I do not rule out the fringe elements for which no matter what Aregbesola did or failed to do, the mere fact of his being his father’s son is an anathema. And I cannot rule out a few for whom the thought of rice and kerosene for today overcomes considerations of the long-term interests of their children. I also cannot rule out special interest groups so hateful of reforms that they sold their souls to the highest bidder. In the final analysis, however, there is a clear difference and I hope that the majority vote for their long–term interests.