In approximately eight weeks, Nigerians will go to the polls to determine which party will run their affairs at the centre and most states of the federation between May 2015 and 2019. Before us is one of the most critical elections in the history of the country. The two major political parties have presented Nigerians with a clear choice. It is one between continuity and change. For the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), President Goodluck Jonathan, assisted by the ‘loyal and tested’ Vice President Namadi Sambo should continue to steer the shape of state for another four years. As far as the PDP faithful are concerned, the duo has done so competently, faithfully and incomparably over the last six years. Continuity of the present order is thus in the best interest of the country.
The PDP faithful contend that the party has facilitated the unbroken practice of democratic rule for the past 15 years of the country’s history. It does not matter to them that the opposition has often had to grimly fight the tyranny of central incumbency to attain its present formidable place in the country’s political space. Under the PDP’s watch, they contend, Nigeria’s economy has become the largest in Africa and its growth rate one of the highest in the world even at a time of global economic depression.
Of course, the emergent alternate major political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) does not agree with this depiction of the nation’s current realities. In the duo of General Muhammadu Buhari (Rtd) as its presidential candidate and the reputable lawyer, academic, administrator and committed reformer, Professor Yemi Osinbajo as his running mate, the APC presents the country with a ticket for change. The party believes that, like the Titanic, Nigeria’s ship of state is headed for irredeemable disaster unless there is a fundamental change of direction in the management of her affairs. It is left to the Nigerian electorate to make the decision at the polls next year on whether they want continuity or change.
Over the last year, long before campaigns were legally permitted, the PDP, particularly through the ubiquitous ‘Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria’ (TAN) had aggressively marketed Dr Goodluck Jonathan as the Moses of our time. They had likened him to such great historic leaders as Martin Luther King (Jnr), Nelson Mandela and President Barak Obama. An exuberant aide has gone further to liken Jonathan to Jesus Christ, the saviour of mankind. Fervent supporters of President Jonathan contend that his much advertised ‘Transformation Agenda’ is achieving wonders in diverse sectors including agriculture, aviation, rail transportation, power- supply, job creation and road infrastructure. Rosy and tantalising statistics are cited to buttress this position.
Are the vast majority of the Nigerian people better off today than they were before the advent of the PDP government at the centre in 1999 and particularly since the emergence of the Jonathan administration? It is difficult to answer the question in the affirmative. There is an incredible and unbridgeable gulf between the tantalising statistics of progress peddled by the Jonathan administration and the experiential reality of millions of Nigerians.
The great development economist, Professor Dudley Seers, posed three key questions to determine whether a country is developing or not: What is happening to poverty? What is happening to inequality? What is happening to unemployment? All three have worsened considerably in Nigeria under the PDP and the Jonathan administration. Let me quickly note that in continually making a distinction between the PDP and the Jonathan administration, I am informed by the fact that many voters in 2011 claimed they were voting for the humble former shoeless schoolboy from Otuoke and not necessarily his party. The difference now appears to be that between six and half a dozen.
Ardent supporters of Dr Jonathan contend that his administration is working admirably to contain the challenge of insecurity, which they attribute to those who allegedly threatened to make the country ungovernable for him if he won the 2011 elections. But then, is this not an indictment of the Jonathan presidency? The implication is that President Jonathan had a forewarning of the security challenge long before his election and yet could not utilise the immense powers of his office to anticipate and thwart such threats as well as bring saboteurs of the country’s stability to book. The truth is that there can be no excuse for the appalling degree of insecurity and massive corruption witnessed under the Jonathan administration.
The change promised by the APC is indeed appealing but the details and promises of this change must be rigorously interrogated. Why has Nigeria stagnated and even retrogressed in some areas during the last 15 years of civilian ‘democratic’ rule? Is it because there are no competent, incorruptible or visionary persons at the disposal of the PDP-controlled centre? I do not think so. The problem is fundamentally structural. Unless the structural impediments to rapid and revolutionary national transformation are urgently and vigorously addressed, a highly anticipated ‘Messianic’ Buhari/Osibanjo presidency will work no magic.
Yes, an alternative to the current PDP/Jonathan presidency must work hard and fast to enhance the existential living conditions of the wretched of the Nigerian earth. However, enduring success in any such endeavour must be predicated on more fundamental structural changes. Firstly, is the necessity urgently demystify and detoxify Nigeria’s imperial presidency. The extensive, almost unlimited powers of Nigeria’s presidency constitute the greatest threat to good governance, the rule of law and the very survival of democracy in Nigeria.
An alternate government at the centre, no matter the personal integrity and good intentions of the president will be as perverse as its predecessor within the present structural context. The security, electoral and anti-corruption agencies must be freed from the current suffocating presidential stranglehold and granted a sufficient degree of institutional autonomy in the interest of democracy and good governance.
Secondly, an alternate Federal Government must urgently work towards substantial decentralisation of powers, responsibilities and resources to the state and local governments. Today’s excessive centralisation of governance can only deepen corruption, abuse of power and corruption no matter which party is in power. However, this suggested decentralisation is only one half of the challenge. The truth is that the states and local governments today, irrespective of which party controls them, are as tyrannical and imperial as the centre.
Decentralisation of powers, resources and responsibilities in favour of imperial governors, who are miniature tyrannical ‘presidents’ of their jurisdictions will be nothing but the decentralisation of despotism. There is therefore the need for far reaching constitutional reforms to promote accountability, transparency and good governance at the sub-national (state and local) levels of government.
Now, when we talk about continuity and change, must we be concerned with the national government alone? I do not think so. This column believes that an impregnable case can be made for drastic and fundamental change at the centre given 15 years of the PDP’s visionless and inept rule that has left the country prostrate and humiliated. However, the situation at the sub-national (state) level is more complicated and nuanced. While some PDP and APC state governments deserve to be allowed continuity on the basis of their performance and vision, others of both parties ought to be resoundingly rejected by the electorate for non-performance. The cause of the country’s political development will be significantly promoted by the emergence of an electorate that is sophisticated and enlightened enough to reward good governance and punish incompetent governance at the polls across party boundaries.
