The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Democrats

  • Democracy without democrats

    Post-election, it is always the vogue to carpet the electoral umpire (not unjustified many times, particularly during the notorious Maurice Iwu era), as the worst monster since the dawn of Satan.

    But a report on the 2019 general elections, released on April 29, has hit the nail right on the head: Nigeria is a fond democracy without democrats.

    That is the major disease.  Even the Iwu Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was a symptom, though that symptom was so virulent it could qualify for the epidemic itself.

    A report by the Centre for Transparency and Advocacy  (CTA), a medley of civil society groups, observers during the 2019 general elections, just bared it all.

    On INEC: “There is no doubt that the present INEC under Yakubu invested heavily in producing a free and fair election,” CTA declared.  “INEC proved quite independent in the way and manner it responded to the unexpected challenges thrown its way by the political class.”

    No logical mind would say this verdict is unfair.

    On politicians, the non-democrats that insist on running a democracy: “The politicians, their agents and thugs constituted the greatest menace in the conduct of the 2019 general elections.  From brazen acts of vote-buying, violent attacks on perceived opponents,” CTA listed its long and ringing indictment, “intimidation and abduction of INEC officials, snatching and destruction of ballot boxes and papers, to burning up of INEC offices and electoral materials in Plateau, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Imo, Benue and Abia states, the political parties and politicians showed their desperation for power.”

    Again, no logical mind can claim this verdict is harsh!  So long for general non-democrats running — and therefore, ruining — a democracy!

    Even then, beyond establishing a general trend, broad generalities, just as statistical averages (with the possible exception of the mode), do grave harm to pin-point accuracy.

    Even, as the political class appears as guilty as charged, the question is what segment of it got the cake of the blame, in these last polls?

    Look at CTA’s damning indictment again, and track the states home to pre-election destruction of INEC materiel: Plateau, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Imo, Benue and Abia states.

    Before the advent of the smart card reader, many of these states, particularly in the South-South and the South-East, had gathered notoriety for not holding elections but with the political elite just writing figures that suited them!

    So, if some thugs in the states set fire to INEC card readers, well before the polls, you could guess the intention of the thugs, from the not-so-mute voices of the political masters that sent them.

    Tragically, the media, supposed to point out all these, had since become captives to vested interests, rationalizing the irrational; and pouncing on INEC to do magic, when politicians that should play by the rules descend to playing juvenile and dangerous election-season games.

    If Nigerian democracy must thrive, the media and every segment of goodwill must help to shape Nigerian wayward politicians into responsible democrats.

    With that change of temper, INEC will do with less logistics; and the state would certainly spend less on elections.

     

  • Democracy without democrats

    The day Gen. Ibrahim Babangida sacked Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, martial music took the airwaves. Soldiers in well-starched green uniform or camouflage flooded the streets, horsewhips and guns in hands to whip the citizens into line. It was a cycle the nation was becoming used to.

    A voice came on the radio. It was Brigadier-General Joshua Nimyel Dogonyaro: Fellow countrymen, the intervention of the military at the end of 1983 was welcomed by the nation with unprecedented enthusiasm. Nigerians were unified in accepting the intervention and looked forward hopefully to progressive changes for the better. Almost two years later, it has become clear that the fulfillment of expectations is not forthcoming.

    The voice of the man Dogonyaro spoke on behalf of—Gen. Ibrahim Babangida—soon boomed on the radio: When in December 1983, the former military leadership, headed by Major-General Muhammadu Buhari, assumed the reins of government, its accession was heralded in the history of this country. With the nation at the mercy of political misdirection and on the brink of economic collapse, a new sense of hope was created in the minds of every Nigerian. Since January 1984, however, we have witnessed a systematic denigration of that hope. It was stated then that mismanagement of political leadership and a general deterioration in the standard of living, which had subjected the common man to intolerable suffering, were the reasons for the intervention. Nigerians have since then been under a regime that continued with those trends. Events today indicate that most of the reasons which justified the military takeover of government from the civilians still persist. The initial objectives were betrayed and fundamental changes do not appear on the horizon.

    Hitherto shadowy figures began manning positions and lost their anonymity. Decrees were promulgated to replace the constitution. It was a cycle the nation was becoming used to.

    But contrary to the promises made, Babangida messed up for years. He capped his nonsense by annulling the June 12, 1993 presidential election and lost the opportunity to remedy the nonsense that his administration was. General Sani Abacha made further nonsense of the directionless bequeathed by Babangida, while the late MKO Abiola who ought to be the president was rotting in jail. The reasons for military takeover were never justified. They simply wasted our time and stole our money, largely.

    Then came 1999 and democracy. Almost twenty-years down the line, we are yet to start crawling, not to talk of walking and far away from running. Our politicians are just a little better than the military. In a lot of sense, many of the players on the political scene are yet to be cured of the military hang-over. A sizeable number of the key players even have garrison mentality. Ours is a democracy without democrats. Selfish interests are masqueraded as national interests. The good of one is sold as the good of all.

    In the last few months, we have seen defections upon defections. Lawmakers abandon one party to join another and defending it as if it were based on sound principles.

    The defections and the reasons behind them are interesting. Let me use the example of Ibrahim Shekarau, former governor of Kano State, who has returned to the All Progressive Congress (APC) from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Shekarau had joined the PDP in 2014 citing “a lack of transparency and accountability” in APC. His spokesman, Sule Ya’u Sule, said he decided to return to the ruling party over lack of internal democracy in the PDP.

    Shekarau had said at the time of the APC: “We intended with the merger to form a solid foundation for the entrenchment of democracy. The Legacy Group sacrificed all interests for the merger, but for the past six months, all agreements reached by the merged parties had not been met. No clear leaders, no registration of APC members at any levels. This shows a clear lack of commitment, transparency and accountability.”

    One wonders if transparency is now practised in APC! The Bukola Sarakis of this world will certainly not agree with him. Neither will former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.

    Then there is this other case which makes further believe we want democracy, but are not ready to be democrats: My heart broke when a group of new breed politicians behaved like the people they said they wanted to replace. Motivational Speaker Fela Durotoye was chosen to represent them through a shadow election, but the ink with which his name was written was yet to dry when many of the others in contention rubbished the exercise that produced him. It is more painful giving the fact that these are people with little or no chance of winning the presidential election!

    I saw deceit when Atiku shed tears because some people bought him ticket to rescue Nigeria from Buhari. So, Atiku loves Nigeria so much to shed tears for it? For me, it looked like a case of subsidising the rich; no, the stupendously rich. It has nothing to do with the much-professed desire to entrench democracy. There is absolutely no doubt that the Buhari administration has not met our expectations. Things have changed. Certainly, but at a ridiculously slow speed. Yes, they say slow and steady wins the race, but when vital decisions are left untaken, things degenerate and that is my grouse about the president’s style.

    If there is another thing that has shown me that we run our democracy without democrats, it is the objection of some All Progressives Congress (APC) governors to direct primaries, which will give party members a choice in picking candidates. Their Excellencies are rotting instead for consensus or indirect primaries. To be sincere, they have not broken any law because their party’s constitution allows it. But what better test of popularity is there than direct primaries? My conclusion is that their Excellencies are simply afraid that their popularity among party men and women is not enough to guarantee their lackeys picking the prized tickets.

    A particular His Excellency is intent on installing a successor who I had the misfortune of meeting recently. The governor-in-waiting found it difficult to express himself in English language. He was saying “we does” and “he do” and had no idea he was murdering Queen’s English. May be government business will be conducted in his native language. After all, grammar no be success, apologies to Sir Shina Peters.

    My final take: Until we are ready to follow the best democratic practices, we will just be deceiving ourselves. We will continue to lag behind in the comity of nations; we will continue to play second fiddle; and we will remain static while deceiving ourselves that we are on the march.

  • Trump questions taking of immigrants from ‘shithole countries’

    Trump questions taking of immigrants from ‘shithole countries’

    President Donald Trump has questioned why the U.S. would want to have immigrants from Haiti and African nations, referring to some as “shithole countries,” according to two sources familiar with the comments.

    Trump’s remarks, made in the White House, came as Democratic Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham briefed the president on a newly drafted immigration bill being touted by a bipartisan group of senators, according to the sources, who asked not to be identified.

    Sources said government officials were present during the conversation.

    The lawmakers were describing how certain immigration programs operate, including one to give safe haven in the United States to people from countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.

    One of the sources who was briefed on the conversation said that Trump said, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here?

    “They’re shithole countries … We should have more people from Norway.”

    The second source familiar with the conversation, said Trump, who has vowed to clamp down on illegal immigration, also questioned the need for Haitians in the United States.

    Many Democrats and some Republican lawmakers slammed the president for his remarks.

    Republican U.S. Representative Mia Love, a daughter of Haitian immigrants, said the comments were “unkind, divisive, elitist, and fly in the face of our nation’s values”.

    Love called on Trump to apologise to the American people and to the countries he denigrated.

    Another Republican Representative, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who was born in Cuba and whose south Florida district includes many Haitian immigrants, said: “Language like that shouldn’t be heard in locker rooms and it shouldn’t be heard in the White House.”

    Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, a frequent Trump critic, said the president’s comment “smacks of blatant racism, the most odious and insidious racism masquerading poorly as immigration policy.”

    Read Also: “Obama sold the finest embassy for Peanuts,” Trump cancels UK visit

    In an apparent response to his critics, Trump took to Twitter late on Thursday night.

    Trump tweeted: “The Democrats seem intent on having people and drugs pour into our country from the Southern Border, risking thousands of lives in the process.

    “It is my duty to protect the lives and safety of all Americans. We must build a Great Wall, think Merit and end Lottery & Chain. USA!”

    The programme that was being discussed at the White House is called Temporary Protected Status.

    In November, the Trump administration decided to end the status for immigrants from Haiti and Nicaragua.

    It gave the approximately 59,000 Haitian immigrants who had been granted the status until July 2019 to return home or legalise their presence in the U.S.

    Nicaraguans were given until January 2019.

    On Monday, Trump moved to end the status for immigrants from El Salvador, which could result in 200,000 Salvadorans legally in the United States being deported, beginning in September of 2019.

    Reuters/NAN

  • Trump flops, Clinton scores high after first debate

    Trump flops, Clinton scores high after first debate

    As pundits predicted, the Republican Party candidate for the November 8 presidential election of the United States (U.S.), Mr. Donald J. Trump, last night, bungled the chance to refine his conduct and uncouth rhetoric at the first debate with his main challenger – Senator Hillary Clinton – held at Hofstra University in New York.
    For the whole of the 90 minutes, Clinton put the Grand Old Party (GOP) candidate on the defense, making Trump to speak less on his porgramme, but more on uncharitable comments he had previously made against African-American, Hispanics, Muslims, President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his approval of Russian hackers’ breaking into American computer network.
    Trump started the debate with the calm disposition. Some 30 minutes later, the Republican candidate became temperamental, interrupting his rival and Lester Holt, the debate’s anchor. Clad in a black suit, white shirt and blue tie, Trump drank periodically from a glass cup of water placed in his front, while his tie abnormally rested on the lapel as he charged his Clinton.
    Trump’s disagreement with Clinton at the debate, watched by over 100 million Americans, stemmed from jobs, taxes, nuclear threat, gun control, and racial expletives. For him, it was the time to debunk spiteful comments he made in the past and set the record straight. But, Clinton had ample opportunity to further woo undecided voters as she explained how she would lead the country if elected.
    Trump said America has become a third-world country because of the economy mismanagement. He took an open swipe at Clinton’s husband, saying former President Bill Clinton signed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he described as “one of the worst things that ever happened in the manufacturing industry”.
    Clinton did not betray any emotion when Trump criticised her husband. “That is your opinion,” she calmly replied Trump.
    Trump’s unpaid tax became prominent as the debate progressed. Clinton insinuated that the GOP candidate may not have paid any federal tax since he started as his business, nothing that Trump only turned in tax to state authorities when he wanted to get the license for his casino business.
    “That makes me smart,” Trump said, adding: “I will release my tax returns against my lawyer’s wishes when she (Clinton) releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release my tax returns.”
    Clinton admitted fault in her e-mail scandal.  “If I had to do it over again, I would obviously do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake and I take responsibility for that,” she said.
    But, Trump dismissed Clinton’s admission of the mistake as disgraceful, saying: “That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely….I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it is this…really thinks it is disgraceful also.”
    On bringing back manufacturers and job creation, Clinton said: “Let’s remember where we were eight years ago; we had the worst financial crisis – the great recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was, in large part, because of tax policies that slash taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street and created a perfect storm…
    “Nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And 1$3 Trillion in family wealth was wiped out. Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we are now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy. But the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place. Independent experts have looked at what I have proposed and looked at what Donald (Trump) has proposed.
    “They have looked at my plans, and they have said okay if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs. It is because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy.”
    Trump disagreed, saying: “The first thing is…don’t let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name thousands of them; they are leaving and they are leaving in bigger numbers than ever…”
    In his usual rhetoric, Trump said: “Excuse me, I will bring back jobs. You (Clinton) can’t bring back jobs.”
    The GOP candidate insinuated that President Obama and Clinton created ISIS because of the manner America pulled out of Iraq. Trump said Obama should have left about 10,000 soldiers and taken over the Iraqi oil, noting that access to the oil field by Islamist militants led to the creation of ISIS.
    Clinton responded: “Our military is assisting in Iraq, and we are hoping that within the year, we will be able to push ISIS out of Iraq. And then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria. But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they’ve had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons. So we have to make this the top priority, and I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership.”
    The Democratic candidate reiterated that she would employ diplomacy to deal with nuclear proliferation, describing Trump as a war-monger who would not have the patience to engage in diplomacy.
    Clinton said: “He (Trump) has said repeatedly that he didn’t care if other nations got nuclear weapons – Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    “So, a man who can be provoked by a tweet shouldn’t have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned.”
    The outcome of the debate may have given a large number of undecided voters the freedom to choose between the two candidates. Post-debate CNN polls showed that 55 per cent of undecided voter believe Trump does not have temperament and capacity to handle the Presidency. This is against 43 per cent who believe Clinton cannot.
    Also, 62 per cent of undecided voters believed Clinton won the debate, while 27 per cent thought Trump won. Although opinions are divided over the performance of the two leading candidates at the debate, but voters in Colorado believe Trump did not say much about his plan to lead the country.
    While concise post-debate traditional polling results on “who is likely to win the race” are still being awaited, Trump may have slid further in losing the support of millennial voters, because of his “woeful performance” at the debate.
    “Trump did not do any better,” says Alexander Price, a millennial voter, who watched the debate at the American Press Club building in Downtown Denver. He said the conduct of the Republican candidate did not change in the debate, saying: “This is a woeful performance for Mr. Trump.”
    [news_box style=”2″ display=”tag” link_target=”_blank” tag=”Millenials” count=”4″ show_more=”on” show_more_type=”link”]

  • Trump’s rhetoric tears young Republicans apart

    • GOP candidate may lose student-republicans’ votes
    Despite their aversion to the utterances and campaign tone of Mr. Donald Trump, several college republicans have endorsed the candidature of the Grand Old Party (GOP). But, Trump endorsement by the college republican groups does not have binding effect on the liberty of individual students to vote for their candidates of choice among the four contenders for the Oval Office.
    Mr. Trump’s popularity among millennial voters is declining, because the youth feel his conducts and campaign language are not presidential and disrespect the cherished American diversity as preached by the country’s founding fathers.
    Before he won his party nomination, the Republican Party candidate riled African-Americans, Hispanics and Muslims with unprintable expletives, threatening to deport Muslims and Latinos and shut American borders against them. Many college Republicans endured taunts from independent millennials over Mr. Trump’s hateful rhetoric, but none of them has found the courage to openly defend the GOP candidate’s hate speeches.
    Trump’s endorsement came in the wake of many College Republican chapters in various esteemed universities, including Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard University, opting not to endorse the GOP presidential nominee—and even going so far as to endorse Libertarian presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, as was done at Cornell University in New York, Mr. Trump’s homestead.
    It was not all smooth sail for Mr. Trump to win the support of college republicans across universities. It was tie votes across colleges when Trump’s endorsement was discussed among young Republicans.
    At the University of Virginia (UVA), a motion to endorse Trump almost tore apart the chapter’s young Republicans, majority of whom criticised the GOP candidate’s spiteful remarks against the fallen Muslim-American soldier, Captain Humayun Khan.
    The late Capt Khan, a UVA alumnus, was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq while serving in the U.S. Army. The UVA Republican chapter voted 67-63 to endorse Trump. The tie outcome showed deep resentment for Trump’s candidature among the college Republicans.
    At the University of Michigan, Trump’s official endorsement was forced on college Republicans, some of whom vowed to cast their ballots for the Libertarian Party’s candidate, Gary Johnson.
    President of Young Republicans at the University Michigan, told members: “The College Republicans at the University of Michigan will officially be endorsing the Trump-Pence campaign for this election. I know that some you may not agree with all of Mr. Trump’s statements and policies, but the campaign is not about one person. Mr. Trump in the White House comes with an entire administration of conservatives that, as Republicans, share many of the same ideals that we would not see represented under Clinton’s presidency.
    “And any vote not for Trump is a vote for Clinton. But regardless of your views on Mr. Trump, I encourage you all to make the effort to go to the polls and vote down-ballot Republican for your state and congressional candidates.”
    The GOP candidate has not extended a hand of fellowship to young Republicans across the college, an action that is drawing many youths away from the Republican campaign train.
    During a discussion with Foreign Press Centres Tour participants at the UVA, members of College Republicans declined to comment on Trump campaign. They rather focused on pushing the candidacy of Mr. Tom Garrett, who is vying for the U.S. Congress membership in 2018 mid-term elections.
     

  • Okowa’s sure to win, say democrats

    A group, Delta Democratic Alliance (DDA), has said Delta State the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Ifeanyi Okowa will win Saturday’s election.

    Director-General of DDA Mr. Sunday Onyewonsa said Okowa has no rival and that efforts were on to ensure victory for the Ika-born politician.

    Onyewonsa said the door-to-door campaign team of the DDA went across wards and units in the three senatorial districts, “preaching the gospel of Senator Okowa”, adding that the people remain committed to Okowa’s victory.

    “Of all the candidates jostling for the Government House, Okowa is the most qualified and I dare tell you that the other two major contestants pose no threats.

    “So, Okowa has no rival. We have the perpetual aspirants challenging our candidate. They have failed before and they will fail again.

    “For us in DDA, we won’t rest until Senator Okowa is sworn in as governor on May 29. We have taken the campaign to riverine areas, difficult terrains notwithstanding, and we are sure victory will come to the PDP family on Saturday,” Onyewonsa said.

     

  • Only three democrats in this land!

    Three are chosen?: What is a democracy without democrats operating the system in deed and in spirit? Well a mere civil rule at best. But if we want an honest answer, what we have had in the last 15 years in the guise of democracy has really been a hiatus; a vacuum waiting to be filled. This is why one is deeply disturbed by the excitement and theatrics over what we call a 15-year stretch of democratic rule in Nigeria. To celebrate democracy and reel out achievements in bricks and mortar is one of those laughable things we do around here.

    Democracy cannot equate some resurfaced roads or official vehicles ‘given’ to civil servants. Democracy is that fine art and science of governing a people in a manner that brings out the maximum potentials derivable. It is a conscious effort, it is something you have to internalize and practice. It is often spear-headed by leader-democrats who build solid institutions and inspire mass followership. Aung Kyi, the iconic Burmese activist surmised it thus:  “Development requires democracy, the genuine empowerment of the people.”

    But where are the Nigerian democrats? Hardly any; we talk democracy but just a few pursue it. In fact, through this period, this column can identify only three Nigerians who may be said to have furthered the cause of democracy in Nigeria.

    Bola Tinubu’s tireless struggle:  To properly understand and situate the depth of his roles in nurturing Nigeria’s democracy through this period, it would be best to consider how the last 15 years would have played out without his input. Coming from a life-threatening role in the National Democratic Coalition’s (NADECO) campaign which ousted the military, Tinubu went ahead to co-initiate the political party, Alliance for Democracy (AD), which swept the polls in the Southwest of Nigerian in 1999.

    He has held out since then even when his peers from the zone floundered, leading that party to metamorphose into the All Progressives Congress (APC), the major alternative to the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). It has been 15 years of impassioned political activism and relentless propagation of progressive democratic ethos. He has engineered the Southwest of Nigeria into the democratic showpiece of Nigeria, providing an alternative to an obdurate conservative ruling clique. With the APC, democracy has deepened; Nigerians have a viable choice while quality changes would willy-nilly be forced in the PDP.

    Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu will no doubt get a pride of place when the history of this democracy is written. He is a man who bucked the trend; he chose to act when he could have taken the path of reclined comfort and good life like most of his peers.

    Buhari, the unlikely democrat: not a few Nigerians would consider it anathema to associate General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) with democracy but that is what the erstwhile military officer and dictator has morphed into in the last 15 years. True many Nigerians still consider him ultra-conservative and lacking in democratic salubrity but that may be because he has remained true to his cause over these years. Three times he has contested presidential election, three times he has failed and thrice he had followed his quests legally right up to the apex courts.

    As a former general (and one without a deep pocket), he joined political parties and remained a faithful party man at every step. He grew into a party leader commanding large followership over his area of influence. When he was betrayed by his former party, he founded one in his image which became an instant success. It is his formidable Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) that merged with Tinubu’s ACN to become APC. This episode is perhaps the single most important footnote in our current democratic narrative.

    Yet he has remained his starchy, soldier self over these years instead of the classic politician; he has also made some conflagrant statements in his journey. Notwithstanding, he has furthered the cause of democracy more than all of his soldiers-turned politicians of this age. Yes, even more than Olusegun Obasanjo.

    Peter Obi, star of the east: The immediate past governor of Anambra State proved to be an icon of this fledgling democracy in a very peculiar way. Coming from a place where that old, Grecian ideal might well be a fancy article of trade in Ochanja market. Ndigbo (though not unlike other tribes of the land but more peculiarly so) have long discountenanced democracy. Since 1999, governance had been by the powerful, of the powerful and for the powerful in Igboland. And during elections, only cash counts, votes don’t.

    Thus since 1999, hardly any elective office was won by vote count. Peter Obi bucked this trend in the Anambra governorship race of 2003. A businessman, he was moved to join politics after the disastrous outing of Governor Chinwoke Mbadinuju. His state was like a jungle where the treasury was booty for party pimps. A man of some means, he could have joined the PDP, gotten in the mix and awaited his turn and share of the booty. But he had a mission to engage governance in the proper, democratic way.

    He won the election with his puny APGA but the PDP cabal snatched his mandate and for over three years he fought doggedly through the courts of the land to reclaim it. His ordeal in the hands of a visceral corps of power mongers in the state is a story for an epic political literature. Suffice it to say that Obi proved that votes can truly count and a non-ruling party could win fair and square. All through his tenure as governor, he showed that power, especially on a democratic platform, is not an end in itself. Lastly he proved not to be a prisoner to power like most of his peers who are so power- hungry they shop for positions and offices even after two terms as governor.

    The trio of Tinubu, Buhari and Obi represent the bright lights of this age. They sacrificed and braved odds to make an impact. It’s not all doom and gloom after all.

    Honorable mentions: Of course this is not an absolute shortlists, there must be numerous other leaders at all level holding out and holding forth on behalf of democracy. Governor Babatunde Fashola of Lagos State is one and INEC chairman, Professor Attahiru Jega is another.

    LAST MUG: Fani wonder: It was Fani Power those days but today we are ‘blessed’ to have a chip of an old block: let’s call him Fani Wonder or wander if you please. He has done it again – a multiple back flip that landed him back in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) fold. We speak of the now migrant politician Mr. Femi Fani-Kayode (FFK!) who jumped from PDP to ACN/APC and now back to PDP. Fani Wander is a story for another day but let’s say that we are no longer a wasted generation, we are actually a wondrous one: no qualms, no scruples, no compunctions; absolutely hollow and vain.

  • U.S immigration deal in ‘six months’

    U.S immigration deal in ‘six months’

     

    President Barack Obama has said United States immigration reform could be achieved within six months, in an interview with Spanish-language TV channel Telemundo.

    The president said reform should pass in 2013 and he would put “everything” into securing a deal even sooner.

    Obstacles to a deal were political rather than technical, Mr. Obama added.

    The comments came the day after Mr. Obama backed comprehensive immigration reform, and after a group of senators unveiled a similar plan on Monday.

    BBC says the focus on immigration reflects the growing influence of Hispanic voters.

    “I can guarantee that I will put everything I have behind it,” Mr. Obama told Telemundo, one of two Spanish-language networks he spoke to on Wednesday.

    The president also said he would work with all politicians to achieve reform, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican.

    Mr. Obama’s plan, unveiled at a secondary school in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday, reflects a blueprint he rolled out in 2011.

    But while he applauded the Senate effort – put together by a group of four Democrats and four Republicans – the president also warned that if Congress fails to take action on immigration, the White House would write legislation of its own and insist that lawmakers vote on it.

    Like the bipartisan plan, the president backed an overhaul of the existing legal immigration system, securing U.S borders, and offering a pathway to earned citizenship.

    But the senators’ proposals would allow undocumented immigrants to start the process of becoming citizens only after U.S borders are deemed secure, a link that did not feature in the president’s plan.