The timetable on campaign must have slowed down the nine presidential candidates from sharing details of their intentions and plans for governance with many voters who are eager to know what they are to vote for, beyond names and profiles of presidential candidates. An electoral process that limits campaign to 90 days may need to be reviewed after 2019. It is important for citizens to have adequate time to interrogate those to whom they are releasing their own power to govern, but this is not the concern of today’s piece. Ideological conversations among citizens seem to have been more active since Atiku Abubakar won the presidential primaries of PDP. Individuals and groups have been acting as if the candidate to contest on the platform of restructuring has finally emerged. But nothing is clear yet about any of the presidential candidates, largely because none of the parties and candidates have made their manifestoes known to the public, because the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) is yet to ‘lift the ban’ on campaign. But this is a good time for political enthusiasts to speculate.
Contrary to popular reading of Atiku Abubakar as an apostle of restructuring, many commenters may be in too much hurry about what kind of candidate Atiku is likely to be by the time his manifesto is unearthed. In terms of his pre-primary utterances, Mr. Atiku has gained attention in the last few months as someone committed to restructuring as a means of sustaining the country’s unity and improving its development. In a recent exchange of views between Atiku and Vice President Osinbajo on restructuring, Atiku, to show his credentials as a federalist, advised Osinbajo about the imperative of restructuring: “My advice to the Vice President is that he should choose whether he is for restructuring or whether he is against it and stick to his choice. This continuous prevarication, the approbation and reprobation, helps no one, least of all true progressives who know that Nigeria needs to be restructured and restructured soon.”
In view of this statement, it is logical for federalists to start viewing Atiku as a candidate committed to bringing federalism back to the country. But the party that he is a flag bearer for has never been known as one that believes in returning the country to federalism. For example, when former President Goodluck Jonathan convened the 2014 National Conference, the PDP, as a party, never said or did anything to support the conference and its recommendations. The same PDP did not show any interest in Obasanjo’s Conference on Political Reforms. Therefore, those who are already jubilating that restructuring as an ideology has finally gotten a presidential candidate in Atiku should not be in a hurry. A political party’s manifesto in both parliamentary and presidential system of government is not the making of the presidential candidate alone; it generally requires endorsement of the party that presents the candidate for office. For example, most of the policies of President Donald Trump since his coming to office seem to have the backing of the Republican Party. With the growing profile of Atiku as a federalist, it is understandable if enthusiastic federalists act as if the PDP has become or about to become a party for restructuring. If not, Atiku’s manifesto may not be allowed by his party to fly at the end of the day. Political pronouncements and actions in the country in the last three years have suggested that a party can have a manifesto item that the president does not endorse or vice versa.
For instance, four years ago, the manifesto upon which the APC presidential candidate campaigned included a clear statement on the readiness of the party to re-federalise the country: “Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.” At that time, the PDP kept quiet in its manifesto on the issue of restructuring. But voters in many regions of the country jumped up for APC and its presidential candidate. None of such voters ever thought that restructuring would still be an issue for the 2019 election. Should the PDP co-author Atiku’s manifesto to include restructuring in 2019 and the APC re-presents the pledge it made in the 2015 presidential campaign, the two major parties will become federalist parties for voters to choose from.
While waiting for manifestoes from all the parties, it is premature for anyone to declare Atiku a candidate for a federalist Nigeria. But it is important for the nine parties with presidential candidates to indicate publicly the views and intentions of their presidential candidates on restructuring, a trope that has sharpened the conflict between “Nothing is wrong with Nigeria as it is” sect and the group of voters who say “Restructuring Nigeria is a task that must be done.” It is also important for party ideologues not to confuse voters by creating false dichotomy between many of the challenges that confront the country.
For example, such issues as ridding the country of political and bureaucratic corruption, enriching the unity of diverse sections of the country, providing physical, psychological, and cultural security for citizens, and growing the nation’s economy are not as unrelated as they may seem to restructuring as a platform for addressing the conditions under which diverse cultures with diverse worldviews live together in one territorial unit. Many other countries had given thought to such matters in the past in their bid to strengthen, develop, and enrich themselves. Most recent examples are United Arab Emirates, Canada, Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, and Ethiopia, to name a few.
It may not look obvious that peace, prosperity, economic growth, and security hinge on a conducive structure for a county in which citizens seek the freedom to realize their potentials in ways best suited to their dominant values. Although it is hard to establish a causal relationship between Nigeria’s under-development and its unitary governance, it is, however, easy to see correlations between consolidation of unitary governance by past military rulers and decline in many aspects of development in the country. Between 1975 and 1999, Nigeria has grown to be one of the poorest countries in the world despite the volume of petroleum and gas flowing out of its soil; it is one of the countries with the worst literacy rate in the world; it is also at the bottom of countries with the highest maternal and infant mortality rates; it is a country in which majority of its citizens do not have access to potable water and modern toilet facilities; etc.
It is, therefore, logical to assume that the older and more consolidated the unitary system imposed on the country becomes, the more agents of destabilisation and disruption the country produces: Boko Haram, Niger Delta militants, violent Herdsmen, etc. Furthermore, there was no demand for secession since the end of the civil war of the late 1960s until recently when groups such as MASSOB and IPOB felt that their progress was being undermined by a unitary system of government. Over concentration of resources in the central government has aggravated corruption, just as it does at the state level, where governors need not generate jobs and taxes to make citizens feel like co-owners of their state. Communities are policed by persons who do not understand the language of the people they are protecting.
Certainly, persons who are seeking to rule the country need to understand these problems and construct a manifesto that can address them. In addition, presidential candidates ought to present manifestoes that carry the endorsement of the political party that sponsors them for election. Doing this will avoid intra-party crisis over the president’s decision to fulfil his or her pledge to the electorate or the party’s preference that all promises in a manifesto are redeemed. In general, citizens now look eager to vote, but they need to know the kind of future they are voting for.
- Roposek@msn.com