Tag: NGF

Nigerians are loud, opinionated and impatient. Ordinarily, those traits should make for a vibrant and fascinating democratic adventure where freedom of expression and choice, as well as transparency in public affairs would take root.

But for a people who are quick on the draw when expressing their views, recent events are evidence that we would also be content with a system of governance where a maximum ruler lays down the law and his loyal subjects fall obediently in line.

Over the last two weeks we’ve been celebrating democracy with two symbolic dates. May 29 speaks to an uncommon longevity of civil rule – an unbroken run of 14 years. June 12 reminded us of the subversion of the very ideal we claim to hanker for.

How interesting that the celebrations took place in the shadow of the bitter battle to elect a new leadership for the influential Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF). While it was fun for a while reducing what happened to a David and Goliath contest in which an increasingly overbearing president received his comeuppance at the hands of a Lilliputian governor, there are deeper issues at play here.

Thirty-five governors locked themselves in a room and willingly subjected themselves to a democratic contest. When the dust settled, two “chairmen” emerged in a contest that could only produce one! The winner had a majority of 19 votes; the other claimant had a majority of pre-polling endorsements but only 16 votes.

How telling that 20 years after General Ibrahim Babangida and his military co-conspirators annulled the results of the June 12, 1993 election, Nigerians are still being made to endure a brazen attempt to annul what was a clear-cut victory by Rivers State Governor, Rotimi Amaechi.

Many governors who until now had been posturing as democrats have been exposed as they sought to deny what had happened by explaining that there had never been an election in the NGF, or that the polling should never have been filmed.

Today, everyone has a version of the history of forum; how it had always chosen its leadership by consensus. One wonders where all the historians were in the run-up to the election. How come none of these custodians of the NGF folklore never piped up with a word of dissent all those months when it was clear that the next leader would emerge through balloting?

One of the most disgraceful aspects of the NGF fiasco is the meddling by President Goodluck Jonathan. Following the defeat of his preferred candidate, Plateau State Governor, Jonah Jang, the president and his aides have sought to distance him from the mess. But then there he was recognising and addressing the “loser” as chairman of the governors forum at some Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) event in Abuja.

What sort of example is that? Of course, he had never hidden the fact that he was opposed to Amaechi’s return. But then he’s president of Nigeria, not of the PDP and ought to elevate himself above certain things because of the exalted position he holds.

When it suits them, those around Jonathan are quick to flay the opposition for “playing politics with everything.” They are also known to deliver lectures pointing out that elections had been held and won, and now was the time for governing, not politicking. That sermon was clearly lost on Jonathan who ought to have done everything he could to insulate himself – at least publicly – from the bitter politics of the NGF.

By endorsing Jang and refusing to recognize the man who won the election on the night, Jonathan and the PDP have behaved in the same fashion as those who refused to accept the electoral outcome of June 12, 1993. The ‘annulers’ equally had reasons for refusing to concede.

If Jonathan and his henchmen have refused to lead and set an example with something as simple as the NGF election, why should they expect the opposition accept any electoral outcome that isn’t favourable to them? In the same breath why would anyone believe that PDP, given their conduct in this instance, will accept anything short of victory in 2015? Put simply the bane of Nigerians elections which is mutual suspicion of the participants and the electoral umpire has only just been tragically reinforced.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the PDP strategy to impose its man on the NGF, the party has gone overboard as it sought to exact revenge against the “traitors” who torpedoed its agenda. Both Amaechi and Sokoto State Governor, Magatarkada Wamakko, are out on their ears – the latter suspended for the most flimsy of reasons: refusing to take party chairman, Bamanga Tukur’s calls.

Whatever may be the sins of these two men, it is evident that their greatest fault is refusal to toe the party line one hundred percent. In democratic practice there is certainly a place for enforcing the supremacy of the party. But truly democratic parties also allow room for dissent otherwise they would be no different from the old Communist parties in the USSR, China or Cuba. I may add that this flaw is not a failing of only the PDP.

So instead of beginning to build a democratic culture with robust parties with internal traditions of vibrant and open disputation, what we now see is debate being driven underground. Parties are being split along the lines of ultra loyalists and the band of Judases.

Debate and dissent are now dangerous foreign bodies to be stamped out at all cost. In this setting, the president or whoever is the maximum ruler at federal or state level simply lays down the law, and the rest of the cadres fall in line. In other words, the president has become the party.

Amidst all the sentimentality that has trailed the NGF polls, the incongruity of trying to create of a new maximum ruler in a democratic environment seems lost on even the most sober of us. I have heard very intelligent people argue that governors had become too powerful and needed to have their wings clipped.

Let’s hold this thought for a moment: if the governors are less powerful than they are now, the president simply becomes a Frankenstein monster no one can rein in. Even with the checks and balances in our system a reckless occupant of Aso Rock can unsettle the leadership of the states and National Assembly. Things even out when all sides realise there’s a balance of terror.

In the end having these various centers of power is not so bad after all. Decisions can be arrived at on a more consensual basis. The different tendencies in the country would be carried along, and people wouldn’t feel too alienated. But beware the fake democracy where one man’s word is law.