Nigeria’s president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan is contemplating sending a bill to the National Assembly limiting all elected executives to an extended one term in office .If it is passed into law, it would take effect in 2015 thus likely excluding him from being beneficiary.
It is not difficult understanding why President Jonathan wants to send that bill to the National Assembly. Policy makers and others watchers of the Nigerian political space have been considering the bill for some time. It was actually one of the recommendations of the Justice Muhammed Uwais-led electoral reform committee set up by the Umaru Yar’Adua administration. There has been general consensus on the cause of troublesome elections. Many believe the trouble with Nigerian elections comes from the battle for tenure renewal. Those who share this view believe that as soon as an official gets elected into office, he/she begins to plan how to secure a second term, often when they have not delivered on their electoral promise. Then everything including appointments into key offices is done on political basis in a way that guarantees the official’s interest. We have seen in Nigeria where state funds or state machinery are deployed to fight electoral battles leading to poor or a complete absence of governance.
The quest for a second term has also been the cause of feud between elected officials and their godfathers. Godfathers soon realize that their godsons have betrayed them and begin maneuvers to deny them a second term. Godsons abandon governance and fight tooth and nail to win. It soon becomes a battle of supremacy that leaves the state in the same or even worse condition than those it suffered It may seem incredible, but there is another adverse effect of second-term politics. Some elected officials are known to delay execution of projects unnecessary so that they can point those uncompleted projects as reasons they should be elected a second time. Both ways, it reduces the efficiency of governance and leads to frustration on the part of the people.
Another benefit of a single term system is that it provides a level playing field for electoral contests, a situation where serving government officials dip into the public treasury and abuse public funds for campaign expenses would no longer exist. We have had in Nigeria cases where elected officials governors for instances, use state machinery like radio and television to their exclusive political benefit and at the expense of opponents. Most prominent of all is the use of state security apparatus to rig and influence election results. Where both contestants have none or at least fairly equal access to these instruments, electoral victories are more likely to be dependent on candidate’s acceptability to the electorates. This again would lead to good governance because an elected official will owe total allegiance to the people, knowing fully well that they have the power to give or take away their mandate.
Good as the arguments for a single tenure are, there are also arguments against it
First, it will lead to complacency on the part of elected official. While some officials actually use their first tenure only to fight for a second term, it is also true that some work hard with the hope of earning another mandate from the people. Where there is only one term irrespective of performance of the officials, they may feel less motivated to work. This is so because an election into a second term is accountability time for elected officials: a time the electorate can punish lazy officials and reward hard-working ones. The fear of being punished and the desire for reward could be strong motivation for diligence. This kind of set up is not good for democracy as a government of the people. Stubborn officials as soon as they are elected will feel-and they will almost be-completely untouchable forever. It is not to say their tenures will last that long, but in Nigeria, once a man is not running for political office people don’t seem motivated to hold him accountable for past crimes. In the absence of disciplinary mechanism, these officials will grow wild and abuse state power leading to what my friend describes as “Gaddafious” dictatorship.
One way to eliminate this, analysts have argued, is to remove the immunity that elected officials enjoy. This is to enable the law effectively act as a bridle on the otherwise unaccountable officials. Under the immunity, elected public officials are not answerable to criminal litigation while their tenure of office lasts. With its removal, an official who for instance abuses state power by ordering the torture by security personnel of orderly protesters can be made to pay by the law courts. This will help maintain discipline as the official though not afraid of another election will check his conduct because he will be accountable to the law.
Above all, it is wrong to create the impression that Nigerians are made of substandard materials and are therefore unable to run a system of governance ran elsewhere successfully. It must not be assumed that election are disputed only because there is a second term. As long as the desperation for power remains, every election would be keenly contested. Of course people of Nigeria cannot run away from elections just because elections can be violent. The frequency of elections even if it reduced to one in twenty years will not solve the problem of troublesome elections. Fundamental issues are involved here. Is this system of electoral democracy not run else where successfully? What are the ingredients found in those countries successfully running a double-term system that are not found in Nigeria? Is the problem with the people or their institutions? The question that has not been answered is: why do systems that work well in other lands fail to work in Nigeria? If you have a land where nothing works, then nothing will work even if you amend the constitution fifty times unless you address the root issues.
The trouble with Nigeria generally is that of weak institutions. President Obama said a similar thing when he visited Ghana. He said, “Africa does not need strong men. It needs strong institutions”. It is because institutions of the state are weak that laws don’t get implemented. For instance, if there is an electoral act that says people should not rig election, why would people rig elections into a second term? It is because they do not fear the law. If Nigeria wants to be strong, she must not shy away from the reality of her weak institutions. If existing laws are enforced, you won’t need new laws to address the same old problems. It is because institutions are weak that people who have lost elections just pick up arms and go on a man-hunt for harmless National Youth Service Corp members, butchering them like animals. That is also why they can burn down buildings and threaten the security of the whole nation.
In the final analysis, what President Jonathan should do is make political offices less attractive. Access to political power should not mean perennial economic fortune. Then he must continue to strengthen national institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC. The reason the last election was freer and fairer was not that they were for a single or double term. It was simply because the INEC was strengthened by granting it both political and financial independence. Institutions of the state like the judiciary are essential to democracy and must be strengthened. Once they are made stronger, the reign of impunity will cease. A man burns a house. Charge him for arson. He murders another individual. Charge him for murder. You can charge his sponsors for conspiracy to commit these crimes. Deal with these individuals firmly by means of your enduring institutions.
In Nigeria, there is a national lie that the country as delicate as a web of eggs. and can be broken by a gentle breathe. The people who tell this lie hide under it to commit crimes. They commit murderous crimes and begin to whip up sentiments and threats of disintegration. Soon false tension is generated and the crime becomes a political issue to be negotiated. How do you negotiate with a killer of men? Deal with him according to the laws of the land. President Jonathan must know Nigerians are not foolish people. They have seen those threatening disintegration and have found them to be no better leaders. If a Christian loses an election and goes back to mobilize his church members for violence, prosecute him. If a Moslem too has done that, try him. In other lands it is not important the religion or tribe of the man who has committed a crime. The law takes its course.
In conclusion, the idea of an extended single term though well-intentioned is not the solution to troublesome elections in Nigeria. The reason things that work in other lands fail to work on Nigerian soil must be addressed. National institutions must be made strong and long-enduring. And individuals who commit crimes and attempt to escape by whipping up tribal, religious or political sentiments, threatening the unity of the nation should be diligently investigated, passionately prosecuted and fearlessly punished without unnecessary caution. Depend on it, the government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say your mind here