CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, THIRD TERM AND THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF NIGERIA

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria, the most populous black country in the world and the 7th largest producer of crude oil, is experiencing political upheaval due to attempts to amend her constitution and pave way for the President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, to serve a third term. The issue has raised the political temperature in the West African nation. There are two sides to the debate. The essence of this piece is to look beyond political sentiments and critique the case by both sides of the argument.

The present Constitution, 1999, approved by a bunch of un-elected military officers, courtesy of a nationwide acquiescence – to allow whatever – in order to get the military out, provides for two 4-year terms. The drafting process was carried out by an assemblage dominated by lackeys, flavored with few patriots’ intent on shoving aside the dictators. This attests to the sanctity of the document as sacrosanct as being touted today by opponents of a proposed amendment! There was no referendum to adopt the Constitution.

Politics entails among other things, the ability to persuade others to share one’s position and securing the votes to support the views. Democracy is not synonymous with coercion. Politics should be based on ideology and, definitely, not masking tribal or elitist agenda as a battle for the sustenance of democracy. Democracy involves putting resources were the mouth is.

Therefore, the attempt to amend the Constitution is not undemocratic as long as constitutional provisions, pertaining to the process, are met. Instead of crying foul the antagonists should get down to the basics of playing the game of politics. One of the beauties of having established rules is to avoid sentiments in examining issues. As such, anyone interested in sustaining democratic ideals in Nigeria should go into the trenches and harvest support for stated positions. This MUST not include the utterance of inflammatory rhetoric or waving the flag of terror.

MY DOG IN THIS FIGHT

I register my bias in the matter as follows:

Chief Olusegun Obasanjo is not my friend or acquaintance.

I have never met the President and do not lose sleep about our paths not crossing.

I am neither a card carrying member of any political party in Nigeria nor a secret admirer of any of the political parties.

I am an African who is embarrassed by the level of some avoidable problems still lingering in many countries in the Continent.

I am intent on breathing down the neck of tribal warlords and groups bent on mooring the continent to the shore of shame, underdevelopment, poverty, war and infamy.

It is my life goal to alert the International Community of the signs of ruse when floated by African politicians and elites.

BACKGROUND

"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are."-- Epicetus

To understand Nigeria is akin to imagining a country that by accident of thought has the French, British and Germans as citizens. The overall relationship between the European nationalities mentioned is at best dictated by fierce sense of rivalry based on historical antecedents. Nigeria has over 100 distinct nationalities and each group tries to assert itself to satisfy the urge of self-importance. Obviously, the combination is combustible at the best of times.

Then, add the problems of limited resources, high unemployment, distrust, inter and intra ethnic rivalries. In such an environment, the attainment of political power is beyond symbolic. Interestingly, members of a group in power and control tend to forgive and forget any traces of disenchantment with lack of performance by any of their own, if an outsider dares question. Power is sought not to serve the greater good but to massage ethnic and, particularly, personal egos. The power brokers resort to ethnic jingoism to mask their policy bankruptcy and their sub-group agenda.

The sub-group in many cases is not homogeneous, in terms of nationality, but the sales pitch is presented in such a way that the ethnic groups of the various members are waiting in the wings to defend any attempt to question their son or daughter. In other words, members of the cabal have it both ways. It is win/win for them. The situation has nothing to do with illiteracy or underdevelopment. It is one of the inexplicable aspects of human behavior. When the chips are down, protect your interest in public, come home and squabble.

A good example of such behavior in the developed world is when it comes to national causes. Internal differences are relegated to the background until a supposed external threat is muffled. Unfortunately, in many African countries, the external threat delineation is played out within the same country. In most cases, the supposed threats are invented by smart individuals, in a group, to further their group causes. Composition of these sub-groups cuts across ethnic nationalities.

Since independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has been swinging between outright failure and near misses from disintegration. A civil war was fought between 1967 and 1970. The military ruled from January 1966 to October 1979, December 1983 to, effectively, May 1999. The restoration of democratically elected government between October 1979 and December 30 1983 was achieved courtesy of General Olusegun Obasanjo; the current democratically elected President. He voluntarily handed over power after conducting multi-party elections. Suffice it to say that it was then a first in Africa.

There remains a palpable sense of anger and resentment in the south of an urban myth that the Northerners are intent on taking the Koran to the Atlantic. This myth is attributed, rightly or wrongly and no one knows for sure, to sayings by some political leaders in the north to the effect that the British stopped their match to Islamize Nigeria. The fear, according to theorists, stem from the welding of religious and political power in the north.

In the south there is no love lost between the dominant groups – the Igbos and the Yorubas. Other less dominant groups in the south are not lying low. Every group is struggling to forge an identity in the midst of intrigues. Not surprisingly, political groups harbor these divergent groups on individual basis. They get along as much as is possible and deploy ethnic sentiments when they lose out in intra group power tussles.

OBASANJO THE MILITARY RULER

A dog does not value its tail until it is cut off”

Igbo saying

General Obasanjo becoming military Head of State was by accident. His late boss, and military Head of Government, General Murtala Muhammed, was brutally assassinated in an abortive coup of Friday, February 13 1976. The coup failed mainly because the public never supported the move. General Obasanjo who was the second in command, as details later showed, was practically conscripted to step into the shoes of his late boss. Obasanjo fulfilled the promise to hand-over the reins of power to a democratically elected government made by late General Muhammed.

As a military man General Obasanjo did not brook opposition. I was part of the movement of students, in Nigeria’s tertiary Institutions, that opposed some of his policies. Some of the reforms he introduced were trashed under the umbrella of opposing anything military. Against all odds, he constructed an oil refinery in the northern city of Kaduna shunning stiff opposition from southerners who cried foul. The reasoning by opponents was that the since the north was not blessed with oil deposits, it should not benefit from what was a gift from God to the South.

It is not uncommon to listen to the average Nigerian rue missed opportunities for a better Nigeria, with the benefit of hindsight. For example, the military government of General Mohammed Buhari and his deputy, late General Tunde Idiagbon, which overthrew the democratically elected government - but widely acclaimed as a kleptocracy – in 1983, is remembered with a nostalgia next only to Murtala Muhammed/Obasanjo regime. It is moot to suggest that powerful interests plotted and executed the downfall of the former. The excuse was draconian laws and the rest as it is said is history.

In retrospect, we can count so many of his achievements between February 1976 and September 1979. Nigeria’s spiral into the cage of a highly indebted country was paved by the elected government of 1979 to 1983. Letters of credit for bogus imports were handed out to party loyalists like candies in a piñata party. Politicians who at the beginning of 1979 were struggling to pay rents, turned into private jet owners within four years. Elected tyrants roamed the land.

A military coup, of December 31 1983, ended the charade. Unfortunately, the cancer had set in. Change of guards within the military from 1985 to 1999, save a sham transition government headed by a figurine for some months in 1993, mid-wifed the lowest of the lows ever seen in the history of the country. Due to “divine intervention” as it is known in Nigeria, democracy was restored on May 29, 1999. Divine intervention refers to the sudden death of maximum dictator General Sanni Abacha.

To say that the stable was in a mess when Obasanjo was sworn-in in 1999 would be an understatement. Nigeria was jostling for “numero uno” status of the most corrupt country in the world with the likes of Kenya and Pakistan. Fraud was synonymous with the noun Nigeria. Traveling with a Nigerian standard passport was a sure way to get extra attention at any airport. Impunity, of varying degrees, was the order of the day. The debt burden seriously reduced revenue and the remainder was subject to blatant looting. Our external debts topped $30bn.

LATTER DAY DEMOCRATS AND BORN AGAIN CRITICS

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running."

Channing Pollock

The political history of Nigeria is replete with dinosaurs emerging at every turn. Military rule did not mean exclusion of civilians. A cursory look shows that some of the so-called politicians were symbiotically connected with the military. Some present politicians made their name and wealth, by either directing or acting with the military.

It is a shame that “Military coupists” who ruled by repression are now the greatest proponents of democracy. The situation is similar to convicted rapists and child molesters making a case for their group to work with women and children, under the subterfuge of equal opportunities. This is a hard sell to any reasonable man. Appealing to ethnic emotions and stoking regional sentiments should not be allowed to cloud judgment.

Politicians who were cheerleaders when President Obasanjo’s policies did not threaten their selfish interests have no moral basis to emerge as latter day democracy champions. The chicken has come to roost. Any attempt, under any guise, to portray the pursuit of self satisfying ends as a struggle for the enthronement of democracy should be rightly condemned for what it is: deceit and crass opportunism.

There are some yesteryear critics, in the born-again democrats’ camp, who want to maintain the image of champions against any government. Their dependence on wholesale condemnation, useful during military adventurism, is ill-served today. Their parochial adherence to unnecessary rabble-rousing is a disservice to Nigerians. Change for the sake of change would invariably lead to ossification of progress. In extreme cases, retrogression crawls in through the window.

WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR?

"Human history is the sad result of each one looking out for himself." Julio Cortazar

The core of the groups clamoring for change just for the sake of change is made up of individuals who do not have any discernable ideological stand point. In a real democratic setting, political associations and individuals can be identified with certain traits no matter how repulsive. In other words, members of any political party are identifiable with certain general opinions on issues.

For instance, the mention of Jean Marie le Pen in French politics evokes xenophobic tendencies. Republicans in the United States bring to mind free markets and limited government. Hugo Sanchez, of Venezuela, reminds us of socialist and populist rhetoric. Obasanjo brings to the front burner a democratic bully who, it can be safely said, is committed to reforms. His commencement of change is not just for the sake of change but to genuinely move the country to the path of development based on tested and successful political and economic philosophies.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand what the league of nay Sayers really stand for. At best, the group can be described as a cartel, addicted to the trappings of bounty at the expense of future generations, who cannot stand the reality that things have changed. A cap has been placed on their fountain of waste and free money.

It is also a fact that the political scene in Nigeria is not really based on ideological differences. Rather, the approach is hinged on zero sum equation. Winner takes all. May be this analysis is too unforgiving. The only ideology discernable is who gets to control the kitchen. The masses, ever gullible, retreat to tribal and regional tents erected by plundering politicians to defend what the second present as persecution of one of their own.

IS OBASANJO A SAINT?

"Anger is that powerful internal force that blows out the light of reason."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

The answer to the question is NO. Just like any human, he has his flaws. This natural failing is not helped by his command structure mentality. By the way, as the Commander of the Third Marine Commandos – a unit of the Federal Forces during the Nigerian civil war – he was the man that the rebels surrendered to at the end of the War. As such, it is an open secret that he is a thorough bred military man.

Diplomacy is not one of his strengths. In true battle front mentality, he calls things dispassionately. Unfortunately, this attribute has not endeared him to double talking politicians. He has little patience for prolonged negotiations, targeted at extracting uneconomical concessions. Some of his admirers point to this as one of the reasons why he has been able to record structural changes that were long over due in the country. The jury is still out on allegations that he quashes the slightest uprising with maximum force.

However, his supporters dismiss such claims as mischievous, highlighting his heavenly restraint when, as they aver, subversive political opponents baited him with religious riots and inter-ethnic disturbances. His turning blind eyes in untoward machinations in two southern states that resulted in democratically elected governors being impeached by Assemblymen and election nullified by the court, respectively, still stick out like sore thumbs.

There are also allegations that the President’s anti-corruption drive is selective. Some Nigerians frown at the verity that most of the former military chaps responsible for pilfering from public coffers remain, so far, untouched and that most of the fish caught in the net of the anti-corruption trawler is made of individuals bold enough to disagree with him. His fans deride such allegations as another example of the elite resisting change, with a hidden agenda of reversing or stalling progress.

CONCLUSION

"A man may fall many times but he won't be a failure until he says someone pushed him."

Elmer G. Letterman

In the final analysis, the questions are:

How does Nigeria sustain the momentum of the past 7 years?”

How will the Institutions – prerequisite for the entrenchment and sustenance of democracy – fare if changes are effected just for the sake of change.

Will the International Community watch the gains of the past 7 years wasted in the name of democracy?” Put differently, “Would the IMF and the World Bank, say in the next decade, have to go through arranging debt rescheduling and forgiveness for Nigeria again?

Given that whatever happens in Nigeria is probably going to be copied in other African countries, can the Global Community afford not to signal interest in the continuation and strengthening of genuine and fruitful reform programs in developing countries?”

How would the global economy be impacted by instability in Nigeria?”

It is the contention of this discourse that present sporadic disturbances in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria could become a permanent feature if the path towards long-term stability is scuttled by champions of political and economic anarchy. Last week, Nigeria exited indebtedness to Paris Club. With debt servicing out of the way, it is hoped that the next four years would be devoted to allocating funds to important sectors of the Nigerian economy.

Additionally, the emergence of any controversial figure from the opposing group, and there are legions of them, would ignite the ticking bomb of an all out religious mayhem. The fact of the matter is that in the quest to appeal to political bases, some latter day “democrats”, fed religious fervor in the North. With the global war on terrorism, Nigeria cannot afford to serve as a potential landscape for future actions to amputate the scourge of intolerance. We have suffered enough.

Accordingly, the struggle this time around is NOT for democratic ideals but a struggle for the soul of Nigeria, between a band of egoistic spendthrifts and seeming genuine reformers. Obviously, there are some squander maniacs trapped in the camp of the reformers and those fellows know full well the implications of not changing their ways. Obasanjo has demonstrated so many times that he has the political will to put an end to profligacy.

Furthermore, the track record of the brains behind the clamor for power-shift, as they call it, is so frightening that no one should wish it for any nation. The cabal presided over the worst case of Nigeria’s descent into near extinction. They have very large egos that Nigeria cannot afford to massage. Development would remain a mirage if free for all remains the mantra of any society.

Finally, it is incumbent on all that wish Africa well, especially Nigeria, to stop the back door scheme to drag the country back into darkness, by allowing the presentation of a clamor for the return of failed policies, as a fight for democracy. The world should not be deceived by the presence of some figures that featured prominently in the fight against military rule. The issue at hand transcends black and white. There are many gray areas in the debate.