Goodluck
Jonathan's former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity who is a
columnist for The Guardian, has written yet another interesting piece to
Nigerians. It's a must read.
Reuben Abati
The recent Governorship elections in Edo and Ondo states threw up a
number of issues about the politics of succession in Nigeria. In Edo
state, you would think it was the then incumbent Governor Adams
Oshiomhole seeking re-election. He campaigned more than the candidate.
He danced, waved the broom, his party’s symbol, far more
enthusiastically than the man who wanted the office...
He even did more to put down the opposition and any likely threat
to Godwin Obaseki’s ambition. His pretty wife was always in tow during
the campaigns, and did she dance? Oh yes, she did too. Godwin Obaseki’s
emergence as the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in
that election caused much disaffection within the party. He was said to
be Oshiomhole’s anointed candidate with the allegation that everything
was being done to ensure his victory at the polls. Oshiomhole had his
way. Obaseki is now Governor of Edo State.
The incumbent Governor in Ondo State also did as much if not more
to manage the politics of succession in the just concluded Governorship
election in that state. He anointed the candidate of his party,
followed him everywhere, and “fought” for him, even in the courts and on
the streets of Akure. The election was more about Dr Olusegun Mimiko
and what he wanted. The situation was not helped by the fact that
Mimiko’s choice, Eyitayo Jegede, SAN hails from the same Senatorial
district with him, but by far the biggest problem was the division
within the PDP, which produced two candidates on the same platform for
the same election, with the courts having to decide mid-way and at the
late hour, with a superior court overruling the lower court. This
confusion created a scenario whereby Jimoh Ibrahim emerged for a while
as the party’s candidate, only to be dismissed through a court order two
days to the election.
This did not bother the businessman-lawyer-politician, though.
Giving the impression that he was not so desperate to be Governor, he
declared that his mission was to make it impossible for Mimiko to
achieve his goal of installing an anointed successor. On the eve of the
election, he urged his supporters and the people of the state to vote
for the candidate of the APC. Under normal circumstances this would be
considered an anti-party activity but the PDP is right now in such a
confused state as a political party - its ranks are filled with
disloyal, one-leg-in-one-leg-out members. For this reason, in Ondo
state, the PDP defeated itself from within even before the election.
Mimiko can also be held responsible for his chosen candidate’s defeat.
He overplayed his hands in the febrile politics of succession in the
state.
There is perhaps nothing new about incumbents, at state, local and
national levels, showing interest in who succeeds them. Being
politicians, they could plead that they are duty bound to support their
party’s candidate, but where the problem lies is the desperation that
attends the choice of such candidates, beginning with the party primary.
In the United States, which is an example that can be readily cited,
President Barrack Obama openly supported the candidacy of the Democratic
Party standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, but he did so only after she
had won the nomination. If Bernie Sanders had been the party’s choice,
he would still have received President Obama’s support out of loyalty to
the party. In other words, it would be difficult to speak of an
incumbent American President or Governor anointing a successor and
imposing that successor on the party and the electorate.
This unacceptable abbreviation of democratic choice and of
democracy itself occurs routinely in Nigeria. Once upon a time in this
country, an incumbent President boasted that he did not know who his
successor would be, which was fine, but what was not fine was his
simultaneous declaration that he was very certain about those who would
not be allowed to succeed him. The same President eventually chose his
own successor. In Ekiti state, following the election in Ondo state,
Governor Ayo Fayose has been quoted saying what has happened to Mimiko
cannot happen to him in 2018: he is so sure he would determine his own
succession fortunes. And if he could be so confident, where does that
leave the democratic process? Truth is: the average Nigerian
politician’s faith in democracy is dishonest. He believes the people can
be bought. The people themselves are very good at complaining but they
seem more committed to election-day monetary inducement than their own
rights. Whatever gains may have been recorded in terms of electoral
integrity and civic power is sadly being eroded by poverty.
When incumbent executive political office holders insist on
anointing their own successors in Nigeria, they can hide under three
justifications. The first is that they have a legacy to protect, and
that they have an idea who the right person is to protect that legacy.
But this is absolutely wrong. It is not the duty of the incumbent to
protect his or her own legacy, except through literature. If the legacy
is strong enough, it should endure within the system. The
end-and-start-again profile of Nigeria’s succession politics owes in
part to the weakness of institutions. Our civil bureaucracy is one of
the worst in the world. It is driven not by memory or best practices but
eye service. Legacies also do not seem to endure because of the
endurance of the politics of hate. When a new Governor assumes office,
his first priority is to make his predecessor look bad. That is standard
Nigerian practice. But the incumbent trying to prevent this possibility
by anointing a successor has not helped either. In Lagos, Anambra,
Cross River, Akwa Ibom Adamawa, Zamfara and Kano, we have seen how
anointed successors eventually turned against their Godfathers. The
best answer to the legacy issue is for every incumbent to perform so
well while in office that certain things would be so obvious that they
cannot be erased.
The second justification is that as the leader of the ruling party
in the state, or in the country, the incumbent must protect his
political relevance by having a say over what happens when he leaves
office. The interpretation is that the Nigerian politician is very
egoistic. Give him Executive powers and he begins to appropriate the
kind of divine powers with which kings used to oppress the people. He is
surrounded by sycophants who disorient him daily, with long lists of
enemies from whom he needs to protect himself, in and out of office. He
gets lured into a trap, he is overtaken by paranoia, and he makes
mistakes thinking he can exercise proprietorial rights over the
democratic process. Many have been disappointed. There is no point
mentioning names from 1999 to date.
The third justification is that everything must be done to prevent
the opposition from seizing power. Opposition politics in Nigeria is
hoisted on a platform of enmity, including the fear of probes, even if
no former Governor or President has been successfully probed or jailed
by any successor since 1999. When our politicians are in the same party,
they relate as friends, when they are in opposite parties, they relate
as enemies, particularly if the parties involved are influential and
capable of winning. Most of the people in the APC today who are branding
the PDP as evil made their name as politicians inside the PDP. Jumping
from one party to the other and switching colour and emotions like the
chameleon means absolutely nothing to the Nigerian politician; their
morality is majorly that of a professional prostitute. It is never
about what the people want. And so, preventing the opposition is an
empty excuse because the same Godfather who is imposing an anointed
candidate today could join another party tomorrow, and the anointed
could also head in another direction or adopt another Godfather. This is
a perfect illustration of how devoid of character and principles
Nigerian politics is.
What is left then? What is left is the more compelling argument
that the reason Nigerian political incumbents are so desperate to anoint
successors is because they are afraid of their own shadows. They want
to cover their misdeeds, so they struggle to rule by proxy. They want to
remain relevant, and continue to have access to state resources,
patronage and privileges. They want to play God. They have secrets they
want to hide. The politics of succession in Nigerian politics thus
constructed has never worked. Its architects and promoters have been
disappointed in many cases more than once. The landscape is littered
with tales of treachery. Some Godfathers were so badly treated by their
anointed successors they could no longer visit their states for four
years at least. There are some ex-Governors who thought they got the
best man to succeed them whose only reward has been abuse and neglect.
The lesson not learnt is that being a Godfather has at most,
short-term benefits. Incumbents often underrate one thing: that the
successor will also acquire his own ego. New influencers are bound to
surround the new incumbent and they will advise him to assert his
independence and not to be anybody’s “boy-boy”. Even when the anointed
successor swears to an oath, as often happens, it doesn’t take long
before one of these Pastors goes to him, offers to cancel the oath and
anoint him as the new Spiritual Leader of the state! Have you ever heard
of any politician who died because he swore to an oath with a
Godfather?
The way we recruit Governors these days is bad. The lesson for
every incumbent is to get things right. Nigerian democracy is still at
the level of the visual and the personal. It is trapped at the level of
needs. The people appreciate and remember what they see and what touches
them directly. That is why on election day, or the night before, when
they are given the “Naira sandwich”, their political mind immediately
focuses on how at that particular moment a particular party or candidate
has met their needs. The challenge of Nigerian democracy remains how to
free the people from this base level, and confront them with more
significant and indelible achievements that they can see, feel and
touch, and which the politics of succession or hate can neither destroy
nor traduce. If anyone understood this very well, Awolowo did, Ahmadu
Bello did, Michael Opara did, Sam Mbakwe did, Obasanjo did, Jakande did,
Onabanjo did, Ajasin did…we’d talk about more contemporary examples
some other day.
Reuben Abati is a columnist in The Guardian and former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to former President Goodluck Jonathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment