This is a season of controversies generated both by individuals and group actors. First to roil the waters with his gung-ho and no- holds barred style was the former military President, Muhammadu Buhari. He was quoted to have blamed the ongoing mayhem in the country on Niger Delta militants rather than on the Boko Haram sect. For Buhari, the blame for the pervasive insecurity now lurking all over Nigeria should be placed at the doorsteps of Asari Dokubo and his co travelers rather than on Shekau and his band of jihadists. According to him, while the Niger Delta militants are fighting to dismember the country and set it back to the Stone Age, the rough and tumble band of fundamentalists in the Northeast are merely reacting to the injustices meted on them by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Such simplistic analogy from someone who has been a constant fixture and persistent front runner for the presidency, beggars belief and speaks volume of the nadir into which our politics and intellectual discourse have sunk. In the quest to defend what he sees as the larger interest of the North, the former general is unwittingly confirming our worst fears that his world view is coloured by a grisly perception of seeing those outside his ethnic and religious group as demons and infidels. His swashbuckling style and enduring sense of entitlement has been the propelling factor in all his political utterances and actions right from his days in the military. Given such atavistic disposition, how does one reconcile Buhari's mirror image of a statesman with his real image of die -in –the- wool ethnic irredentist? Sadly, this later image has continued to magnify his personality and is getting worse as his desperation for office in 2015 becomes more acute. Sadly, his political stock would continue to diminish if he embarks on such divisive tendencies.
While the faux pas by Buhari is still lingering, we are once again saddled with another controversy, this time by the Senate Committee on Review of the 1999 Constitution headed by Senator Ike Ekweremadu. In the document, it recommended single six year term tenure for elected President, Vice President, governors and their deputies. Moreover, it stated inter alia that where a Vice President-elect or Vice President succeeds the Presidentelect or the President, he or she shall not be eligible to contest for the office of the President in any subsequent capacity. Since going public, this document has set off shrill cries, innuendoes and even vitriolic comments from across the political divides. More disparaging is the fact that ethnic groups and regional bodies have come out to rail against it, especially the aspect calling for single six year tenure.
Definitely, the recommendation was not oblivious to insinuations of ethnic and regional agenda. Like everything Nigerian, it is bound to cause and court controversy, given the various political interests involved. Opponents say it would institutionalise corruption and lousy governance by incumbents, given the fact they will not be going back for reconfirmation of mandate after expiration of their tenure. They insist that if accepted, it would open a vista for tyranny and dictatorship by office holders, as incumbents will be unencumbered by the constitution to wreak havoc on their opponents and society as a whole.
Moreover, this school of thought posits that infrastructural development would take a back seat in the consciousness of the incumbents, as they embark on the looting of the nation's resources. In the end, they espoused that the present four year tenure copied from the United States of America remains the best and only way of salvation for the country.
These arguments are not only academic; they contain a mish mash of baloney. There is something inescapable about the crude and provincial nature of their proponents. They see the single six year tenure as abridging their political hegemony and consigning their grip on power to the dust bin. How? They want the present system to continue as it gives them untrammeled control of government at the national level, while the six year single term tenure would keep them away from political power for longer, especially as they see it as a way to rotate the presidency among the geopolitical zones.
Who says the model cannot bring out the best in any incumbent? Presently, the four year tenure is seen as responsible for the unbroken chain of mediocrity at all levels of government for the past 14 years. All we see of incumbents is that they start scheming for a second term immediately they win their first tenure. All their actions and activities are directed at securing another term at all cost. In the process, governance and welfare of the electorate have become an afterthought.
It would therefore, be germane to remind those against the single six year term to know that Mexico and The Philippines practise the single six year term tenure and have been making political and economic progress. Since their presidents are aware that history would judge them irrespective of the length of tenure, they hit the road running immediately after being sworn in. Because their legacy is predicated on the 72 months in office, they strive to leave lasting monuments for which they would be judged. The problem of Nigeria is not the length of tenure, but what the leaders do with it.
National Mirror
Controversy is never a good thing to happen anywhere around the world especially in a country like Nigeria. I hope it ends.