Going by things that happen in Nigeria, it's obvious that history always repeats itself. Many things the country has passed through and many issues that have been examined and considered in the country, at one time or another, usually rear their ugly heads again.
However, the funny thing is that when history does repeat itself in the country, the actors, in most cases, remain the same, while their positions usually differ.
I will just take one example. About two years ago, the Presidency had told a nation still reeling under the controversies that attended that year's elections, barely two months after Dr. Goodluck Jonathan assumed office, that the president was going to propose a Bill to the National Assembly for the amendment of the provisions of the 1999 constitution on tenure of the president and governors.
The Presidency's argument was that a single tenure arrangement would save costs, ensure stability in the polity and also help elected president and governors to concentrate on their jobs, instead of being distracted by re-election politics.
Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati, had stated then, in July 2011, while unveiling what he said was Jonathan's good intention: "President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan is to send a Constitution Amendment Bill to the National Assembly that will provide a single tenure for the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the governors of the 36 states of the federation.
In the envisaged Bill, the tenure of members of the national and state assemblies will also be a little more than four years, although lawmakers will still be eligible for re-election, as their constituencies may determine.
"President Jonathan's commitment to a single term for the president and governors is borne out of a patriotic zeal, after a painstaking study and belief that the constitutionally guaranteed two terms for presidents and governors is not helping the focus of governance and institutionalisation of democracy at this stage of our development.
A longer term for lawmakers would also help to stabilise the polity." Shedding light on why Jonathan wanted single tenure, Abati had also stated: "President Jonathan is concerned about the acrimony, which the issue of re-election, every four years, generates, both at the federal and state levels.
The nation is still smarting from the unrest, the desperation for power and the overheating of the polity that has attended each general election, the fall-out of all this is the unending inter and intra-party squabbles, which have affected the growth of party democracy in the country, and have further undermined the country's developmental aspirations."
To further defend this position, President Jonathan had stated, also in 2011, while playing host to Mr. Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister: "My proposal for a single seven-year tenure is anchored on the need for an incumbent president to focus maximum attention on the execution of his development programmes, instead of expending vital energy on re-election issues, though this has been misunderstood to mean I want additional seven years."
Today, the National Assembly Constitution Amendment Committee, headed by Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu, has proposed a single tenure of six years for the president and governors, in the programme to further amend the constitution. Surprisingly, the Presidency is now giving conditions on which it would support single tenure, as proposed.
The Presidency would want the single tenure to take effect from 2019, when Jonathan would have, probably, concluded a second term, if re-elected in 2015. Special Adviser to President Jonathan on Political Matters, Dr. Ahmed Gulak, had, last month, stated: "The President has the single tenure idea and he still stands by it.
The difference is that the amendment should not be in such a way that it will be targeted at a group of people. The committee's proposal is that those incumbent governors and the president, who are supposed to enjoy second term, will not participate.
"What we are saying is that laws are not amended to target a particular group of people. It could have been okay if all those first term governors are allowed to participate, and after 2019, anybody coming in will know that he is going to be elected under the amended constitution."
Now the question is: What has changed between July 2011, when the Presidency planned to propose a Bill for single tenure and now that the National Assembly has proposed a single tenure of six years for the president and governors?
If Jonathan felt strongly that single tenure would achieve all the things he listed two years ago, it behoves on him to also support the Senate's proposal today, even if it has to take effect immediately.
Doing so would show that the initial fears expressed in 2011, that the proposal was to extend Jonathan's tenure, were unfounded. Giving conditions on the take off of the single tenure provision makes the Presidency's position selfish and self-serving.
The President should take a cue from Mexican revolutionary president, Francisco Madero, who firmly campaigned for single term and thereby, caused the country to adopt it, in articles 50 and 59 of the constitution, in 1917.
With that, president of Mexico served single six-year tenure. No matter what the Presidency thinks, I believe that the proposal for a single tenure of six years would help Nigeria at this critical point. And the earlier we start it the better.
In 2011, when Jonathan gave indication that he might propose it, most Nigerians had opposed this because they felt he needed to have concerned himself more with fulfilling the promises he made during the electioneering, instead of talking about single tenure.
Now, we should not run away from it. Indeed, while I would not buy the idea that single tenure would reduce the cost of election, I think that it would give all the geopolitical zones in the country, if it comes with the proviso that it would be on rotational basis, the opportunity to occupy the office of president in the next 18 years.
At present, three zones (South West, North West and South South) have served in the Presidency, leaving South East, North Central and North East, which, in single tenure arrangement, would have served in that capacity in 18 years.
When this is done, the feeling of marginalisation would be assuaged and the country's democracy would be deepened. This was what the like of Dr. Alex Ekwueme, former vice president, canvassed during the constitutional conference organised by the late General Sani Abacha government.
If the Abacha government, nay General Abdulsalami Abubakar, had implemented the recommendations on single tenure of five years, on rotation, three geopolitical zones, by this year, would have occupied the office of president, while the fourth zone would be gearing up to take over next year.
And the fifth and six zones would have followed. With this, the bitter war over 2015 Presidency, for instance, would not have arisen. Gulak's fear that the single tenure proposal maybe targeted at Jonathan and those currently in office flies in the face.
This same presidential aide had declared that Jonathan would not mind making the sacrifice of foregoing a second term if the amendment scales through. In any case, Jonathan has not said that he's seeking a second term. Or has he? For whatever it's worth, the single tenure is desirable at this point in out chequered history. Nigerians should put politics aside and support it.
In future, we could also amend the constitution, to empower two terms in office, when democracy and Nigerian voters would have matured enough and have been purged the tribal sentiment that characterises our elections.
Single tenure is common in Latin America countries and others and these nations are making progress. In Korea, the president is elected for a single tenure of five years.
I must say that it's not really the number of years a president serves that matters, but what he does in those years. There have been leaders who served long terms without anything to show for it, while others served short period and made tremendous impact in the life of their country. We should therefore, look at the positive side of the single tenure proposal and not see it from the prism of selfishness.
As the constitution amendment committee has proposed, it would help the country if the House of Representatives would lend its support, for a unanimous National Assembly's position, before the state Houses of Assembly take it up. The proposed single tenure is a test on our leaders' capacity to make sacrifices.
Via: Sun News Online