Against the backdrop of a statement credited to a former vice-president and the Northern Political Leaders’ Forum presidential aspirant, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, this month, JOHN ALECHENU writes that the political class needs to display more public caution
An infamous statement made by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, that the 2007 general elections would be a “do-or-die affair” for the ruling Peoples Democratic Party drew angry reactions from across the world.
What followed that singular statement contributed in no small measure in reducing public regard for Obasanjo as a Nigerian and an African statesman worthy of emulation.
The “do-or-die” mentality, which was carried into the 2007 elections, culminated in what perhaps can today be regarded as the worst elections till date in sub-Sahara Africa.
Electoral violence, underage registration/voting, as well as outright ballot stuffing and snatching, vote rigging at a scale never seen before, characterised the elections.
This fact was attested to by the greatest beneficiary of the process, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua.
He had in his inaugural address admitted that the election, which brought him into office, was flawed.
But it appears nothing serious has been learnt from Obasanjo’s infamous gaffe. Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, who understudied Obasanjo for eight years and later joined other Nigerians to truncate his boss’ third term ambition, last week fell into a similar verbal ditch.
Unlike Obasanjo, who spoke off the cuff as it were, Atiku read from a carefully prepared speech laced with what many consider a threat to national unity.
Atiku spoke at the National Stakeholders Conference organised by the Northern Political Leaders’ Forum, an event aired live on national television.
The NPLF presidential aspirant had said, “If the PDP fails to reform itself, it stands the chance of becoming irrelevant.”
For a good measure, he added in a message for those in the executive arm of government, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable,” quoting Frantz Fanon.
A former military dictator, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, at the same event, declared that non-adherence to the zoning arrangement of the party was an invitation to chaos.
He said, “Jettisoning this arrangement (zoning) regardless of the excuse that is being bandied around, endangers not only the prospects of orderly transition in the country, but also its progress towards evolving into a single individual nation.”
Ironically, it was at the same event that former Senate President, Ken Nnamani, urged other Nigerians to learn from the northern political leaders, who had prior to the event, agreed to Atiku’s choice as the northern consensus aspirant.
If for anything, the utterances of the two former Nigerian leaders at the event painted a picture of desperation for power, a desperation which a multi-religious and multi-ethnic nation like Nigeria does not need at a critical time like this.
As expected, President Goodluck Jonathan, who the tirade was directed against, noted the threat in Atiku’s speech and responded accordingly. The timing and venue of the President’s response are also instructive.
Jonathan did not allow his campaign organisation to respond as would have been the case in other circumstances. His response came at a time he was decorating senior military officers with their new ranks.
The President struck a cord with the officers and men of the armed forces in his speech.
He said, “I must say here that we will no longer allow that kind of culture, we will not allow anybody to take this country for a ride.
“We will not allow such utterances because when we have a crisis in the country, we lose the men of the armed forces, the police and other security agencies.
“When we lose our men and officers, their children are made orphans. This country will not allow this.”
So far, it can be arguably stated that the President has not allowed his ambition to becloud his sense of patriotism.
At each turn, he reminds his opponents that the survival of the Nigerian state is of utmost importance.
This conviction would seem to have guided Jonathan when he joined other members of the ruling PDP at the National Executive Council meeting.
The President told all who cared to listen that the aspiration to lead the country was not enough reason for anyone to threaten Nigeria’s sovereignty.
In a veiled reference to his opponent, Jonathan observed that even if one was aspiring to be the president of the world, “it is not worth the blood of a single Nigerian.”
However, some observers are quick to point out that the President is also guilty of threatening his opponents with his choice of words.
Some argue that the use of the word “treason” was taking the nation back to the dark days of the military, when the word was used to hound opponents of the government.
The conduct and utterances of some politicians played a major role in the decision by the Prof. Attahiru Jega-led Independent National Electoral Commission, to propose amendments to some sections of the Political Parties Code of Conduct (2007).
Many did not immediately appreciate the wisdom in the decision, which was aimed at setting boundaries for issue-based campaigns devoid of violence.
Jega had at a meeting with the leaders of the 63 registered political parties, in Abuja on December 14, 2010, expressed concern over the dangerous dimension some campaigns were assuming.
Without any doubt, the election fever is in the air. And as to be expected, men and women desirous of holding public offices are standing up to be counted.
Many Nigerian politicians appear either oblivious of the provisions of the code of conduct or feign ignorance of its existence. However, most of the political parties’ leaders endorsed the document.
The 19-page document attempts to serve as a guide for politicians and political parties in their conduct before, during and after elections.
It specifies what INEC expects from players in the political arena in terms of their speeches and utterances, especially in the public.
Curiously, the chairmen of 11 out of the then 50 registered political parties, did not sign the final document.
Prominent among those who did not sign the document then were: Dr. Ahmadu Ali (PDP), his Peoples Redemption Party counterpart, Alhaji Balarabe Musa and Dr. Umaru Dikko of the United Democratic Party.
Others included the late Major Mojisola Obasanjo of the Masses Movement of Nigeria, Ngozi Emioma of the Nigeria Peoples Congress and now late Chief Anthony Enahoro of the National Reformation Party.
Section 5 of the code reads, “No political party or candidate shall during the campaign resort to the use of inflammatory language, provocative actions, images, or manifestation that incite violence, hatred, contempt or intimidation against another party or any person or group of persons on the grounds of ethnicity, gender or for any other reasons.
“Accordingly, no political party or candidate shall issue any handbills, pamphlets, leaflets or other publications that contains any such incitement.”
The election season brings along with it campaigns in various forms and under various guises.
Fiery speeches and promises of a better life for the electorate usually add spice to the electoral process.
A threat of anarchy under the guise of freedom of speech may not in any way demonstrate political maturity.
Events in neighbouring Ivory Coast, which have pushed the once-stable West African country to the brink of another civil war, should serve as a warning to Nigeria’s political class that violence does not, and in the country’s peculiar situation, will not serve the common good.
For the first time since 1993, Nigerians appear united in their quest to ensure an end to divisive politics, which has over the years stagnated the country’s progress.
Source:www.punchng.com
No comments:
Post a Comment