Tribune Fix performance, not tenure · Wednesday, 19 June 2013 00:00 THE idea of a single, non-renewable tenure of six years for the president and governors has controversially found its way into the Senate’s proposals for constitutional amendments. When it was first publicly mooted by President Goodluck Jonathan, the single term idea was alleged to have the merit of moderating the intensity of passions around re-election bids, saving some of the monies spent on elections by reducing the frequency of elections, and, more importantly, giving incumbents a wider window for policy execution, free of the distraction of electioneering. This, it was argued, would reduce the tensions in the polity and take the country to greater heights. But none of these claims stands up to scrutiny. As its many opponents have rightly noted, the single, six-year term eliminates the incentive to performance which the prospect of a second-term offers an incumbent governor or president. The absence of a potential reckoning with a discontented electorate is a dangerous proposition in a transitional polity like Nigeria’s where the powers of the president, implied and explicit, are so awesome as to be absolutely monarchical. Nigerian elections are still straining for global standards of transparency, but that cannot be an argument against the necessity of ascertaining the preferences of citizens simultaneously with seeking electoral probity. Furthermore, the fact that an incumbent president or governor is not seeking re-election does not suddenly transform him into an impartial umpire who will not deploy state resources in favour of his preferred candidate or party. The illegal injection of state funds into political campaigns and the sub-optimal arrangements by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) account for the high cost of elections. We are of the view that better law-enforcement and administrative arrangements can help to reduce these expenses, but there should be no illusions that an electoral process, along with the associated campaigns, will soon resemble an exercise in austerity. The single term idea is, at this stage of our political evolution, a solution looking for a problem. It is a shortcut that does not cure the ill of non-preparedness of the persons that have been entrusted with the presidency and the governorships. Since 1999, elections have rarely been fought or won on a clear programme of well-articulated policies, debated and exposed to the scrutiny of a discerning public. Political energies have instead been devoted solely to the task of winning power, leaving little room for thinking through what to do with it or assembling a team committed to executing a coherent programme. Although Nigeria is billed to have governorship elections in some states next year, Nigerians neither know the candidates nor have had a chance to evaluate their programmes. After a predictable campaign frenzy, the winners of the 2014 governorship elections and the winners of the 2015 presidential and governorship elections may then enter office, waste time groping for what to do, then turn around to blame the brevity of four-years for their predictable inertia and poor performance. But it was not always thus. In the 1950s, the people of Western Nigeria knew that the Action Group would implement the free education policy if it came to power, and so did those who voted for the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) in 1979. The single-term proposal is a distraction from the painful reality that Nigeria’s political elite have an abysmal appreciation of leadership and the immense responsibility it imposes. It will not abolish personal rule and the unfaltering emasculation of the institutions of state that comes with it. The challenge before Nigeria is to place proper electoral options before the people who will then make choices that must be allowed to count. But then the winners must not assume that the votes cast have exhausted the democratic choices available; they must govern with a democratic, inclusive mindset to solve the problems that hobble the people, failing which they should be removed from office in line with the provisions of the constitution. Nigeria should retain its current system of a renewable four-year term. It is the quality of governance that has fallen short, not the tenure.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:49:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015