Rotational presidency can stabilise Nigeria
By Anthony Akinola

WHEN children of different mothers quarrel over their patrimony, it is only an idiot who says that peace in the family is not what matters most. Nigeria is one larger "polygamous" setting whose fratricidal feuds over the years provide useful lessons for those who care to learn from history.

The major feuds in the Nigerian polity since independence in 1960 have been mainly over leadership. Be it the Civil War of 1967-70 or the Gideon Orkar-led attempted coup of April 1990, or the crisis we now simply refer to as "June 12", it has been demonstrated in the course of our existence as an independent nation that the leadership question is indeed the national question.

To the credit of Nigerians, the enormity of the leadership question appears to have been understood. The arrangement by the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) to rotate the presidency between the South and North is an acknowledgement of the existence of a most disturbing national problem, and an effort to provide a practical solution to it. The PDP approach would appear to have reasonably stabilised Nigeria in the last 10 years, as the fear of "ethnic hegemony" would appear not to have been as pronounced as it once was.

However, we do not have "rotational presidency" yet. The principle is yet to be accommodated in the national Constitution where its "nitty gritty" can be spelt out. The confusion generated by the health of President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, if anything, amplifies the need to do so without any further delay.

A Constitution or political arrangement must accommodate the emotions and sentiments of those it is designed to serve if its usefulness is to survive the test of time. One has said it before, and one is repeating it here, that the success of the American constitution is the acknowledgement by America's founding fathers that the problem of cleavage can only be resolved by addressing it. Their pragmatic decision to introduce a bicameral legislature was one "scientific" approach to addressing the fears of smaller states about the dominance of larger ones. Hence the American states, irrespective of their sizes and populations, were accorded equal representation in the Senate. Today, the State of Wyoming with a population barely over one million people enjoys equal representation as California whose population is well over 60 million. However, representation in the House was based on population. We in Nigeria have merely devalued the essence of a bicameral legislature by creating states that are more or less of equal size.

Cleavages, be they those of ethnicity and religion, do not disappear as we naively assume they will. The sad prediction here is that our cleavages may eventually destroy our aspiration of one Nigerian nation if we do not learn how to manage them effectively. We sadly do not appear to be an innovative people, hence our inability to provide "homegrown" solutions to problems that are uniquely ours. Had the Americans been confronted with our type of ethnological realities and chose to have rotational presidency, all of us would today have been singing the praises of the idea. The Americans, by their Constitution of 1787, introduced into the world of politics the concepts of bicameralism, federalism, presidential/congressional system and limited government. They charted a course for democracy.

Critics of rotational presidency talk of having the "best candidate" for the job, even when they know that such a so-called best candidate always comes from a dominant regional grouping. There are "best candidates" in every region of the Nigerian federation, seeking an opportunity to bring their leadership qualities to bear on all of us. The good thing about our society today, as opposed to those days of omniscient military rule, is that we have come to accept democracy as irreplaceable and individuals have the opportunity to demonstrate their preparedness for upward mobility through their performances at other tiers of political governance.

Rotational presidency should be entrenched in our Constitution, not least because of its potential to stabilise our otherwise severely divided society. This writer submitted a detailed memorandum on this subject to the Political Bureau instituted by the government of General Ibrahim Babangida in 1986. Interestingly, a committee of intelligent, experienced and well-meaning Nigerians - The Patriots - articulated a similar proposal in the year 2000. The fact that we have ever since remained loyal to our viewpoint suggests honesty and conviction on our part.

We sadly have too many so-called opinion leaders in our society who say one thing today and another tomorrow. Sadly, because these so-called opinion leaders have been "former this" or "former that", they get the attention they hardly deserve. Some pretend to be speaking for all of us, even when what they seek to protect is their selfish or group interests.

Rotational presidency is not "undemocratic". A nation is qualified to be called a democracy if it respects agreed rules and procedures. Switzerland, a small nation though it is, has cleavage problems quite similar to ours. It operates a system of "collective presidency" in which leadership is rotated annually. Switzerland is one of the world's most democratic and stable nations.

The country enjoys such stability that our corrupt politicians find it the safest place for their stolen monies! Rotational presidency, one argues, will regulate the party system beyond our wildest imaginations. The reason we have so many purposeless political parties is because of "noise makers" who require platforms for their indulgences. One strongly believes we could actually have principled political parties once their "ethnic hobs" have been removed. Given the realities of our society, only a system of rotational presidency will bring this about.

Rotational presidency, in this writer's view, complements and enhances the principle of federalism. Those who say it would divide Nigeria might as well call for a unitary system of government and, therefore, the scrapping of the states!


Akinola, author of Rotational Presidency, 1996, lives in Oxford, England

^ U still dey work- e ku ise

First of all, California's population is about 38m, not 60m as the author claims.

Secondly, we've tried this union for almost 50 years in different incarnations. It is time to convene a sovereign national conference to determine how we will live together or dissolve the union. Further charade such as rotational presidency is not going to solve the problems of Nigeria.

Rotational presidency neither complements nor does it enhance the principle of federalism. It promotes mediocrity. Just look at what Nigeria has in YarAdua. True federalism is when each state or region is allowed to keep majority of its earnings and develop at its own pace.

Nigeria doesn't need rotational presidency; Nigeria needs to alter the overbearing and rapacious nature of the federal government. The continued ra.pe of the ND that has deprived them of their ancestral gift of natural resources and continues to feed many lazy states is what needs to stop.

I have nothing but contempt for some of these so-called intellectuals who still haven't developed a spine strong enough to agitate for regional sovereignty. They keep genuflecting before the ruling oligarchy in exchange for "goodboyness" pat on the back. Obasanjo, Demeji Bankole. . .the list goes on.

Fouled creeks, toxic air and polluted rivers in the ND. But the oil money will pave the roads in Abuja, Kano Maidiguri Sokoto and other unproductive areas in the country.

Well thought article.
At this point in Nigeria's history, we need stability which is what rotational presidency provides, not of course without its resident problems.

Why Zoning-rotational Presidency Should Be In The Constitution

* Lawrence Chinedu Nwobu
* September 15, 2010
* More from this author



In the last few months, I have followed the debate and power struggle centred on the issue of rotational presidency or zoning. The intensity of the debate and the many intrigues it has generated is at best laughable. The only reason there is such a debate is because Nigeria is a nation where we love to thrive in chaos. Musa Yar’adua came into power as a very sick man whose demise remained a real possibility. He had on many occasions been hospitalised and on one of those occasions, the intrigues surrounding his hospitalisation and rumours of death had led to the sacking of the erstwhile secretary to the federal government, Alhaji Babagana Kingibe on his return from the hospital.

The intrigues of Yar’Adua’s hospitalisation had therefore given sufficient indications that his demise would lead to a protracted power struggle in the absence of a clear constitutional method of succession under the zoning arrangement. But because Nigeria is a nation in love of chaos, the members of the national assembly, house of representatives and other opinion leaders rather than seek a constitutional solution to the impending predicament choose to ignore it. The result of that negligence and irresponsibility remains with us today, as the power struggle rages on. In a September 2009 article titled “If Yar’adua dies: how to avert a power struggle” see link: http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/lawrence-chinedu-nwobu/if-yaradua-dies-how-to-avert-a-power-struggle.html. I predicted quite accurately, the power struggle saga that is presently unfolding and made proposals to avert it.

The present quagmire has at best, guaranteed that whatever the outcome of the 2011 elections, there will be groups that will continue to feel aggrieved as a result of the lacuna that existed in the constitution. If the national assembly had urgently resolved the zoning and succession issue by enshrining it in the constitution, we would have avoided the current brick-bats from different parts of the divide which has overtaken the needed debate on key issues such as unemployment, infrastructure, security, education, healthcare and social protection. It is quite unfortunate that Nigeria’s so called leaders are yet to learn how to do things properly.

As I have said previously, Nigeria’s peculiar post-independence history of long years of Northern domination, marginalisation and injustice requires a rotational system based on the subsisting six zones that would serve as a strategy for nation building. A quick look at Nigeria’s history would reveal that minorities and Southerners with the exception of Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2nd coming have only ruled Nigeria by accident. General Aguiyi Ironsi from the East became the first to emerge through such a system after the assassination of the then prime minister Tafawa Balewa in the Jan 1966 coup. General Yakubu Gowon a Northern minority from the middle belt became the 2nd beneficiary after the assassination of General Aguiyi Ironsi in the July 1966 counter-coup. General Olusegun Obasanjo from the West also became a military head of state after the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed in 1976 and lastly President Goodluck Jonathan who ascended the throne in 2010 after Yar’adua’s death.

Indeed, it is also noteworthy that Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2nd coming in 1999 as a civilian president, which is the only exception was nonetheless facilitated by the accident of General Sanni Abacha’s sudden death. Nigeria’s chequered history thus lends credence to the fact that political power has overwhelmingly concentrated in the Muslim North and only moved to minorities or non-Northerners by accident. A heterogeneous nation with such a peculiar history rightly deserves to have a specially designated and structured rotational system that would be a strategy for nation building and inter-ethnic cohesion.

The rotational system itself is not a new concept as many diverse nations and institutions around the world already practice variants derived from it. In Switzerland, the presidency rotates among the various ethnic groups and in the European Union; the presidency rotates among the member states. The rotational system is quite remarkable in Switzerland where the German ethnic group with 65% of the population constitute an absolute majority capable of perpetual political dominance, but yet subscribed to the rotational system in order to accommodate the minority ethnic groups. Switzerland is consequently one of the world’s most stable, democratic, harmonious and prosperous nations just as the European Union is one of the most functional and prosperous institutions in the world. Together, Switzerland and the European Union are notable examples in the successful application of the principle of rotation along ethnic and national lines, all designed to suit the peculiarities of their geo-political realities.

Moving forward, the national assembly should convene an urgent constitutional review to midwife a well structured and successful rotational system which could in time be a model for other heterogeneous nations in Africa and around the globe struggling with the challenges of nationhood. I hereby propose 2 options as listed hereunder that can be applied in resolving the rotation and succession issue

Constitutional Review Options Of Power Rotation And Succession

(1) The present structure of six zones with three each in the North and South presents a perfect match for the purposes of rotation. In a practical and common sense way, the presidency could be rotated in alternation between the North/South and among the zones in alphabetical order preferably for a 6 year single term or alternatively for an 8 year double term as the case maybe. In the case of an 8 year double term, all political parties will also be obliged to field candidates only from the designated zone for the subsequent election of the remaining 4 year tenure. In the event of another political party and candidate winning the subsequent election, he or she can only serve the remaining 4 year tenure for the designated zone. The introduction of rotation in alphabetical order will remove every confusion, make it possible for all existing political parties to field candidates from the same zone and prevent acrimonious power struggles between different zones.

In case of death and succession, there is the option of a constitutional review to introduce the office of a deputy president in addition to the already existing office of the vice president. The vice president should continue to be from other zones as is presently the case, but the new office of the deputy president should be occupied by someone from the same zone as the president for the sole purpose of completing the presidents tenure in case of incapacitation, impeachment, resignation or death.

(2) Another option is to have a constitutional provision that stipulates the organization of another election within three months in case of incapacitation, resignation, impeachment or death to elect someone from the same zone as the president to complete the constitutional tenure of the exited president.

Conclusions:

The national assembly should endeavour to leave a lasting legacy by urgently engaging in common sense provisions like this and ultimately enshrining it in the constitution. As has been the case in Switzerland and elsewhere, a well structured rotational system amongst a cocktail of other measures will prevent protracted and acrimonious power struggles in future and potentially usher in a more harmonious, stable, democratic and prosperous nation.



Lawrence Chinedu Nwobu

Email: lawrencenwobu@yahoo.com

2011: South won’t produce president in 50 years if Jonathan runs —Sam Aluko
Saturday, 17 July 2010 21:24 | Author: Sun |


vote
nowBuzz up!
24
Share
Professor Sam Aluko has called on President Goodluck Jonathan not to contest the 2011 election. According to him, it would be unfair to deny the North the right to produce the next president because of the unfortunate death of the late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua. He argued that if the late president were to be around, he would have contested and won the 2011 presidential election.

He warned that the North is more populated than the South and if Jonathan contests and wins the 2011 election, the North would make ensure it gets back power in coming elections and hold on to it for the next 50 years.

Although he is not a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Aluko is in support of the zoning arrangement of the party. He argued that zoning would ensure that the presidency goes round the country.

“Our peculiar circumstance favours zoning. Without zoning, the largest town in a local council would continue to produce the chairman while the largest tribes would continue to produce governors and the president,” he said.

Aluko also said that the energy situation in the country can be improved upon if states are given the responsibility of generating power. He suggested that Jonathan should meet with governors and discuss how to improve energy generation.

President Goodluck Jonathan is in charge of energy ministry. Do you see this as the solution to the electricity problem?
I don’t think he is holding on to the ministry as minister of power. I think he wants to ensure that whoever is minister for power reports to him from time to time. The duties of the president are so multifarious and so exhausting that he cannot afford to hold on to a federal ministry. I don’t think he is holding on to the ministry of power. I think he has an adviser on power and a minister of state for power.

What can he do to achieve his ambition of stabilising energy generation in the country?
I think he has only one year and even within this one year, he can meet the aspiration they could not meet in three years. But I think that if he can guarantee supply of gas to the various power stations and he can ensure the supervision of those power stations, he will do well. The problem is not that the stations are not there but most of the things that are supposed to be bought to make the power stations work were brought in as second-hand equipment. I was chairman of Economic and Intelligence Committee for three years and I was able to know that most of these problems we have, arose from the fact that obsolete equipment, instead of new ones, are being used. Take the power station in Ikorodu, which was supposed to be supplied with gas, for example. They went there and pumped something else into it and the thing exploded.

Three out of four exploded. They did that because they felt that the element was cheaper than gas. So, it is the same thing with the refineries. Instead of using modern equipment and allow the NNPC to use it to regenerate and refurbish what is called the turn-around maintenance for the refineries, they will award the contract to a politician who will re-award it to another politician and then go and use obsolete equipment or just polish the equipment and say that the things have been done.

The same thing applies to our pipelines. The pipelines were supposed to have been changed three times over since they were laid in the 1950s. But they are still there. The pipes were vandalised because they are old. Sometimes, the force of the fuel is higher than what they were carrying in the 1950s. That is part of the problem. If they can ensure that faithful, loyal and honest people are in charge and are maintaining them, using the relevant equipment and they are not putting the money in their pockets, the power system will work. We have enough stations today to even supply Nigeria more than the 6,000 power megawatts that they have promised. But the power stations are not being maintained loyally and honestly. That is the problem.

Again, the whole idea of concentrating the management of the energy sector in the hands of the Federal Government alone is wrong. There are many countries in the world that are not as large as Ondo State or Ekiti State or even Bayelsa and they are generating their own energy and maintaining an uninterrupted power. It is a shame. We have 36 states, Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Government. We ought to have 38 units of energy generation in Nigeria.

In Europe and America, local governments generate their own energy. So, the whole idea is that we are not doing what we should do. We are not practising division of labour. We concentrate too much power with the Federal Government. Federal Government is concentrating power in the private sector. Private sector has its own responsibilities. They cannot even maintain energy for their own. They are looking up to the Federal Government to generate energy for their industries and we are saying they are the ones who will generate energy for the country. You could see the vicious circle of foolishness that we are engaged in.

I think, really, the Federal Government should have a meeting with the states and concede it to them. The states have money. Ondo State has more money than many small countries in the world. I did a study for one of the state governments. There are 59 countries in the world, which are members of the United Nations that are smaller than Ekiti State or Ondo State and they are not as rich, in human resources and material resources. They have ambassadors; they have airlines and they have shipping lines, railways, and airports. It means something is wrong with us. It is because we stopped planning in the 80s that we are where we are now.

You suggest Jonathan should meet with state governments to discuss it. Why?
He should ask them what government could do to improve the energy stations in their states. If Ondo State takes control of its energy supply in its own state and other states can take control in their states, the problem would be minimised. That is what the council of states’ meeting should be about and not to be sharing money from excess crude account. They should be working in concert with the Federal Government to solve our energy problem, unemployment and road problems.

Why should the Federal Government maintain roads in Ondo State? There is a government in Ondo State. They can contract that to the Ondo State government and not a contractor in Sokoto, who doesn’t know Ondo State. That is what is done in America. The Federal Government in the US stipulates the quality of the roads that should be in the country. That is why there are competitions to see that their roads are good. That is why there are no potholes on their roads. Here we give the contract to a contractor, who is a lawyer. He will sub-contract to a third party and there is nobody to supervise. How can the president or minister in Abuja supervise a road in Ore? These are things we need to put right.

What do you say about the circumstance that brought Jonathan to power?
It is an unfortunate circumstance that our president died. Anybody can die. It is a natural thing that all of us will die. That is an unfortunate circumstance. But it is also fortunate for Jonathan that he, being the vice president, automatically became the president. So, we should rejoice with him in the same way Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar became head of State when Abacha died. Those are circumstances that occur in countries from time to time. It is a natural thing that he is there because he was the vice president.

Some people are asking him to contest the 2011 election despite the zoning formula of the PDP. Do you think he should contest?
I support the zoning formula, even though I am not a member of the PDP. In this country, most of us, particularly, in the South are shot-sighted. When we have a temporary advantage, we believe that it will be permanent. We don’t look into the future. When I was chairman of Ado Ekiti Local Government Area, there were only four local government areas in Ekiti. That was in 1954-55. I had my own local government police. At the time, there was local government police. There was state police and there was federal police. If any thief came to Ado, the local people knew. They spoke the local language.

The state police spoke the local language and nobody could defeat them.
We started campaigning in the Action Group (AG) that federal police should be responsible for states and local governments. They wanted the police federalised because northerners were using the Andoka, the native authority police, to harass our supporters in the North. I said that since we have our own local government police here, they will not be able to harass our people. They said no, arguing that if we centralised the local government police, we would win the federal election, produce the president and use the police to do a lot of things in the North. I asked them what if we didn’t win. And they were confident we would. That is how we campaigned to federalise police. Today, we are shouting in the South that we want state police and we want local government police. But we were the ones who started the campaign, in those days, for a federal police thinking that we would rule Nigeria and use the police against the northern emirs.

We started the campaign for presidential system of government. We used to debate it in the Action Group (AG). We had somebody who would be both head of state and head of government. I said it could lead to tyranny. They said no, that we would win the presidency. I know we are not like America. Look at Britain. Very few countries in the world have this kind of presidential system. Even some countries that have presidential system have heads of state and heads of government. The head of government is a parliamentarian. Now, we are saddled with presidential system. Who are the people now arguing for parliamentary system? Southerners. This is because we now see that what we thought we would be able to hold on to, we couldn’t.

I said the same thing to Moshood Abiola when he wanted to contest the presidential election. I told him that I believed in division of labour. I told him that God had given him a fortress. He came from nowhere and became one of the richest people in Africa. I told him to be contented with that. He said no, insisting that he wanted power. He said I would be the head of his economic team. I said I could not be because I didn’t think it was right. Did he become president?

We are talking about the same thing now. We started democracy, and we have 57 parties. We are now arguing that it should be a two-party system. But we were the ones who argued that the freest and fairest election was that of MKO Abiola. It is the same thing we are now saying now, because Jonathan is a southerner. People are saying he should contest in 2011. They are saying that zoning by the PDP is wrong. You forget that the North is in the majority. If you don’t do zoning, we may never be president of Nigeria in the next 50 years in the South.
In a free and fair election, where we count one man, one vote, northerners will always have majority. So, whoever they put up there, as the presidential candidate, would become the president of Nigeria. The South would be short-changed. But when we rotate, we know that at a point in time, it would be our own turn.

Are you endorsing zoning?
I support the zoning system of the PDP, even though I am not a member of the PDP. It is a very civilised system. It is an equitable system. It is because of our peculiar circumstances and the structure of our population and homogeneity or lack of it. If we don’t do that, we find that the town that is in large majority, in a local government area, will continue to produce the chairman forever. The largest area would continue to produce the governor forever. But when we rotate, we say look, you have done it two or three times, let somebody else do it.
I think we need that and that is why I don’t think Jonathan should run. If Yar’Adua had not died, he would have had a second term. The North would have retained the presidency for eight years. We should not say because of the misfortune the North suffered, let us deny them the presidency for the next four years. It is not fair. As a Christian, I don’t think it is right. What is not fair cannot be right.

Are you therefore telling Jonathan not to run?
Yes. His time would come. After all, he did not aspire to be president and he is there now. Even if he is not president forever, he has made a name that he was once president. Look at Shonekan. He was there for only about three or four months. Look at Gen. Abubakar, he was there for only about eight to nine months. He is now honoured around the world. When we were in government, many military officers tried to prevail on Gen. Abubakar to have another year, but he said no. He is a honourable person today. So, I don’t think Jonathan should run.
http://www.transparencyng.com/index, iew&Itemid=151

Rotational presidency is not entirely a bad idea especially if the presidency is not as powerful as it currently is.
More power should be devolved to the states to allow them develop at their own pace, rather than everything being decided in Abuja.

I believe there's no section of the country that cannot at any given time produce at least five capable people to lead Nigeria. If this would put an end to the endless rancor in Nigerian politics, I'm all for it.