Deep Sight: Well I must say that one unfortunate reality that is emerging from this thread is the paucity of realistic options for an opposition presidency in 2015. IF Buhari (as seems to be the case from the generality of comments here) is the only realistic opposition option, in a nation of 250 tribes and 160 million people - after 16 years of Democracy - and a full 32 years after the same Buhari took power as Military Head of State; well, that just says a lot for the very sad and limited space in Nigerian Politics.

It also says worse about we Nigerians ourselves: namely that our enlightenment is not yet what we imagine - we still remain grossly unenlightened and "un-emancipated:" otherwise there would be no reason why newer fresher options would not by now have become "realistic" enough for us.

Quite sad really.

Jarus:

Bros, you asked for realistoic option and people gave you and now you want to stifle their choice? Why not put from onset that the only option must be your personal option?

Jarus:

Bros, you asked for realistoic option and people gave you and now you want to stifle their choice? Why not put a rule from onset that the only option must be your personal option or Buhari must not be there?

Have helped u hit the nail on the head wela

Laalamed: muslim-muslim is not realistic just as christian-christian ticket.president and vp cannot come from the same region,north or south.my own take ribadu-fayemi ticket.both of them are young.

pro01: The fact remains there is no "realistic" alternative to the PDP in 2015. Permutations about this or that candidate/ticket in this or that party/coalition is just what it is: permutations. The peculiar dilemma we face is that the 'ideal' individuals that we would like to take a shot at the presidency have no realistic chance, while the individuals with a (remotely) realistic chance are far from 'ideal'. Let's not kid ourselves.

The only possibility of unseating Jonathan is to deny him the PDP ticket. Only within the PDP itself can a realistic alternative arise for the presidency, and that would take unprecedented horse-trading, conspiratorial alliances, and almost coup-like planning and execution to happen. Even then, such a move would be predicated on tribal sentiments: a combined northern effort to produce a northern president. This would most likely produce one of the present northern governors as candidate. Then again, even this would be extremely difficult to materialise. Nigeria's democracy has not evolved to a point where the rug would be pulled from under the feet of the Commander-in-Chief without him blooding everyone's nose if need be. This is not like OBJ's ill-fated third term ambition that required a constitutional amendment. In Jonathan's case, it would be a legitimate aspiration for a second term, and so you would expect him to be ruthless. Don't count on him being 'meek' or 'clueless' in that regard. He is the President and Commander-in-Chief, and he knows it.

By the time things begin to get dirty and desperate in the build up to PDP's special convention to select the presidential candidate, I expect Jonathan to deploy the immense powers at his disposal against the governors or anyone else standing in his way (ala OBJ). He would fight dirty - and most likely win dirty. If he gets the ticket, he gets a second term. Simple.

As unpalatable as this may sound, no other party or coalition of parties has what it takes to wrestle power from the PDP for now. Make no mistakes about that.

honeric01:

Now that you have nothing to say to back up your false accusation, all that's left is to call him despot? what would Jesus do PASTOR KUNLE? Godiswatchingyouowayupfromabove.

bigass: If after 16 years of bad governance Nigerians can still think of voting for PDP to occupy the Presidential seat irrespective of the tribes or religion then No hope for this country!

Pastor Kun:

My brother you are still giving yourself high blood pressure over that old despot. Abeg take am easy jor. The best buhari can do for this country is to anoint a credible young and dynamic candidate who is in touch with the realities of our time. I have told you countless times that a buhari that was a non performer in his youth can never hope to perform as a disgruntled vision less old hag.

Pastor Kun:

PDP does not have monopoly of bad governance as we all know the leader of ACN (Tinubu) is the most notoriously corrupt politician in Nigeria. That aside Obj did brilliantly well during his second term even though he messed up by handing over to a dunce. Truth be said it's not the party that really matters, it is the person that occupies the office.

bigass: If after 16 years of bad governance Nigerians can still think of voting for PDP to occupy the Presidential seat irrespective of the tribes or religion then No hope for this country!

Pastor Kun:

Dictionary definition of despot:

despot

[ des-puh t, -pot ]



noun

1. a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat.

2. any tyrant or oppressor.

Can you honestly say that this definition does not define buhari? Or would you have preferred I label him 'former' despot.

honeric01:

so tell us how he is a despot, decisions he took alone, those he oppressed and when/how he displayed unlimited power.

With facts and historical evidence, please hightlight how he oppressed the citizens/masses.

Buhari supporters here are not robots and are willing to learn or know somethings hidden abouy Buhari that's daming to his persons.

Gbawe:

If you know me well here you will know that (1) I stick to contemporary politics here and refrain from historical events because it is an area bogged down by subjective interpretation to the extent those who were not there, like many on this forum, can speak vehemently and decisively in favour of the versions of events they wish to accept. Carrying on a debate with folks of such mentality is an exercise in futility. I therefore prefer to talk of things I understand completely and can speak on devoid of conjecture.

(2)If at all I will comment on historical event I will pay respect to the fact I was not present at the times of those events and must not arbitrarily chose versions of events to believe. I will therefore rely on the documentations of events as much as possible by eye witness as the most sensible method to gain a mental picture of events I did not witness or live through. That is how it is worldwide - even if we like to emotionally 'blur' the lines in Nigeria. To that end, it has been stated time without number by those who were present during that period, and even the man himself, that the coup was not a Buhari coup. That is good enough for me.

http://www.elombah.com/index.php/special-reports/13873-muhammadu-buhari-i-never-plotted-a-coup-in-my-entire-career

Deep Sight:

I have heard this said by people and it never ceases to amaze me. You see; this is one of the problems we have with our way of thinking in this country: the willful determination NOT to take responsibility for our actions and particularly our in-actions.

My dear brother I would expect you of all people to see concisely into this: and just so that we may not dribble this way and that, I will adumbrate the issues here, for which you and others seek to exculpate Buhari, as he does himself: but which must not be heard for by any right-thinking and honest society -

1. Wilfull acceptance of the proceeds or results of a crime renders one an accessory after the fact and thus complicit in the crime

2. The act of taking over the government of Nigeria by unconstitutional means was, at the time perpetuated, an act of criminal treasonable felony.

3. Buhari as the most senior officer in the Military knew this.

4. Haven been "invited" to partake in the act (and of course he did participate in the final stages by making himself available publicly as the new Head of State - - - it is really beyond imagination, that when it is said, that it is treason to take over the Government by unconstitutional means; that "accepting" an illegal invitation so to do; does not amount to "taking over the Government by illegal means" - only Nigerians can imagine such an incongruity to be a valid excuse for treason!).

5. If at all it may be argued, as many have, that he had no choice but to accept, otherwise he would have lost his head; then this fact is obviated by the fact that he was made commander-in-chief: and therein had full powers to repudiate the coup and deal with the offending officers - a fact which cannot be denied for the evident reason that he turned out to be a very strong minded and stubborn leader - and as such it cannot be claimed that he could not have dealt with his subordinates if he had chosen to: and restored constitutionality. This further shows him to have happily accepted the illegality that he had become involved in. Indeed, the statement by the same officers that he was "rigid and uncompromising" shows clearly that he was fully in charge and not taking orders from anybody, even if acting in council.

I will give one example of this truth: although it lies within the take-over of a military government, the principle remains the same: when Dimka's coup was put down, why did the officers loyal to the government act the way they did to put the coup down? That's right - because of their responsibility and loyalty to the government. Now what would you say of such responsibility and loyalty if the officers that so acted, had rather thrown up ththeir hands and said - we have been invited to head the new Government.

Worse - if the proper government comes back to power - what would be its view of the actions of those who "accepted to head the new government"? ? ?

Seriously, Gbawe.

Now I have stated all the foregoing not because i needed to: and members of a sensible society should know these to be inherently true: I have stated them simply on account of the very shocking notion bandied about by many that Buhari bears no responsibility for the coup in question.

As an army officer, his constitutional duty was to protect the state and the government: as such, it is egregiously contradictory to state that after the government he is sworn to protect is illegally attacked and removed, he then abandons his duty to "accept an invitation" to become head of the then illegally established Government. That acceptance is the last and final and most important aspect of the coup, and nobody can argue otherwise.

Indeed, people are co-opted into coups at various statges - he was co-opted at the last stage - to take over as Military Head of State. That amounts to being part of the coup at its final stage. Nobody can argue otherwise.

Now in saying all this, I have not even touched upon his human rights record - which any one should know is incompatible with the idea of an officer and a gentleman - not to speak of a democratically inclined gentleman.

Finally, Gbawe: I am not particularly moved by your statement regarding not commenting on History much for one simple reason: you say you were not there. However the simple fact of life is that you are also not there to observe the generality of current affairs either. The same way you read history and watch it on TV and listen to the accounts of those who were there, is EXACTLY the same way you read current affairs in the papers, and watch it on TV and listen to the accounts of those who were there. Period.

Laalamed: muslim-muslim is not realistic just as christian-christian ticket.president and vp cannot come from the same region,north or south.my own take ribadu-fayemi ticket.both of them are young.

Le Stylo:

It's quite obvious that the OP is more interested is judging the character and person of GMB after noting to his dismay that he remains the most popular candidate by public opinion. Even those who do not subscribe to his candidature can hardly figure out any option as formidable.
GMB is not Christ, certainly not! But he's of the few angels alive who trod the confines of public service. And i stand to be corrected!

Deep Sight:

I have heard this said by people and it never ceases to amaze me. You see; this is one of the problems we have with our way of thinking in this country: the willful determination NOT to take responsibility for our actions and particularly our in-actions.

My dear brother I would expect you of all people to see concisely into this: and just so that we may not dribble this way and that, I will adumbrate the issues here, for which you and others seek to exculpate Buhari, as he does himself: but which must not be heard for by any right-thinking and honest society -

1. Wilfull acceptance of the proceeds or results of a crime renders one an accessory after the fact and thus complicit in the crime

2. The act of taking over the government of Nigeria by unconstitutional means was, at the time perpetuated, an act of criminal treasonable felony.

3. Buhari as the most senior officer in the Military knew this.

4. Haven been "invited" to partake in the act (and of course he did participate in the final stages by making himself available publicly as the new Head of State - - - it is really beyond imagination, that when it is said, that it is treason to take over the Government by unconstitutional means; that "accepting" an illegal invitation so to do; does not amount to "taking over the Government by illegal means" - only Nigerians can imagine such an incongruity to be a valid excuse for treason!).

5. If at all it may be argued, as many have, that he had no choice but to accept, otherwise he would have lost his head; then this fact is obviated by the fact that he was made commander-in-chief: and therein had full powers to repudiate the coup and deal with the offending officers - a fact which cannot be denied for the evident reason that he turned out to be a very strong minded and stubborn leader - and as such it cannot be claimed that he could not have dealt with his subordinates if he had chosen to: and restored constitutionality. This further shows him to have happily accepted the illegality that he had become involved in. Indeed, the statement by the same officers that he was "rigid and uncompromising" shows clearly that he was fully in charge and not taking orders from anybody, even if acting in council.

I will give one example of this truth: although it lies within the take-over of a military government, the principle remains the same: when Dimka's coup was put down, why did the officers loyal to the government act the way they did to put the coup down? That's right - because of their responsibility and loyalty to the government. Now what would you say of such responsibility and loyalty if the officers that so acted, had rather thrown up ththeir hands and said - we have been invited to head the new Government.

Worse - if the proper government comes back to power - what would be its view of the actions of those who "accepted to head the new government"? ? ?

Seriously, Gbawe.

Now I have stated all the foregoing not because i needed to: and members of a sensible society should know these to be inherently true: I have stated them simply on account of the very shocking notion bandied about by many that Buhari bears no responsibility for the coup in question.

As an army officer, his constitutional duty was to protect the state and the government: as such, it is egregiously contradictory to state that after the government he is sworn to protect is illegally attacked and removed, he then abandons his duty to "accept an invitation" to become head of the then illegally established Government. That acceptance is the last and final and most important aspect of the coup, and nobody can argue otherwise.

Indeed, people are co-opted into coups at various statges - he was co-opted at the last stage - to take over as Military Head of State. That amounts to being part of the coup at its final stage. Nobody can argue otherwise.

Now in saying all this, I have not even touched upon his human rights record - which any one should know is incompatible with the idea of an officer and a gentleman - not to speak of a democratically inclined gentleman.

Finally, Gbawe: I am not particularly moved by your statement regarding not commenting on History much for one simple reason: you say you were not there. However the simple fact of life is that you are also not there to observe the generality of current affairs either. The same way you read history and watch it on TV and listen to the accounts of those who were there, is EXACTLY the same way you read current affairs in the papers, and watch it on TV and listen to the accounts of those who were there. Period.

Gbawe:

Man mi, OK you win. Buhari is this and that. Thus he is disqualified by Deep sight and all the kingmakers and influential stakeholders, on the ground, are therefore compelled to comply from now henceforth. If Buhari emerges the candidate of the merger, what will all what you wrote here against the man have amounted to?

You should simply respect the opinions of others and move on instead of diverting focus from the topic of the thread. You cannot expect everyone to share your view that Buhari is not a "realistic option" and I expect, when the real business begins, you will see how inconsequential your position is given that those who will 'kingmake' for the mega Party will certainly not think rigidly or as judgementally as you do. They will simply be looking for the candidates who represent the best chance of wrestling power from the PDP and not whistle-clean reincarnations of Jesus.

Deep Sight:

Please note: I have not, via my arguments above, sought to say that he is not a realistic candidate. If anything, I already conceded that somewhere along the thread. My argument re: realistic; was limited to saying that he would not sell in the south. That's all I said as per 'realistic'.

The arguments above are a tangent - and I acknowledged that I was digressing from the thread explicitly - I said so. My comments above are a tangent arising from your own comments in response to my tangential question: whether Buhari is a morally or historically apt choice for a self-respecting nation.

This has little bearing on the thread; for which the question is who will make a realistic candidate with sufficient pull to un-seat the PDP at the Federal Level. From comments here, it seems Buhari is the leading option still. I already noted that since he also appears the only realistic option, that too, is a sad commentary on Nigeria and the limited space of Nigerian Politics.

Wadeoye:

He will not sell to who in the south? South West or South East?

We know if GEJ contests, South South will still vote out of sentiment for their son though the generality of the people of South South will get nothing from his presidency. So, take south south out of discussion - whoever the opposition presents will not get any vote from South South.

South West dont have anything against Buhari and he will win South West 80 - 90% if the merger works.

Does Igbos not wanting to vote for Hausa/Fulani now mean the whole of south is opposed to Buhari? Who in the north can win SE votes if GEJ contests?

You are not been realistic yourself and you are here asking for realistic suggestion.

Buhari/Fashola or Buhari/Oshiomole is the answer.

Deep Sight:

Well since you agree that Buhari cannot get anything from the SS or SE, then that leaves the SW as the only bone of contention, right? You say that he will get votes from the SW if ACN supports him. But I say that this is not true. The Ribadu precedent is there. He was the ACN candidate, and while the SW electorate went ahead to vote for ACN Governors and parliamentarians, they rejected the ACN Northern Presidential candidate in favour of GEJ.

As far as I am concerned, Buhari is not any more palatable to the SW electorate than Ribadu was. If anything, the SW electorate have a strong tradition of rejecting perceived tyrants, and like I said before, I doubt that they would ever vote an ex-Military Head of State - not even Murtala Mohammed if he were alive - as president. Remember the OBJ case - a Yoruba man himself! - serially rejected by the SW electorate for same reasons. How much more likely is it then, that they would vote a northern ex military Head of State? As such, it seems to me that the entire south will still reject a Buhari Candidacy.

Yes, I agree that the candidacy may have a chance in the SW with Fashola on board as running mate, but at best that will only split things up. There will still be large swathes that will reject the notion simply on account of Buhari. Especially as they know that the VP slot has no powers whatsoever. Finally, be careful about Fashola's popularity. I know very well that he has become deeply unpopular among the lower and poorer classes in Lagos for many of the recent measures he has taken - measures, which, of course, he would never have taken in his first term.

At the very best, such a ticket will split the SW presidential vote. Many would still go for GEJ as opposed to Buhari, I tell you.

This discussion has made me weary. It has made me feel that there is no real present hope to unseat PDP at the centre.

nuclearboy:

If as you say, the SW rejects tyrants and tyranny, methinks they will reject a 2012 tyrant (fuel subsidy photos of General Sani Jonathan strike a nerve?) over one from 30 years ago!

nuclearboy:

You want him to call fire down from Heaven? You need a water, air, fire or earth bender to show such things! What our NL "pastors" do today is throw unsubstantiated threats and accusations around in the hope of hitting something