Nigeria Content Online

Here we are,
supposedly practicing democracy, which implies that we listen to all,
respect all and then accept the views of the majority. But our idea of
democracy is different: from the Executive to the Legislature, the rule
is to accept the majority opinion, only as long as it tallies with ours.

Secretly and truly,
we abhor the individual’s constitutional right to choose anything
freely, unless they agree to choose the same thing as us. This is why
many feel the PDP’s resolution on zoning was a cop-out and responsible
for this join-me-or-be-damned syndrome we now see! Devoid of spin, we
are now sure of some basic facts. That there was a zoning arrangement is
no longer in doubt. What is arguable (probably because the agreement
wasn’t in written form) is the precise terms and limits; which
information unfortunately, we have largely been left to garner from
colourful interpretations of various interest groups. Recollection of
what was agreed is selective. And it is this absence of express terms
that has led to that non-decision on zoning.

Yes, non-decision
because it caused a split in the ranks of the party. How will every
party member key into two opposing dreams, a northern (N) or southern
(S) dream?

N dreamt that zoning
remained, united the party and engendered a feeling of belonging among
all tribes and tongues. S dreamt that even if there was zoning, since S
didn’t change it unilaterally and has graciously provided food (oil) for
the whole nation for years, why wouldn’t everyone grant this waiver?

But N did not care
about acts of God; a deal’s a deal! The deal could or would not be
allowed to terminate even if fate conspired to do so. Why would S not
see the need to step down, avoid rancour and let the formula ride out
the next four years?

Now, if this was
truly the feeling of the majority, why pretend about it? The party
should have spelt it out in clear unambiguous language that it did not
accept the thinking that if an incumbent president, who is entitled to a
second term wants it, he should not be challenged from within his own
party for the ticket.

Zoning should have
been retained in spite of Divine uncontrollable rotation, if the
majority so desired. This would have showed the strength and resilience
of the soul of the party. Perhaps those out-zoned would have by now,
sought solace in other parties.

Perhaps too, the
party contradicted itself because of perceptions about its (lukewarm or
outrightly hostile) attitude to the constitutional right of its man, a
South-South vice president, who could possibly take advantage of a
political opening in the presidency. If the party didn’t like the
perception, should it not have lined up behind the incumbent, damning
the pro-zoning sentiment?

Thinking aloud now,
how would you have felt if you became an incumbent, not by any fault of
yours or conjuring by you, yet find that your party, which seemed happy
enough to have you as VP, is suddenly reluctant to consider you as a
viable president in the light of emerging circumstances? Is a VP not
expected to assume the post of a president if and when the need arises?

Ahh-haaa!
Conversely, must an incumbent force himself on a reluctant party? Must
an incumbent run under the party that brought him to prominence? If we
accept the omnipotent power of the Nigerian president, could any party
(including a ruling party!) defeat an incumbent presidential candidate,
even if he changes party? Could the party have withstood the audacity of
an incumbent president jumping ship as we saw governors do in Abia, Imo
or Bauchi States?

On the other hand,
the party recognised that events had reached a climax; unless they
wanted to be seen as fuelling adverse perceptions, they would have to
accept the inevitability of this incumbent’s constitutional right to
contest over and above the limits imposed by the PDP constitution.
Perfect shelter existed within S1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution:

‘’If any other law
is inconsistent with the provision of this Constitution, this
Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of
the inconsistency be void”.

S40 of the 1999
Constitution guarantees that ‘’every person shall be entitled to
assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular, he
MAY FORM or BELONG to ANY political party, trade union or any other
ASSOCIATION for the protection of his interests”. The only
qualification of this right is if the Electoral Commission denies such
an association official recognition.

The ability to
observe the sanctity of the right to choose freely, shows the elevation
of our civility, tolerance and respect for another’s opinion. If you
must convince, superior argument is all you can employ.

Would we have death
threats flying around if the PDP had taken a more decisive stand on the
issue of zoning? We’ll never know. But if we are to believe that the
resolution to retain zoning, yet allow a non-northerner, albeit an
incumbent, to run, was the best solution, why are some party members so
critical of the South-south indigene joining the campaign of a northern
candidate?

Are we now saying
that because the incumbent president is from the South-south, no one
from that region must participate in primaries to contest the
presidential election in 2011, even under the same party? Should any
other Ijaw man turn down the presidential ticket of another party?

But that, my friends, is a story for another day!