Nigeria Content Online

And so in a space
of 40 minutes, the 54th parliament of the United Kingdom was dissolved
and in came a new government; which in many ways has proved a
remarkable turn of events. The just concluded UK general elections
provided a great number of firsts, with a wide ranging impact on the
political landscape of the United Kingdom.

For the first time
in a British election and perhaps taking a leaf out of the American
book, a televised debate amongst the leaders of the main three parties
was held. It was also the first time since 1979 that none of the three
main party leaders had headed a previous general election campaign. In
addition, it was the first time since 1974 and only the second time
since the Second World War that a British general election returned a
hung parliament.

The reasons for
this are wide-ranging and varied. Central, was the effect of the recent
expenses scandal which showed the UK parliament to not be above the
trade mark characteristic of self interest that dogs politicians. The
scandal which exposed the MPs who abused the parliamentary expenses
system in turn resulted in a decline in voter confidence and party
support. Similarly, a series of problems for the incumbent including
the recent global economic downturn, the ongoing wars and in house
political scandals, helped seal his fate and arguably; increase the
indecisiveness of the electorate. The big faux pas committed by Gordon
Brown when he was overhead referring to voter as a bigot for her views
on migration, didn’t help either.

The list goes on as
we consider the various coulda, woulda and shoudas that have culminated
in what we now refer to as the UK general election of 2010.

A certain
conclusion however, would be the ambitious outcome of a coalition
government that has been the fruit of this recent UK general election.
Julian Glover in the UK Guardian observes that although the election
might have been born of an electoral accident – a hung parliament in
which no single party could rule alone securely – it is generally
acknowledged that the union of the two parties represents a fundamental
coming together of ideas and values. And what a coming together this
has proved; an opportunity to do away with the typical combination of
liberal economics and social conservatism, a government that would be
neither solely pro-market Thatcherism nor Marxist socialism. How long
will the coalition last? Only time will tell.

The new government
however, has gotten on with things. In its new coalition manifesto, key
areas of action have been identified and compromises sought. These
include getting the economy back on track by effecting cuts in public
spending as opposed to tax rises; setting a cap on inward migration by
non-EU citizens and increasing tax allowances for low to medium earners
in the country. But it will be difficult, very difficult indeed to make
rapid progress as these are difficult times.

UK unemployment is
at its highest since 1994 and further spending cuts will arguably make
any recovery very painful. Of course, there are a raft of social issues
of rising concern including migration and Europe, both contentious
areas of policy for both members of the UK’s newest political marriage.
This is before the issue of Afghanistan and the UK relationship with
America is considered.

Howeverm for me, what stood out in the just concluded UK general
elections was the political maturity exhibited by most of its
participants. Yes the UK elections were beset by problems and game
playing – it actually took six days for political consensus to be
achieved and for a government to be formed. However, it was done
respectfully and most certainly; it was not a do-or-die affair. This
was evidenced in Mr. Brown’s dignified and brief departure from number
ten .Of course, a key reason for this is the fact that the political
systems in the west are largely based on ideology and a clear desire to
serve as opposed to what we have back at home, typified by patronage
and ethnic alliances. Whilst a middle ground can be achieved between
pro-market thatcherite thinking and Marxist socialism, some would argue
that a bridge between Hausa and Igbo may not necessarily be the best
approach for a Yoruba man or Itshekiri. Following Barack Obama’s
historic election recently, politicians around the world have
campaigned on the back of genuine change and in some cases; actually
believe in positive change for their respective communities. Will
Nigeria ever achieve this luxury? Is the change lurking in the
background here in Nigeria, for good or bad? Most importantly, I cannot
help but wonder if events that occur in the run up to 2011, will lead
to the change we need.

One of the
specificities of Nigerian federalism is that there are no statutory
mechanisms for intergovernmental relations between the federal and
state governments. And yet, the constitution has a long concurrent list
in which the federal and state governments have joint competence in
social service provisioning in education, health and so on. The
mechanisms that have developed such as the National Council on
Education or Health are sites in which the Federal Government makes
policy recommendations to states but there are no compelling
implementation processes that flow from it.

It is in this
context that that the Office of the Senior Special Adviser to the
President on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), led by the
indefatigable Amina az Zubair, has made a major breakthrough in getting
the federal and state governments to work together in providing joint
services to the people.

The Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) are eight time-bound development goals that
were adopted at the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. They aim to –
eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary
education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child
mortality; improve maternal health; combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other
diseases; ensure environmental sustainability and build a global
partnership for development.

Taken together, the
goals seek to combat poverty and promote development. If we can achieve
these goals in a timely manner, that is by 2015, we would be improving
our human capital as well as good governance in our society, two
variables that are important for economic development.

Last week, I
participated in a review meeting organised by the MDG office on the
Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS) component of the programme in Yankari,
Bauchi State. The MDG programme was established by the Federal
Government following the negotiations with the Paris Club leading to
the payment of a part and cancellation of the other part of our public
sector debts. It compelled the government to set up a mechanism for
tagging and tracking the performance of specific poverty-reducing
expenditures in the budget. The tracking is done jointly by private
consultants and civil society organisations and the purpose is to
demonstrate the transparent use of Government resources and ensure that
the approved implementation plans for all MDGs project and programmes
are strictly adhered to; especially as they relate to coverage,
quality, outputs and outcomes at all levels.

The Centre for
Democracy and Development where I work has been involved in this
monitoring process since the implementation of the 2006 budget. At that
time, our major discovery was that the projects which were conducted by
Federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies in all local government
areas in the country had no ownership. Even state governments and local
governments had no information about bore holes or health clinics being
built in their communities. There was no link between project planners
and implementers in Abuja and end users who were supposed to benefit
from them.

The MDG office
seized on this finding to propose the conditional grant scheme in which
projects were designed by state governments in consultation with
communities and proposed to the federal government which funds half the
cost and the other half is provided by state governments who implement
the programme as part of their own poverty eradication strategy.

The Yankari retreat
was an occasion to see what has been achieved so far and the challenges
that remain. One key achievement on the policy front is that most of
the state governments involved have used the supplementary resources
provided to give content to their state poverty eradication programmes
and have considerably scaled up provision of potable water, rural
clinics, ambulances, the training of health workers.

As the
implementation guidelines for the programme require community
consultation and the governments involved are aware that there will be
independent monitoring of the projects, efforts have been deployed to
ensure that they are built and operated as model projects to showcase
achievements of the state governments.

So far, over 22,000
projects in the form of bore holes, comprehensive rural clinics,
ambulances, health personnel, drugs and equipment are being delivered
and are beginning to make an impact in the lives of the people.

Some components of
the MDG programme such as constituency quick win projects designed by
National Assembly Members and the NAPEP Conditional Cash Transfer
Scheme have not been operating as effectively as the Conditional Grants
Scheme.

The lesson we are learning is the government can work in this
country if that work is monitored and a link is created between project
design and demands of beneficiaries. As we approach the 2015 deadline
for the attainment of the MDGs, the time honoured principle that
government is for the people should continue to guide the use of public
expenditure.

What exactly is a Ministry of “Woman Affairs? Let
me explain my question further. Is it distinct from a Ministry of Man
Affairs? And just in case my state of confusion is not clear dear
reader, would such a Ministry of Woman Affairs be perfectly within its
rights to have a Department of Aunty Matters, not to talk of an Office
of O rishi rishi?

Surely this must be a peculiarly Nigerian
invention. We have ministries of universally recognised sectors of
governance such as works and housing that deal with areas of proper
concern for any nation desirous of organising itself and keeping pace
with the world community of nations of which we most proudly count
ourselves a part.

It is not as if we had decided to dispense with
all obfuscation and dubbed Mr. Odein Ajumogobia, Minister of Outside
Matter with a Department of Agaracha. In all other ways it seems we are
happy to keep pace with the rest of the world except when it comes to
the matter of the female gender where we find no other recourse but to
tell it like it is, to resort to the literal, and just put it out
there, abandoning all pretence at linguistic refinement. Okay just take
it like that: Women Affairs! Come to think of it a Ministry of Women
Issues would have confused the daylights out of any visiting emissary.
What with: “Yes I had two issues for my first husband and three further
issues for my second .God has been good!” Is there a single item of
concern to women that does not in some way involve a man, and vice
versa? Can we separate the importance of the role of women from the
importance of the role of men? Where would Umaru have been without
Turai and Turai without Umaru?

Look at all the allusions that have been made to
Goodluck and Patience and the attendant suggestion that one has been
the reward for the other. Of course the third party in this
relationship is the Nigerian people and the hope still springing in
spite of history, is that all the gifts that will accrue will be for
the good of Nigerians as a whole and not just the latest first couple.

Lets take a look back at the history of
nomenclature in the administration of our endlessly innovative country.
At one time we had this alphabet soup of a ministry, youth,
information, sports and culture. I think even social welfare was thrown
in there too. It sounded as if some guys were just impatient with the
whole business of dealing with anything that did not have the golden
glow of money to be bilked and contracts to be conceived. So they just
lumped these “small small” concerns together into some big for nothing
name. And here we are today with almost 50 percent of our population
comprising of youth and one hell of a problem on our hands if we do not
wake up to prospect of a future of lost generations, sporting talent
that is finding its way to other countries and energy and potential for
growth and resurgent patriotism left to waste.

Then we had that curious flirtation with minister
of and minister for. Suddenly people who were happy to dispense with
the finer points of English grammar, those niggling little prepositions
and definite articles, were all at once exercised by distinctions in
rank that could be harvested for political expediency to expand the
number of snouts at the trough.

The first time I heard the term woman used to
describe a female prototype was in reference to a tall statuesque
friend of mine. “That one na woman mountain,” this male said. If he had
just stopped at mountain I would have understood that it was merely a
reference to her height. But there was something grudging about the
tone and also something about it that objectified her.

The term Women Affairs quite apart from the fact
that it sounds as if it was not conceived with as much gravity as we
give to say the ministries of health or finance does suggest by the
vagueness of its title that we do not care very much about the issues
it is concerned with.

Seriously, how do you define Women Affairs as
distinct from the concerns of men, children and the aged? Who takes
care of these three groups in terms of day-to-day welfare and the
minutiae of tasks necessary to their well being?

Naming is serious business in our culture. It
expresses our hopes, embodies our prayers, carries our history and
affirms our identity. We all know deep in our hearts that the glue that
holds us together as a family, community, village, nation, polity, has
no gender. The hoopla about stronger or weaker is just that, useless
hoopla. It gives us something to joke about and adds that frisson to
relationships that makes for fun and excitement. But we all know deep,
down that this male superiority business is nonsense.

So, if na joke, stop am. We can do better than Ministry of Women Affairs!

President Goodluck Jonathan urgently
needs to realize that the reputations, and legacies, of political leaders are
built – or destroyed – not only by them, but also by those that surround them.

Last
Wednesday, May 12, the media prominently reported the statement by Cairo
Ojougboh, the president’s special Adviser on National Assembly Matters, that
Mr. Jonathan will run for President in 2011.

“Mr.
President is a PDP president and he is a member of PDP, and Mr. President will
run under the PDP,” Mr. Ojougboh said, adding that “there is no moral
justification to ask Jonathan not to run.”

Hours
after that emphatic declaration Mr. Ojougboh was back in the news, with a press
statement claiming that the views he expressed earlier were his, espoused in
his personal capacity, and not on behalf of the President. In essence, he
disavowed his earlier statement. “Further to my interview earlier this morning,
let me state that at no time did I say that Mr. President mandated me to say he
will run in 2011. For the avoidance of doubt, I said the President can run if
he so decides and that it will be unfair to ask him not to run. If he decides
to run I will vote for him. All what I said is my personal belief as a private
citizen with the right to freedom of expression.”

We
have reason to believe that Mr. Ojougboh, by telling us that he was speaking on
behalf of himself and not the President, is being economical with the truth. It
is doubtful that a senior Presidential aide would, in making a statement about
a matter as potentially controversial as the President’s decision to go against
the party’s zoning agreement, conveniently forget to immediately qualify the
statement as personal.

It
appears that Mr. Ojougboh was knowingly playing the mischievous game of testing
the waters; and that the whole incident may have been engineered by the
Jonathan camp to gauge the reactions of Nigerians to the possibility of a 2011
Presidential campaign by him. Politicians have been known to create scenarios
like this, knowing that there is always the escape hatch of denial, of claiming
to have been misquoted or misinterpreted.

It is
this kind of ruse that former President Olusegun Obasanjo employs, years after
his failed bid to extend his rule to an unconstitutional third term. When Mr.
Obasanjo today boasts that he never wanted a third term, his ready evidence is
that not once did he ever hint or say that he was interested, and that is of
course, true.

But
we recall that a prominent tactic of that era was for the President himself to
remain silent and aloof while his aides and hangers-on huddled beneath the
umbrella of “personal opinion”, “personal belief” and the “right to freedom of
expression” to push and sell the 3rd term idea.

Mr.
Jonathan, it appears, is borrowing that disingenuous strategy. Posters are appearing
in Abuja and other towns, and all sorts of faceless groups have been calling on
the President to run in 2011 or throwing their weight behind his “intentions”
to run. Like Obasanjo in 2006, Mr. Jonathan, while eagerly dissociating himself
from these groups (through press statements issued by his aides), refuses to
make the much-needed categorical statement to put an end to rumours and
speculations. And to think that elections are only a few months away?

If,
on the other hand, if we chose to believe what Mr. Ojougboh would like us to
believe, that all he did was to in his capacity as a private citizen, make an
innocent personal statement, which subsequently suffered the misfortune of
being misinterpreted by the press and public, then we have to confront the
crucial question that arises regarding the quality of presidential counsel
surrounding the President. A senior Presidential adviser who does not hesitate
to make bold assertions about controversial matters regarding his principal is
clearly a bull in the Presidential china shop, and a staff that the President
would clearly be better off without. One wonders how many other such aides
surround the President, and how soon it will be before they cause him
irredeemable harm.

It is clear that
however we look at this incident, Mr. Ojougboh goofed. President Jonathan also
erred in more than one way: in not being more strident in his rebuke of his
aide; and in not clearing the air once and for all on his plans for the future.
He must be made to realise that years from now his legacy will be defined by
the way he has chosen to deal with touchy issues like this one.

On
May 5, President Umaru Yar’Adua ended all speculations about his health
by dying, and I am reminded of a lunch I had three years earlier,
shortly after his nomination as the presidential candidate of the
Peoples Democratic Party.

The food was good,
and the Taiwanese embassy was paying. Mr. Chan, who called to invite me
to the diplomatic lunch, only had one request, “Sheraton or Hilton?” So
to the Hilton we went.

The place was
filled with senior civil servants mostly, and some like me, top aides
to political office holders. I was then the senior special assistant to
the chief whip of the House of Representatives, Abubakar Bawa Bwari, a
man of singular integrity – which is partly why he is not the governor
of Niger State today. As Mr. Chan was to tell me that evening, in
halting but impeccable English, “You do not find fish in clean water.”
Anyway, a few minutes into the meal, two men from the embassy walked up
to me, introduced themselves and asked how I was enjoying the food. As
they were the sponsors, I obliged them with a reply and thanked them
for their kindness. And then in that humble, long-suffering manner of
the Chinese, the leader of the two asked me a question. “Why does your
President Olusegun Obasanjo need a sick man to succeed him?” It was
late2006, the heady days after the defeat of Mr. Obasanjo’s Third Term
Agenda, and shortly after his revenge (?) choice of Mr. Yar’Adua as the
PDP flag bearer. So I gave him the PDP answer: “ It is just rumour,
this sickness. No one really knows how sick the man is.” “We know,”
said the man from the Taiwanese embassy, blandly. “We have seen the
medical report. He is too ill.” I was stunned. Not so much by the fact
that for the first time I was meeting a man who was dead sure that Mr.
Yar’Adua was too far gone to function as president, but by the words:
we have seen the report. Was that possible?

And who were these
people who seemed to know so much about the medical history of my
anointed leader, something we had been told was sacrosanct?

Suddenly, the meal
wasn’t so free or sumptuous anymore, and while my colleague was giving
them the stock reply – Oh, Obasanjo just needed someone he could
control, someone who would do less than him so that it would seem that
he had done more than he really did – I was otherwise preoccupied with
divesting the fish of its bones.

“Mr. Jacob,” said
my host, “ Why ‘re you quiet, suddenly?” “Mr. Chan,” I said, “ I am
just enjoying the fish.” But all through the campaigns, I watched Mr.
Yar’Adua struggle on the stump, skirting states and events, leaving Mr.

Obasanjo and Dora Akunyili to do the loud part of his verbalisation for him.

When the rumour that he was dead started, I was scared until Mr. Obasanjo made that famous phone-call.

A man with a
secret, I waited in horror for its validation. But when two years into
his tenure nothing serious happened, I concluded that Mr. Obasanjo had
no diabolical plans, at least nothing worse than his usual megalomania
A few months before the PDP primaries, he had given hint of his
intentions at a midnight meeting held at the Aso Rock villa. Shortly
after the meeting, attended by party stalwarts, National Assembly
leaders, and the ubiquitous ‘stakeholders,’ began, the then president,
apropos of nothing, announced: “The governor of Katsina is doing very
well. He has N3 billion in his coffers when his colleagues are crying
that they are broke.” As usual, everyone nodded in support, shaking
their heads in flagrant amazement, smiling inanely. Then Mr. Bwari
asked, “Sir, does that mean that he had taken care of all the health
and education needs of the people? Because if he had not, wouldn’t it
be better to-” “Shut up,” said Mr. Obasanjo, shutting him up. “Haven’t
you people heard about saving for a rainy day?” Nobody talked
afterwards, and like most meetings with Mr. Obasanjo, it began and
ended with the sound of his voice.

Truth is, Obasanjo
was always worried that if he did not succeed himself, whoever does
should not be one capable of squandering the huge foreign reserve he
had accumulated. By this token, Ibrahim Babangida, Atiku Abubakar, and
Peter Odili who were the strong contenders, did not qualify. He chose a
little known governor with debilitating illness and the ability to
leave N3 billion in government coffers. He didn’t, as his critics
prefer to believe, do that so that Goodluck Jonathan, a man from the
South-South can by this way become president.

“What I need to say
is that nobody picked Yar’Adua so that he will not perform. If I did
that, God will punish me,” he said a few months ago.

Well, for very many reasons, God may yet punish him, but it will not be because of Mr. Yar’Adua.

In
Nigeria the issue of party funding has for long posed a serious concern
to watchers of our political scene. In the First and Second Republics
it was an issue that was hotly debated in the state parliaments and the
National Assembly.

It was the fear of
allowing the so called ‘moneybags’ to put political parties in their
pockets that led the regime of Ibrahim Babangida in the nineties to
make government partly responsible for their funding.

Under the 2006
Electoral Act currently in force while the recommendations of the Uwais
Panel is being debated, the National Assembly is empowered to approve a
grant to be disbursed to political parties. The 2006 law also
stipulates how the grant should be divided, 10 percent going to be
shared equally among the registered political parties and the remaining
90 percent disbursed in proportion to the number of National Assembly
seats won by each party. The law also gives INEC the power to place a
limit on the amount of money or other assets an individual or group can
contribute to a political party. For a presidential candidate the sum
is N500 million, governor N100 million, senator N20 million and a
representative N10 million. A state assembly candidate, or chairman N5
million and a local councillorship, N500,000.

It is an open question whether this aspect of the electoral law has ever been paid attention to not to talk of being enforced.

Some of the
present 50 parties have not in any way justified the money they receive
from government. It has been discovered that some of the parties only
exist on the pages of newspapers and magazines. They only function when
elections are coming or when funding is released by government. They
collect the funds, share and go home to rest till another round of
funding is available. A few of the parties are even run by close-knit
family members.

So what does a party exist for if it is only to share government funds?

As the nation
moves towards elections next year, it has become imperative to revisit
the issue. The Uwais Panel report recommends the continued funding of
parties by government through INEC, but suggests a ceiling for
individual donations for each category of office. These figures run
from a limit of N20 million for individual donations for a presidential
candidate to N15 million for a governor, N10 million for a senator, N3
million for a local government chairmanship candidate.

It makes eminent sense for party members to fund their own organisation.

If members pay
dues and subscriptions, there is the tendency that they will take the
party seriously and would not allow it to be hijacked.

In other countries
we know that parties raise funds through several avenues and there is a
limit to which an individual or corporate body can contribute to
parties, we must begin to have that here too.

This has become
necessary because we know how much corporate bodies and individuals
gave to the Obasanjo campaign fund during his first term, and we now
know how that affected or coloured his judgment in their favour.

Our stand is that
for electoral reform to be meaningful and effective it has to address
how political parties are to be funded. The nation should not think
that the removal of Maurice Iwu would spell clean elections and make
things run smoothly. One of the crucial pillars of democracy is
political parties and the proper nurturing and development of them
should not be neglected or else there is no way we can succeed as a
democracy. Finally, government funding of political parties as
desirable as it looks because it serves as a form of assistance to weak
parties, should be regulated. The Uwais panel recommends that only
parties that score 2.5 percent of the votes in the 2011 elections
should be eligible to receive funds from public grants, but this like
many other issues may be expunged in the final document that emerges
when the two houses have reconciled to produce a final bill.

In the final analysis whatever the form the legislation that makes
it through may take, it will have no effect if it is not enforced.

Starting a business
is fraught with peril; some business, some personal and some legal. The
most important business pitfalls to avoid based on my perspective in
working with a large number of start-up companies over the years are
lack of technical and administrative know how. Falling into any one of
these traps can mean the difference between success and failure or the
ability to attract money to fund the growth of the business.

A lot of
entrepreneurs have sellable business ideas but lack the operational
methods of executing these ideas. Some, whose businesses are
flourishing, become choked with the burden of monitoring when their
businesses expand. The drive to be one’s own boss can blind some
entrepreneurs to the pitfalls of owing a business.

Entrepreneurs can
reduce expected pitfalls in starting a business by identifying with
similar successful business and buying into it. I am arguing for
franchising. I have noticed few Nigerian entrepreneurs know about
franchising and those who know about it are not interested for the fear
of slaving no end for the franchisor.

Franchising means
buying into an already established business, opening a storefront or
territory under the name of that business and operating within the
boundaries established by the franchisor. It is a method a company uses
to distribute its products or services through retail outlets owned by
independent, third party operators. The independent operator does
business using the marketing methods, trademarked goods and services
and the “goodwill” and name recognition developed by the company. In
exchange, the independent operator pays an initial fee and royalties to
the owner of the franchise. The company that grants the independent
operator the right to distribute its trademarks, products, or
techniques is known as the franchiser. The independent, third party
business person distributing the franchiser’s products or services
through retail or service outlets is called the franchisee.

All over the world
people are choosing to run franchises instead of floating new
businesses as with franchising all the basic market surveys, research,
and business plans are already in place and working. So, entrepreneurs
young and old choose to become franchises of a running and profitable
chain and be their own bosses. If working for a company is not your cup
of tea then consider franchising as a business module, it has many
benefits:

1. When you take up
a franchise you are taking on a business that is already flourishing.
The business module is complete in all respects and any problems have
been ironed out by the person who first established the business. What
you get is a ready made package that just needs to be run.

2. By franchising
you get not just a business by all the support you need in terms of
marketing, customer relations, accounting, staff training and
deployment, as well as in the day to day running. You become part of a
local or global group that networks and interacts on all aspects of the
business.

3. Solutions to
hitches or problems encountered in business are always on hand, the
franchise chain will lend complete technical support and any other
assistance required. The chain will function as a single unit as far as
technology, machinery, group branding, and advertising and so on is
concerned.

4. The progress or
expansion in the business will occur as a collective group and
professional consultations and so on will be carried out for the whole
group of units. This means the think tank is much large as also the
resources.

5. Aspects like
future plans, product research, buying power, expansion of activities,
market surveys, and more will be done as a chain and so you will just
reap the benefits. The risk will be collective and not individual as in
other business modules.

6. You will be your
own boss and be working towards securing your own future. The devotion
and long hours will help you reap many benefits and respect.

7. With franchising
your staff would be trained by the franchise major and so what you will
get is people who can function well without constant supervision and
watching over. As the world innovates your business will keep abreast
of the changes.

World wide business
gurus advice that “a franchising business module is the safest and most
dependable choice in business entrepreneurship.” A franchise can make
dreams come true, of owning and running your own business without the
accompanying heartaches.

As with anything,
there are things you gain and things you lose. An independent
franchisee often has to follow the guidelines set forth by the
franchisor

Franchising your business also can be a way of making money,
expanding and reducing aches that come with business expansion. I
advice established Entrepreneurs to consider expansion by franchising
their businesses. Franchising is the way to go for start up
entrepreneurs especially the once without technical know how.

The quest to streamline the political space has returned to the front burner. Seven former governors stole quietly into the National Assembly last week to make a case for the reduction of the number of parties in the country, which now stands at 64.
Abdullahi Adamu, Victor Attah, Adamu Aliero, Peter Odili, Chris Ngige, Achike Udenwa and Abubakar Audu met separately with the senate president, David Mark, and the speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole, during which they canvassed for a two-party system.
The former state executives say the multi-party system that currently obtains in the country, does not give room for the emergence of healthy competition among political actors. They exploited the ongoing review of the 1999 Constitution and the 2006 Electoral Act by the federal legislature to make known their views.
Incidentally, they came two days before the clause on the political parties was to be considered by the members of the lower legislative chamber, but for the demise of former president, Umaru Yar’Adua.

One cannot say with certainty whether this agitation was selfishly motivated or not. For the first time, these former governors, most of whom left office nearly three years ago, came under one umbrella to canvass a position on issues of national interest. It is just possible that in these “last days” preceding the general elections, the former governors are seeking relevance so as not to completely lose out.
A closer look at these once powerful emperors in their respective states shows they had no option, but to engage in this new political move. Some of them are today jobless. Check out the list.
Of the lot, it is only Mr. Adamu that has a political job as the secretary of the PDP Board of Trustees. Even so, he has not been finding it easy. In March, the Sarkin Yakin Keffi, who is eyeing a seat in the senate, was harassed by opponents who took him to court over public funds he allegedly pocketed while in office.
But it is necessary to ignore these messengers, whatever their motive is, and concentrate on the message. Truly, the multi-party system makes the political space more open for participation of the citizens, the desired result cannot be said to have been obtained.
Rather than being institutional components of liberal democracy and competitive electoral process, it does appear the political parties have become avenues for some “smart” Nigerians to line up their pockets with public funds. Today, some, if not, all of the 55 parties are not people-oriented. Indeed, most are merely in the portfolios of their leaders.

Removing the party from the person

Let’s look at the beginning. Up to the First Republic, Nigerian political parties were regional and ethnic political parties. Regrettably too, they were formed around charismatic personalities who were also largely idolized.

For instance, the NCNC was built around Nnamdi Azikiwe, AG (Obafemi Awolowo), NPC ( Ahmadu Bello); NEPU (Aminu Kano); UMBC (Joseph Tarka) and others.

In the 2nd Republic, the situation was not radically different. The UPN was clearly a reincarnation of AG and dominated the Yoruba race, where Mr Awolowo hailed; NPP was peopled more by the Igbos, Mr Azikiwe’s ethic group; while the National Party for Nigeria, reincarnation of NPC, was dominated by the North.

The PRP was seen as a reincarnation of NEPU while GNPP and NAP (which was later registered in 1983) were built around Waziri Ibrahim and Tunji Braithwaite, respectively.

In the aborted third republic, though many political association emerged through yet deregulation process of party formation, the then Babangida military administration, determined to eliminate ethnic influence in the parties, decreed two parties into existence – National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) “a little to the left, and a little to the right.” The country returned to the deregulation of the process of establishing parties at the beginning of the current Fourth Republic, which led to multi-party system. Attempts to regulate the number of political parties in the country were nullified in 2002 by the Supreme Court, which in its judgement asked that qualified parties should be registered.

Facing the PDP

Following the judgement, more parties were registered. This year alone, many have joined the crowd thereby frustrating the desire of many that two or three stronger parties would evolve to dominate the political process as in the US and UK. As it is, only the PDP pretends to have a national spread among the existing parties.This, therefore, is an opportunity to initiate a serious and durable political party re-engineering by adopting a two party system.

The hint dropped by the Speaker, Dimeji Bankole, while receiving the former governors, that the House may prune the number of parties, is a welcome development. The chamber should, therefore, look in the direction of the two-party system.The system, it is believed will eliminate ethnic pluralism associated with the 1st and 2nd Republics, introduce genuinely national, ideological-based and issue-driven parties as well as provide strong, credible and virile opposition, which is a necessary component of democracy. Above all, it may just be a catalyst for credible elections like that of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections that was adjudged the best so far in the country.

Here is a thought, President Goodluck Jonathan: deliver on your promises.

Implement electoral reform and give us an efficient and functional power sector so that our economy can grow.

It is true that
the death of former president, Umaru Yar’Adua is likely to add to the
troubles currently bedeviling the ruling People’s Democratic Party
(PDP) to which you belong. But that should not worry you. Their
so-called gentleman’s agreement on rotational presidency is on the line
and squabbling is sure to follow any attempt to junket this inane
accord. Your refusal to rule yourself out of the race for office in
2011 is not likely to help matters.

As an incumbent
president in a country like Nigeria, where the constitution has vested
enormous power in your hands, you are almost omnipotent. The
appointment of the umpire for the 2011 elections, for example, rests
with you. So too do some other key appointments, such as that of vice
president and Justices of the Supreme Court, the final arbiters of any
dispute in our land including election petitions.

When we add to the
mix the fact that you are from the Niger Delta – the region that
generates most of Nigeria’s wealth but which has never produced any
president for the country – and that people of this region see your
ascendancy as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that cannot be
squandered, you will begin to understand why you are holding all the
aces.

You are in a
position to take on those in your ruling party who insist that they
want to adhere to a rotational system that has no place in a democratic
society, if you choose to.

My advice will be to not bother.

You should not
spend the limited time you have in office engaged in politicking. The
surest way you can remain in office is by delivering on the promises
you have made thus far to Nigerians.

Reform our
electoral processes so that our votes begin to count. Ensure that we
begin to utilise the vast resources we have – from gas and coal to
solar – to power our homes and workplaces and you will have nothing to
worry about.

The death of the
former president means the country is emerging from the twilight zone
it entered. It has removed the uncertainty that was hanging over your
presidency and should allow all those politicians who have been hedging
their bets to do that which they do best, quickly switch allegiance and
line up behind you, the man in power. So, your presidency, which
started on a shaky note, has a more solid foundation. All that is left
is to deliver to Nigerians.

Do not get
distracted. There are those who will want you to waste precious time
writing notes to your ministers, so they can be get contracts. Others
will want to lobby you for plump appointments into various government
agencies. Another bunch will try to convince you that you must find
money and dole it out to them so they can begin campaigning for your
election in 2011. They will not care how you lay your hands on the
funds, whether legitimately or illegitimately.

Politicians will try to convince you that you need to make less than kosher deals for your survival.

But all that will be hogwash as long as you fulfill you promises.

A robust electoral system will mean you cannot be rigged out of office if Nigerians decide you are their man and vote for you.

Please remember
that just as being from a certain region in itself should not be an
automatic ticket into the highest political office in the land,
incumbency too should not automatically lead to a mandate. How you
perform in office over the next one year should be the determinant of
whether you are fit to run for office and if, indeed, Nigerians will
elect you. If you want to remain our president beyond 2011, you should
begin, today, to earn those votes.