There are many lessons to learn from the art as well as practice of politics. One is that political power is hardly ever given on a platter; even when the contrary appears to be on the surface, if you searched diligently you would soon unearth the compelling reasons why power had to be offered. A recent example here was the aftermath of the June 12th crisis when political power was thrust on the South-west. Whereas spin doctors have attempted to make it look as if power shift was a patriotic venture by altruistic politicians with the interest of the country at heart, we knew it was class settlement by deceit for selfish reasons. Another lesson is this: Power, once attained by whatever means, is not easily and willingly relinquished. Wars have been fought on this score and civilizations ruined. South Africa’s Nelson Mandela remains a notable exception in recent memory. He legally was entitled to two terms of four year each as President of his country but elected to give way after serving one term. If all leaders were like Mandela, single tenure, which has hijacked Jonathan from more pressing national issues, would not have been our bother here.

To many, Jonathan’s present Messiah-nic posturing appears hypocritical since he himself is as guilty of the problem he is trying to solve as other players in the polity; when the opportunity presented itself to him to play Mandela, he demurred, thereby polarising the country along pro-zoning and anti-zoning forces. If he had upheld his party’s zoning formula, completed the late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s term, supervised credible elections and returned home to the Niger Delta, he would have gone down in history as another Mandela. But he was not the first Nigerian to spurn that choice; before him had been Yakubu Gowon who became so enamoured with power that he sought to perpetuate himself in office. In 1974, he declared 1976, the date he himself had earlier given for the return of the country to democratic rule, as “no longer realistic”. Months later, he was ignominiously booted out of power. Today Gowon is the leader of “Nigeria Prays”; what a malapropism! “Gowon Prays” would have been a better title. And may the good Lord forgive him.

The virus did not disappear with Gowon’s sack but festered to afflict other leaders down the line, with the exception of military head of state Olusegun Obasanjo, who honoured his government’s pledge to hand over power to civilians in 1979. The international goodwill that Obasanjo enjoys today derives from that action, even though his scantily concealed efforts to sit tight as civilian President decades after has dented that record. Ibrahim Babangida shifted the goal posts of return to civil rule many times to perpetuate self until he was disgraced out of office; the worst of the military specie ever to rule this country, Sani Abacha, had virtually transmuted into president- for- life before God mercifully carted him away. Abdulsalami Abubakar was another military leader who honoured his pledge to hand over power and, like Obasanjo, has become, because of that singular act, an international figure. Aspects of his rule are often called to question locally but I doubt if he would ever be made to stand in the dock; being a gentleman with political power covers a multitude of sins. Obasanjo, who took over from Abdulsalami, threw a chunk of his honour to the dogs when he flirted with tenure elongation; had he not retreated early enough, it is doubtful that he would still be the international figure that he is today. He is hugely respected abroad but passionately derided at home.

We are not God but many are those who said Yar’Adua would have been alive today or would at least have lived longer than he did had he relinquished power to face his health issues. But he clung – or they made him cling – unto power even in death. That event threw the country into a constitutional crisis bettered only by the events of June 12th.

Single tenure is not the answer for the virus of sit-tight-ism; men and women of honour and integrity is. And the problem is not indigenous to Nigeria as it is a world-wide phenomenon. Witness what is happening in the Arab world: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and now Libya, to mention but a few. Men who had been in power for thirty-something, forty-something years still did not mind going to war to cling unto power. Leaders become so blinded by power that they no longer see reality. Was that not what happened to Laurent Gbagbo in Cote d’Ivoire? Isn’t it also playing itself out in Senegal, Zimbabwe, Uganda and many other places? Even in the so-called advanced countries, it took an impatient Gordon Brown for Tony Blair to reluctantly relinquish power in Britain; in Russia, Putin shuttles between the offices of President and Prime Minister to remain in power, and in the United States, elections were blatantly rigged for George Bush Jnr. to win a second term as president.

We are not likely to see the end of sit-tight leaders for a long time to come because not all men will ever be like Mandela. It helps to curb the scourge, however, where there are strong institutions able to rein in the beast in every human being. In this regard, our country Nigeria has a long way to go. Which of our many national institutions is strong enough to perform its constitutionally-assigned roles without fear or favour? Is it the Police, EFCC, Customs, CBN, National Assembly, Judiciary or even INEC? Did you read the latest report of Human Rights Watch in which it dry-cleaned and hung out the EFCC to dry? Witness also the shame that covers the Judiciary in this hour. A friend breezed into my office last week to discuss the single tenure issue; despite the many assurances that Jonathan reportedly has given, he reeled out about half a dozen scenarios that could be employed to elongate Jonathan’s tenure once the single tenure proposal sails through. Man! But didn’t God who created man Himself have this to say, to wit, “The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked; who may know it”?

It takes desperately wicked hearts for anyone to propose the withdrawal of petroleum subsidy in this country. The United States where Okonjo-Iweala is coming from subsidizes agriculture; there is no Western country that does not subsidize one thing or the other for its citizens. Did not the World Bank see all of that? The World Trade Organization, even the European Union, has run into hitches on account of member-countries’ reluctance to stop subsidies that benefit their people. If petrol subsidy is removed, what will the Jonathan administration subsidize for the people? Since 1999 that we have had civil rule, the issue of petrol subsidy has never failed to rear its ugly head. The Obasanjo Administration, in efforts to remove this so-called subsidy, jerked up the pump price of petrol many times; yet, they say the subsidy is not only there but also that it gets worse. It has become a case of the more you look the less you see or like our national debt before a part of it was “forgiven” us, the more you pay, the more you owe. The more subsidies are removed in this country, the more subsidies remain! Who will deliver us?

The figures they bandy about are truly mind-boggling; N2.6 billion every day is a princely figure. To whom are they paying this amount? From my layman’s point of view, it would appear that a better policy is for government to build refineries from its own pockets and then hand them over, even free of charge, to the private sector to run. That way, government will lose less money that it is losing now. But they insist they must first remove subsidy to make the environment conducive for the private sector to move in to build local refineries, which everyone agrees is the panacea for this cankerworm. But full de-regulation, as they call it, will never be achieved. According to the latest figures, we will pay about N150 for a litre of petrol to create conducive environment for the private sector to move in. Even at that, there is no guarantee that the price will remain at N150 for a long time as it will be subject to the vagaries of international trade, which we do not control. Now, if government announces a new petrol pump price of N150 tomorrow, the likely scenarios that will follow can be easily conjectured: Organised labour will kick and issue ultimatums; civil society groups will join the fray; strike action will commence and government will be forced to negotiate with Labour to bring the announced price down. In the end, subsidies remain and the environment is still not okay for the private sector to come in to build refineries. We have so moved in circles since 1999. Are we about to embark upon another such fruitless journeys?

My honest advice is this: If we must remove subsidy, this time around let us go the whole hog; no half measures please. As the Yoruba will say, “Pata-pata la n f’oju, ginni-ginni l’a n d’ete, oju a fo i fo tan, ija l’o n da s’ile”. Translated, it means, “Better to be blind than be half-blind and for the leper to be leprous from head to toe because when a man is half blind, it causes needless controversies”. Once government decides to remove subsidy, it must be prepared to ride the storm all the way, for only by successfully riding the storm can it have a chance of solving this perennial problem of subsidy once and for all. And if the storm to come takes on the fury and assumes the character of Tunisia’s and Egypt’s, so be it!

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment