Jonathan And The Politics Of Running For President
To the Chairman of the Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) and former Governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Balarabe Musa, President Goodluck Jonathan should not run in the 2011 election because his name on the ballot automatically means that the elections are not likely to be free and fair.
Speaking to this reporter on this issue recently, the elder statesman asked, "How can he ensure free, fair and transparent election when he is contesting?"
I had my reservations about Balarabe Musa's position. But I didn't make much of it because, he is a politician. Politicians can always come up with any line of argument or position as long as it suits whatever agenda they are pursuing.
I was wrong to think that it is only politicians that could hold the kind of view being propagated by Alhaji Musa; this is because even renowned academics have joined the fray.
Speaking as a guest lecturer at a one-day summit/Award Presentation of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Political Scientist, Prof. Jonah Isawa Elaigum advised President Goodluck Jonathan not to run in next year's presidential election if he hoped to ensure free and fair elections.
The highly rated Professor also observed that leaders like Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, and Jerry Rawlings of Ghana had all demonstrated "a sense of honour and handed over power at the most appropriate time, and they are still recognized as exceptional leaders of the continent."
This position to me appeared too pedestrian in its presentation and the supporters of Jonathan can easily come up with a far superior argument on this matter. Besides, with the exception of Nelson Mandela all the other leaders mentioned exhausted their constitutionally allowed tenure while in office. Kaunda was literarily chased out of power while Rawlings can only take credit for allowing the opposition party to take over government after he exhausted his tenure and his party fail to convince Ghanaians that it should still be trusted with power after Rawlings era.
That aside, how do you convince the international community to support your campaign that the sitting president should not run because if he does the election would not be free and fair.
Has it become a standard practice that sitting president's should step aside before a credible election can be guaranteed? So if the United States, Britain, France and even South African among others want to have credible elections, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicholas Salkozy and Jacob Zuma should not stand for re-election. I know that as a result of the country's political history of incumbents manipulating the electoral process to suit their whims and caprices, many believe that it is an impossibility for an incumbent to conduct election in which he would lose. But times are changing. We will get back to that.
To me, it makes no difference whether Jonathan runs or not. My position on this subject is that, if he want to run, he should not run under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
I have what I considered cogent, verifiable and moral reasons why he should not pick the PDP ticket.
Agreed that President Jonathan has the right under the constitution to vie for the position of president of the country in 2011. He is very eligible on that score and you cannot take that away from him.
However, the same constitution that guaranteed him right to contest also insisted that the candidate for elective positions must be presented for elections by a political party.
And political parties have constitutions and other rules and regulations that control the conduct of members. The PDP, which Jonathan is a member has a constitution which insist among other things that party offices and elective public offices shall be based on the principles of zoning or rotation in the interest of fairness and the unity of the country.
Based on that principle, the position of the president of the country was allotted to the South for eight years under the leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo. Similarly, the party allotted the position to the North for another eight years, with late Umaru Musa Yar'Adua as President. However before, Yar'Adua could exhaust the North's eight years at the presidency he died and Goodluck Jonathan a Southerner takes over.
Now the North whose tenure is still running is insisting that the PDP obey its laws and allow the zone to finish its time at the presidency, but others are saying Jonathan's emergence is "divine", so let him be allowed to take the North position and in the process midwife the death of zoning in the polity.
The matter has gotten so heated up that the PDP had to kowtow to the pressure from Jonathan and his supporters by giving a waiver to the president to contest for its ticket even though the presidential slot should have been a sole northern affair.
It is clear to many dissenable mind, that based on the PDP constitution, Jonathan cannot run for president unless he leaves the party for another. That is the moral thing to do.
It is also morally wrong for the president to ignore the sensibility of the Northern leaders whose position he want to occupy. A president should be a man of honour. And anybody aspiring to that height in leadership must be guided by honour, integrity and adherence to due process both at the micro and macro levels of associations or groups that he subscribed to.
To me, it is not enough to have the legal rights for the position of president, the moral standing is even more important because a leader must command respect and confident of those he governs. Discard the moral ground and a leader stands on nothing.
The last time, I checked, the meaning of moral, I saw that it means; ETHICAL; GOOD; RIGHT; HONEST; DECENT; PROPER; HONOURABLE AND JUST. And I ask whether Jonathan's ambition in a PDP platform met all these characteristics of morality in line with the party's rules and regulations?
Meanwhile, I believe strongly from the depth of my belly that the incumbency factor would amount to nothing in this part of the world beginning from next year's election. If only Nigerians would vote and guard their vote from being stolen.
Therefore telling the president not to run at all, because of the fear that he is likely to manipulate the process in his own favour is not plausible if Nigerians would ensure that the elections are free and fair. As it is, it is only Nigerians and not Jonathan that can guarantee that the votes are not stolen.
Speaking to this reporter on this issue recently, the elder statesman asked, "How can he ensure free, fair and transparent election when he is contesting?"
I had my reservations about Balarabe Musa's position. But I didn't make much of it because, he is a politician. Politicians can always come up with any line of argument or position as long as it suits whatever agenda they are pursuing.
I was wrong to think that it is only politicians that could hold the kind of view being propagated by Alhaji Musa; this is because even renowned academics have joined the fray.
Speaking as a guest lecturer at a one-day summit/Award Presentation of the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Political Scientist, Prof. Jonah Isawa Elaigum advised President Goodluck Jonathan not to run in next year's presidential election if he hoped to ensure free and fair elections.
The highly rated Professor also observed that leaders like Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, and Jerry Rawlings of Ghana had all demonstrated "a sense of honour and handed over power at the most appropriate time, and they are still recognized as exceptional leaders of the continent."
This position to me appeared too pedestrian in its presentation and the supporters of Jonathan can easily come up with a far superior argument on this matter. Besides, with the exception of Nelson Mandela all the other leaders mentioned exhausted their constitutionally allowed tenure while in office. Kaunda was literarily chased out of power while Rawlings can only take credit for allowing the opposition party to take over government after he exhausted his tenure and his party fail to convince Ghanaians that it should still be trusted with power after Rawlings era.
That aside, how do you convince the international community to support your campaign that the sitting president should not run because if he does the election would not be free and fair.
Has it become a standard practice that sitting president's should step aside before a credible election can be guaranteed? So if the United States, Britain, France and even South African among others want to have credible elections, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicholas Salkozy and Jacob Zuma should not stand for re-election. I know that as a result of the country's political history of incumbents manipulating the electoral process to suit their whims and caprices, many believe that it is an impossibility for an incumbent to conduct election in which he would lose. But times are changing. We will get back to that.
To me, it makes no difference whether Jonathan runs or not. My position on this subject is that, if he want to run, he should not run under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
I have what I considered cogent, verifiable and moral reasons why he should not pick the PDP ticket.
Agreed that President Jonathan has the right under the constitution to vie for the position of president of the country in 2011. He is very eligible on that score and you cannot take that away from him.
However, the same constitution that guaranteed him right to contest also insisted that the candidate for elective positions must be presented for elections by a political party.
And political parties have constitutions and other rules and regulations that control the conduct of members. The PDP, which Jonathan is a member has a constitution which insist among other things that party offices and elective public offices shall be based on the principles of zoning or rotation in the interest of fairness and the unity of the country.
Based on that principle, the position of the president of the country was allotted to the South for eight years under the leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo. Similarly, the party allotted the position to the North for another eight years, with late Umaru Musa Yar'Adua as President. However before, Yar'Adua could exhaust the North's eight years at the presidency he died and Goodluck Jonathan a Southerner takes over.
Now the North whose tenure is still running is insisting that the PDP obey its laws and allow the zone to finish its time at the presidency, but others are saying Jonathan's emergence is "divine", so let him be allowed to take the North position and in the process midwife the death of zoning in the polity.
The matter has gotten so heated up that the PDP had to kowtow to the pressure from Jonathan and his supporters by giving a waiver to the president to contest for its ticket even though the presidential slot should have been a sole northern affair.
It is clear to many dissenable mind, that based on the PDP constitution, Jonathan cannot run for president unless he leaves the party for another. That is the moral thing to do.
It is also morally wrong for the president to ignore the sensibility of the Northern leaders whose position he want to occupy. A president should be a man of honour. And anybody aspiring to that height in leadership must be guided by honour, integrity and adherence to due process both at the micro and macro levels of associations or groups that he subscribed to.
To me, it is not enough to have the legal rights for the position of president, the moral standing is even more important because a leader must command respect and confident of those he governs. Discard the moral ground and a leader stands on nothing.
The last time, I checked, the meaning of moral, I saw that it means; ETHICAL; GOOD; RIGHT; HONEST; DECENT; PROPER; HONOURABLE AND JUST. And I ask whether Jonathan's ambition in a PDP platform met all these characteristics of morality in line with the party's rules and regulations?
Meanwhile, I believe strongly from the depth of my belly that the incumbency factor would amount to nothing in this part of the world beginning from next year's election. If only Nigerians would vote and guard their vote from being stolen.
Therefore telling the president not to run at all, because of the fear that he is likely to manipulate the process in his own favour is not plausible if Nigerians would ensure that the elections are free and fair. As it is, it is only Nigerians and not Jonathan that can guarantee that the votes are not stolen.
Comments
Post a Comment