Mandela, single term and our selfish elites

Mandela’s decision to take just a single term, even when his countrymen and women would have been glad to have him as life president, or at least given him a second term in office, according to the constitution of South Africa, made him a legend.He demonstrated that a single term of just five years (1994-1999) […]

Mandela’s decision to take just a single term, even when his countrymen and women would have been glad to have him as life president, or at least given him a second term in office, according to the constitution of South Africa, made him a legend.
He demonstrated that a single term of just five years (1994-1999) was more than enough to dismantle and heal the wounds inflicted by apartheid, entrench racial harmony, robust multi-racial democracy and profound socio-economic transformations in South Africa. He did not need a second term to “complete the good works he started” or endear himself to the entire world, such that in death, as in life, the world and its leaders have literally stood still for this great son of Africa. His homes have become a Mecca of sort to people of all races.
Expectedly, our own political elite are also falling on themselves to pay tribute to Madiba. Sadly, not many of them are ready to live or make a quarter of Mandela’s matchless sacrifices in national interest. I find their glowing tributes to Madiba for taking a single term and achieving so much under it so laughable and hypocritical, because this is the same single term they have always hit with sharp criticisms at home.
For instance, the initial reaction to single term was that it was a ploy to shortchange the North on its eight years entitlement to power, when power eventually reverts to them. Some said it was a ploy to elongate President Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure. But when the Senate Committee on Constitution Review recommended it with a proviso that the incumbents would not benefit from it, the incumbents, including some presidential aides who initially saw it as our magic wand for arresting a perennial disease, made a “U-turn” and accused Senator Ekweremadu and the Senate of plotting to deny President Jonathan and governors a second term.
Fielding questions on the speculation that his committee’s decision to exclude certain categories of elected office holders from benefiting from the single term proposal was aimed at making ways for some members of the National Assembly, Ekweremadu said: “Nobody is working towards anything, and as a matter of fact, for those of us who believe in providence, power comes from God, not by scheming. What we are doing is informed by patriotism and in the best interest of the country.”
That the proposal failed 86 to 14 votes on the floor of the Senate on July 16, 2013 showed that our politicians, unlike Mandela, are not ready for that kind of sacrifice.
Instructively, however, the ugly political maneuvers and crisis that the proposal sought to prevent has engulfed the country almost immediately. The ruling party exploded in crisis. On the floor of the Senate in September, David Mark said: “It is disheartening that even though the general elections of 2015 are two years away, political jobbers, sycophants and hustlers have prematurely seized the political space, employing every weapon, including threats of war and open saber rattling to advance their partisan causes.”
Responding to a question on the possibility of resuscitating the single term proposal since it was obviously dropped in error, Ekeremadu said it was sad that an inspiration his committee drew from Latin American countries was rejected. He added, “If you look at what is going on now, all the problems we are having in Nigeria are issues of succession. I think one of the mistakes we made in our recommendations was when we said that the incumbents would not benefit from it. I think there was some kind of coalition of forces to defeat it.”
He said one option open to the country, from the foregoing, was a win-win single term transition period of possibly two years with incumbents in the saddle. That way, both the president and the governors will exit at the same time, while the legislative elections still hold in 2015.
He also explained that such would help to allay the fears of some governors fighting the president because they believe he would hound them if he remained in office while they leave in 2015. The two-year gap between legislative and executive elections as is the case in the USA, and even many African countries would also reduce the cost of elections. He said in the interview that it would ensure that the whole country is not always engulfed in executive/legislature election fever at once, while allowing INEC enough time to recover and prepare in between elections.
This, too, has earned Ekweremadu scathing reactions from mainly the opposition. No one expects everybody to agree with Ekweremadu’s personal views, but the sad thing is that single term rejection revolves around narrow interests of the political elite. First, the recommendation by the Ekweremadu committee that barred incumbents from benefiting from single term was defeated because governors and president’s handlers believe eight years is their birthright.
The current suggestion by Senator Ekweremadu is being castigated and even termed tenure elongation in some quarters, because some, especially from the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) and its cohorts believe they are already home dry as far as 2015 presidential and gubernatorial seats are concerned. They forget the flipside, which is that Ekweremadu’s suggestion could also cut Jonathan’s tenure by two years, because if he contests and wins, he would be in office till 2019!
Must Nigeria always revolve around a few over-pampered, greedy power mongers? Should Nigeria continue to live at the mercy of personal, sectional, ethno-religious and political interests? Like Mandela, Nigerians should live for their country.
 Sanusi, a political analyst, lives in Damaturu.