No victor, no vanquished: Between Gowon and Goodluck

In order to demonstrate that he really meant what he said, Gowon announced the three Rs – Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. Indeed, Gowon started the processes of achieving the first two Rs and before his regime’s overthrow by Gen. Murtala Mohammed of blessed memory in 1975. However, until very recently, the Igbos whose attempt to […]

In order to demonstrate that he really meant what he said, Gowon announced the three Rs – Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. Indeed, Gowon started the processes of achieving the first two Rs and before his regime’s overthrow by Gen. Murtala Mohammed of blessed memory in 1975. However, until very recently, the Igbos whose attempt to secede brought about the war, had been complaining of marginalization in the Nigerian project. The current Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lt. Gen Azubuike Ihejirika is the first Igbo man to head the Nigerian Army after General Aguiyi Ummaunakwe Ironsi who was killed during the July 1966 counter coup led by the officers of northern extraction.

To General Effiong and the rest of Biafra, there was no illusion that they had clearly lost the war; they were the vanquished; while Gowon and the Federal forces were the victors. Gowon’s declaration was aimed to achieve one or two purposes. One, to give the impression, that it was pointless to jubilate after a triumph over one’s brother, two to calm frayed nerves and third to underscore the senselessness of the war, in the first place. Lastly, for Gowon, he engaged the Biafrans for only one reason – keeping Nigeria one. But again, Gowon kept to his declaration and engaged in practical reconstruction and reconciliation.

Nigeria is once again faced with a no victor, no vanquished situation, courtesy of President Goodluck Jonathan. Unlike Gowon’s declaration in January 1970, this time around, Jonathan made his declaration after being announced as the winner of the 2011 Presidential election by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). That declaration could also be interpreted to mean the acceptance of the instrument of surrender, after all elections and wars are one and the same going by former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s theory of do-or-die politics. So in essence, for the PDP, electoral contest is war. After winning the “war”, like Gowon, the President, in order to soothe nerves announced no victor no vanquished mantra. Jonathan also described his victory as one for the nation and democracy after a supposed “free, fair and credible elections”. Really?

Poor Jonathan, while he was busy with his declaration, some parts of his country were up in flames. Angry youths in their thousands trooped into the streets of Yola, Kano, Katsina, Bauchi, Gombe, Potiskum and Sokoto among others, burning tyres, barricading roads, killing, maiming and torching houses belonging to elite members of the ruling PDP, all in protest against Jonathan’s victory, especially the number of votes recorded in favour of the president in those states by INEC. Security forces responded with maximum force resulting in several deaths and injuries. The number of those killed was put at over 200; while about 40,000 have been reported displaced.

Violence of whatever colour or size and the reason behind it should stand condemned by any right thinking person in civil society. Violence had also hardly solved a situation. Common sense should have prevailed. The destruction of places of worship clearly exposed the senselessness of those involved.

But the question must be asked after all said and done. What could have led to the violent protest that followed the declaration of Jonathan as winner of the 2011 Presidential Election? Could a mere declaration of a presidential election result, solely responsible for the wanton destruction of properties and killing in the north? We may have to look at our recent political history in order to arrive at answers to the posers above. First, our recent history does not lend a support that the declaration of a presidential election winner was enough to give rise to violent reaction. For instance, during the Second Republic, despite the controversy of 12 2/3 by the National Party of Nigeria (NPN’s) Chief Richard Akinjide, leading to Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s declaration as duly elected President in 1979, heavens did not fall. In the current dispensation, Gen Muhammadu Buhari lost elections to former President Obasanjo and the late Umaru Yar’adua in the polls considered as the most flawed and manipulated in the history of elections in Nigeria, there was no such violent reactions from the north.

Again, something must have been responsible for the spontaneous angry reactions from across the northern states after INEC pronouncement of Jonathan as winner over Gen. Buhari. Let’s find out. It is a known fact that whenever there is an electoral contest, there is bound to be winner and loser. Right from the outset, while one is not trying to justify any reason for the violent reactions, one would however say, it would have been avoided. Why and how?

Despite the President’s resolve and commitment to a free, fair and credible polls in 2011, many, felt it was not going to be possible since the president was a contestant. The Jonathan project and its promoters gave the impression that the project was going to be a do or die affair. Otherwise respected elder statesmen started speaking from both sides of their mouth over the propriety or otherwise of PDP’s zoning formula. Many among those who supported the arrangement during Obasanjo tenure decided to distance themselves from the arrangement describing it as archaic, undemocratic and unconstitutional simply in support of Jonathan. Before one could say Jack Robinson, newspapers and newsmagazines were awash with all sorts of logic and illogic on zoning. The debate that followed whether the arrangement should be retained or discarded almost tore the nation apart. Northern politicians such as former President Ibrahim Babangida, Malam Adamu Ciroma, Alhaji Saleh Hassan, Alhaji Yahaya Kwande, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and several others kicked against the idea of Jonathan contesting in violation of the zoning arrangement in the PDP.

Those opposed to Jonathan felt, the north should be allowed to finish Yar’adua’s term. Though the PDP leadership and the incumbent factors combined together to defeat zoning, the arrangement still remained in the minds of the average northerner who found in Gen. Buhari, a symbol to actualize zoning of the presidency and bring it back to the north.

Generally speaking the presidential elections had been adjudged as free and fair and conducted under peaceful atmosphere. But the opposition are crying wolf saying the poll was rigged scientifically, during computation of the results.

Those who felt disenchanted with the electoral process should still go to the polling units next Tuesday to vote out those governors they felt connived to tilt the balance in favour of another candidate other than their choice. Burning the voter’s cards is counter productive.

Garba Yedimakudon, wrote from 1 Kpashimuna Street Lamurde, Adamawa State