What I had wished Buhari would do

Let me have the audacity to say this. I wished that President Buhari would do it differently in the appointment of his ministers for his second term in office. What did I wish for? I wished he would not give all the ministerial slots to the members of his party, APC. I wished he would […]

Let me have the audacity to say this. I wished that President Buhari would do it differently in the appointment of his ministers for his second term in office. What did I wish for? I wished he would not give all the ministerial slots to the members of his party, APC. I wished he would do it differently by fishing for the best hands even in the ponds of the main opposition party, PDP, go against the political tradition and have a rainbow cabinet made up of party men and apolitical professionals and technocrats in their various fields to help him expand his options in the decision-making process. To put it differently, I wished he would be less of a politician and more of a statesman.

I was disappointed that my wishes remained with me as mere wishes and Buhari chose to stick to the safety of our political tradition. I understand. It was insanely audacious of me to wish the big man to do things differently. I know it would take a revolution, no, not what is being sold to us by Omoyele Sowore, to ditch a political tradition that has served every president since independence. It was not entirely his fault. It was partly the fault of our political tradition now more or less cast in stone, and partly the fault of our hybrid governance system. Only President Obasanjo so far has had the temerity to recruit technocrats into his cabinet: Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Professor Charles Soludo, Nasir El-Rufai, Professor Ode Ojowu and others.

When the generals imposed this very expensive presidential system on us, they failed to rid the system of the detritus left on our psyche by the parliamentary system, the foundation of our governance system we inherited from our British colonial authorities. The detritus of the parliamentary system created problems for the presidential governance system. We conflated the parliamentary system with the executive presidential system. It is a bad thing because instead of sauntering down the boulevard of a progressive political system, we are forced to do what the duck does, waddle, saddled with the old and the new.

There are fundamental differences between the parliamentary and the executive presidential governance systems. The parliamentary system is a party system and, therefore, purely a party reward system. You would not expect the British prime minister to appoint ministers from any other party than his own or even technocrats into his cabinet. The ministers are legislators elected on the platform of the particular party. The emphasis here is on party interests and the advancement of same one election after the other. Cabinet ministers always keep sharp eyes on the fortunes of the party in the next general election because they too are elected parliamentarians.

On the other hand, in the executive presidential system, at least the American model, governance makes no room for crass party interests. Once the elected president takes office, the party must fade and give way to a governance system that is not based on party loyalty or support but essentially on what is best for America. The president is given a free hand by the party to recruit Americans with proven competence wherever they might be found, including the opposition party, into his cabinet. Unencumbered by the peculiar demands of party loyalty, these non-party appointees act without political bias or party interests.

When you conflate the two systems, as we have done, you have serious problems determining which comes first – party interests and fortunes or national interests and development. Let me have the audacity to suggest that the conflation of the two governance systems and the resultant current hybrid governance system has caused enormous confusion in our governance system. It has put party interests over and above all other interests. A cabinet composed entirely of party men and women is a house of chaos. In Buhari’s current cabinet are returning ministers, former state governors and former senators. These men and women have had their hands on the levers of power, some for sixteen or more years and are for ever in competition. Such men are forever plotting their next political moves to ensure that their hands remain firmly on the levers of power as kings, king-makers or princes. Their continued presence in the corridors of power guarantees them the right to make or unmake the political fortunes of others as godfathers and godmothers.

A president has a four-year tenure but only half of that time is devoted to governance. The last two years are devoted to politics in the necessary alignment or re-alignment of forces and interests towards the next general elections. Given the loyalty deficit in our political parties, no cabinet minister can be counted to remain loyal to the party that brought him into power or the president if his current position would not advance his future political interests. Even before the chips are down, each man or woman begins the hunt for new opportunities for access to the corridors of power in the next administration. Our fluid political system forces one party bleed to give birth to another political party or improve the fortunes of a rival party. Our hybrid system emphasises party reward system but it has failed to produce stable and cohesive political parties.

But just to show you the level of party loyalty deficit, some of the men who helped to build PDP from 1999 and were duly rewarded for their loyalty as president, governors and legislators for sixteen years, ditched it in 2014 and helped to enthrone APC that went on to win the general elections in 2015. But APC itself barely escaped the PDP fate in this year’s general elections.

You do not need to consult the babalawo, although I was tempted to do so, to know that APC post-Buhari might not even recognise itself. I make the prediction out of a) pity for a country whose politics is now defined by party loyalty deficit b) out of pity for our politicians who are merely contented with finding the best buttered bread in every election circle and c) out of pity for a hybrid governance system condemned to blow in the wind.