Will Jonathan stepping aside solve Nigeria’s problems?

The President was said to have made the statement on at a “Democracy Day” church service held in Abuja. For effect it was also reported that before the president’s speech, the head of Nigeria Pilgrims Commission, Reverend John Kennedy Opara, had sold the gathering that this year’s Democracy Day would be the last to be […]

The President was said to have made the statement on at a “Democracy Day” church service held in Abuja. For effect it was also reported that before the president’s speech, the head of Nigeria Pilgrims Commission, Reverend John Kennedy Opara, had sold the gathering that this year’s Democracy Day would be the last to be celebrated by President Jonathan.
If the above report was true, – it has not been denied to the best of my knowledge- it would be the clearest hint by the President that he may not contest next year’s presidential election. If the story turns out to be true, it will be interesting to find out if the decision was forced on him or if it was his.
For those who believe in prophecies by pastors, malams and jujumen (I don’t), there have not been shortage of prophecies on whether Jonathan will contest next year’s elections, and whether he will win if he does. There have also not been shortages of threats by those who believe that Jonathan contesting or not contesting (or even contesting and losing) will lead to the disintegration of the country. Given the negative international media that the President received over his handling of the abduction of the Chibok girls, others have argued that the ‘international community’ is likely to prevail on the President not to contest in 2015 in order to prevent the country from falling over the precipice. Ranking US senator John McCain for instance derisively said there was no government in Nigeria in the heat of the furore over the kidnap of the Chibok girls. I declined to be a part of a televised hearing by the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate on the Chibok Affair but it was clear from my telephone discussions with those who contacted me following a three part article on Brookings Institution’s website on Boko Haram during the kidnap saga, that the government’s handling (or lack of it) of the affair was a big issue for them.
The above raises a very fundamental question: If President Jonathan does not run in 2015, or is prevented from running, will that resolve the current crisis facing the country, especially the security challenge and the apparently heightened distrust among Nigerians?
There are a number of important observations in this regard:
One, while I believe that Jonathan could do better in several respects, especially mustering the political will to use the power he has decisively in the interest of the generality of Nigerians,  it will be simplistic to equate him with the problems of the country. Boko Haram got radicalized in 2009 – before he became President, armed robbery and kidnapping also predated him. The country’s fault lines especially that between the north and south, deepened markedly under Obasanjo, especially during his ill-fated third term project. At a point, Obasanjo was a figure many northerners loved to hate–though this seemed to have changed after his opportunistic open letter to the president. The current security challenges and crisis in our nation-building were therefore already evolving before President Jonathan stepped in as President. A valid criticism is that a leader with the right roadmap ought to have found ways to reverse some of the ugly trends rather than allowing them to grow worse under this watch.
Two, the focus on Jonathan to step aside misses the point that his candidacy has now grown larger than him – and this is irrespective of whether he is perceived as incompetent or not. In our peculiar form of identity politics and politics of ‘our turn’, people privilege one of their own over someone from the out-group, even if the latter is far more competent than their own ‘son’. Essentially, for many people from the South-south, the way Nigerians treat their son will determine whether the oil resources in their backyard will continue to be a common patrimony or not. This is another way of saying that Jonathan being forced to step aside might re-ignite militancy in the restive Niger Delta.
Three,   if Jonathan is forced to step aside, or decides not to contest, it will throw up issues of two competing entitlements arising from the PDP’s zoning and power rotation principles.  Some people believe passionately that power should ‘return to the north’ as a condition for peace  (I really do not like this phrase as it wrongly suggests that the north is  power’s natural habitat or that it is their entitlement), but the south-south can also argue they have a right to complete their second term in office and that if Jonathan is not willing to go for a second term, another person from the south- south should step in.
The danger in another person from the south-south stepping in however is that there is no guarantee that such a candidate, at the end of that one term, will not demand for his constitutional right to a second term in office?  Again if power ‘returns to the north’, how many years will the president of the northern extraction s serve?  Will that be the one year left in Yaradua’s first term in office plus another one term of four years?  Will such a candidate not be entitled to two terms in office?  Will such a candidate demand to complete Yaradua’s term before serving his own term in office?
Four,  while I was among those who opposed president Jonathan’s candidacy in 2011 on the grounds that he should respect an agreement he entered on his party’s  zoning and power rotation, I also believe that the way we handle him will in the final analysis determine the fate of the country. It will be a terrible mistake in my opinion to hound him out of office. Hounding him out of office will not only mobilize compassion for him and trigger fresh militancy in the restive Niger Delta; it will also encourage the militarization of other insurgency groups in the country.  Essentially insurgency groups in different parts of the country may try to mimic Boko Haram in a bid to get political concessions for their parts of the country.  My personal opinion is that getting Jonathan not to contest in 2015 will contribute in reducing tension in the land only if it is done as a political negotiation in which key stakeholders from the South-south and Christian constituencies are involved.
Five,  I strongly feel that Jonathan may  agree to step aside only if such a decision will enhance his political stature, not if he is hounded, or humiliated out of office. It is remarkable that in Nigeria, no Governor or President has ever declined a chance to run for a second term in office – all the Governors who claimed they would do only one term – from Fashola in Lagos to Peter Obi in Anambra state – ended up doing a second term. In fact Obasanjo became a global statesman simply because as a military Head of State, he handed power to civilians in 1979. Jonathan can attain such a global stature by being the first President in the country to give up his right to a second term in office and letting other politicians know that there could be life beyond power. For him to be able to set such precedence however requires a closer look at the politics of the opposition. I believe that in many parts of Africa, Nigeria inclusive, the cantankerous and vengeful nature of the politics of the opposition often make it difficult for power incumbents to give up power willingly.  Opposition’s grandstanding (the ruling parties are equally guilty but opposition parties tend to be guiltier of this) and threats often aggravate the structures of conflicts in our type of society and widen the social distance between Nigerians and the constituent parts of the country. Fears that without power leaders will be hounded are often at the heart of sit-tightism.
Five, Nigeria faces what the British novelist Frederick Forsythe would call the Devil’s alternative. There will be no easy way out. Some believe that Nigeria has made hanging on the precipice its comfort zone and that at the end of the day 2015 will come and go and the country will remain on the same precipice. Others hang their hope on the fact that Nigeria is too big to fail and that the international community is unlikely to stand akimbo and wait for the worst to happen (the refugee problem alone from any unravelling of the country will destabilize the entire West African sub-region). Some are looking in the direction of the National Conference for some form of magic elixir that will save the country from the abyss. And yet many have adopted ‘siddon look’ or are indulging in our favourite pastime – calling on God to intervene.