A vote for single-term tenure

First, a caveat: I do not pretend to know the magic solution to Nigeria’s assorted problems, so what you are about to read is not an attempt to say I have suddenly discovered our way out of poverty, disease, unemployment and insecurity. Rather, I have taken another look at our political trajectory since the independence era and I have observed that the quest for a second term in office by incumbents always comes at a heavy price that hurts our progress, even national integration. I have, hence, been seriously thinking of an experiment: amending the constitution to stipulate that no president or governor can do more than one term of a maximum six years in office. Please follow me.

Why do I support the proposal for a single term of maximum six years and why am I here to re-echo it? In an article I wrote nearly 15 years ago, entitled ‘Jonathan Must Do Just One Term’ (THISDAY, May 1, 2011), I made three arguments: one, incumbents usually fill their first cabinets with barely credible appointees in an attempt to repay political IOUs — particularly to appease or compensate financiers, supporters and hangers-on; two, incumbents usually spend the first term accumulating resources to build a war chest for re-election; three, incumbents have the tendency to take their feet off the pedal during the first term since they could get another chance via a second term to redeem themselves.

Those were my takes in 2011 when President Goodluck Jonathan toyed with the idea of a single, six-year term. Have I changed my mind? Not really. I remain convinced that the second-term syndrome is a big distraction to governance and a drain on the treasury with heavy expenditure on elections every four years. Many will argue that one term is too short for a president or governor to make an impact. I wouldn’t disagree, but evidence from Nigeria tends to show that even if some leaders spend 20 years in office, the problems will remain. We have also had governors who made an impact in their early years but petered out as re-election politicking kicks in. We need a new experiment.

My first argument in favour of a single-term tenure is that if presidents and governors know that they have only one chance in the world to make an impression, there is an incentive for them to focus on the job at hand. There is no second term ahead. They know they will live only once. They have to put their best foot forward from the get-go. They can hit the ground running. They can take the toughest decisions that they would otherwise shy away from for fear of becoming unpopular and risking re-election. A governor once said he was trying to move fast with some far-reaching decisions — only for worried party leaders to warn him: “Slow down! These are things you do during a second term.”

One-term governors can also stand up to overbearing godfathers. In many states, sitting governors are at war with their godfathers whose first line of threat is often based on dashing their second term dreams. This always takes the focus away from governance. You also find governors insanely stealing public funds to build a war chest ahead of re-election, which is usually more expensive. There are downsides to my argument, I know. For one, godfathers can still make life unbearable for term-barred incumbents. But a performing governor will likely get some public sympathy. I also admit that a useless incumbent is a useless incumbent — but, at least, we won’t be stuck for two terms.

My second argument is that a quick turnaround time will help address the very explosive issue of power rotation. One of the hottest issues in Nigeria in the last 15 years is the north/south balance of power. A six-year single term will facilitate the alternation and maybe calm down some nerves. We need a peaceful political atmosphere to make meaningful progress as a people. There is always this impatience, even tension, over when power will move from one region to another. A major issue of concern in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) today is where the presidential ticket should go, and we can see hopefuls making promises to serve only one term. There is a reason why this is so.

I have never hidden my support for power rotation. It is very critical if we want to address perennial political discontent in Nigeria, which often unsettles the nation-building project. And one way of fast-tracking rotation — in addition to the zoning formula — is a single-term tenure. Power goes to the south for six years, goes to the north for six years, etc. The divisive emotions that heat up the polity every election year can be better managed this way. If a northerner wins the presidential election in 2027, it will be interpreted as short-changing the south and we may be in for another turbulent ride for four years — as we saw with Jonathan after the 2011 elections. This is the real situation with us.

In sum, the single-term proposal is principally to manage the distractions that often hurt our progress: distractions by the second-term syndrome and distractions by political discontent over power rotation. I know this proposal is flawed — if the leaders are bad, they are bad, no matter how many terms they spend in office — but, as I have said, I am not suggesting a way to end poor leadership. I am only trying to challenge us to begin to think of unusual political experiments to tackle some of these things that so easily drag us down as a nation. If conventional methods don’t work for us, let’s go unconventional. It is not as if two-term tenures have solved our problems.

I now need to insert this caveat before I shut down my laptop: by way of a transition clause, the single term should apply only to those elected for the first time under the proposed amendment. Those elected for a first term under the current constitution will still be entitled to run for another term, but that would be for four years. Let me say it again: until an amendment is effective, those who are serving (or have served) a first term will still be eligible to go for a second term. However, the second term will be for four years, not the proposed six years. This is in line with the well-established convention that an amendment does not take retroactive effect. I hope this helps.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

PUMP UP THE VOLUME

After wasting decades on real and imagined scandals, the federal government has finally decided to put OPL 245 to productive use, nearly 15 years after President Goodluck Jonathan resolved the dispute. President Bola Tinubu has given Eni and Shell the go-ahead to start production and this may eventually increase our daily output by about 150,000bpd. The Buhari administration spent eight years on litigation at a time our oil production badly needed to be ramped up. The damage this did to the economy is incalculable. Now, Mr Mohammed Bello Adoke, the former AGF who was made the global scapegoat of the OPL 245 saga, says he deserves an apology from the government. Absolutely.

MEMBERS ONLY

Vice-President Kashim Shettima poked fun at the African Democratic Congress (ADC) on Wednesday, wondering why a party that fought so hard for electronic transmission of results was unable to manage its own digital registration of members. Although he said it in jest, there is the bigger issue of the credibility of party membership registers which are required by the Electoral Act to be submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) before the primaries. It is not just about the ADC but other parties as well. How will INEC be able to verify the authenticity of these registers? Does the commission even have the capacity to verify millions of names within weeks? Dicey.

EPIC ERRORS

Are we closer to World War III than we imagined? There has been a lot of false alarms, from Operation Desert Storm of 1991 to Shock and Awe of 2003. Operation Epic Fury, launched by the US (and Israel) against Iran last week, may be a false alarm again, who knows? I am, nonetheless, disturbed that history seems to be repeating itself. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it said it was to stop Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons programme. Not even one gallon of chemical weapon was found. The campaign was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. It has been nothing but tragic. They are bombing in Iran looking for nuclear weapons but are now talking about regime change. Farcical.

NO COMMENT

We are gradually inching towards the establishment of what we fondly call “state police” in Nigeria — where the states will have their own police forces under the control of governors “in the spirit of true federalism”. The idea of state police has been sold to us as the ultimate solution to our security challenges. I hear its marketers say state police will end banditry and terrorism — something the military has not been able to end for decades such that we are now using some help from the US. If the army cannot end terrorism, the police should be able to do it, right? After state police, I won’t be surprised if we start demanding state NSCDC, state army, state navy and state air force. Hahahaha…