The maneuverings within the PDP for positions and patronage are revealing some interesting trends which will have direct impact on the manner President Goodluck Jonathan intends to deal with various sections of the nation following an election that has thrown up new challenges for governance. There are reports that the PDP is involved in very intense negotiations and spirited jockeying for positions under its zoning principles, with two basic positions seeking to triumph. One position rests its case on the argument that President Jonathan’s victory was achieved without the far north, represented by the North West and North East zones, and therefore the plum positions, available to the PDP and government should not be allocated to the zones. Instead, due cognizance and reward should be accorded zones which substantially voted for him, that is, the South South, the South East, and North Central. The other position makes the case that the allocation of key positions should not be predicated on voting patterns during the Presidential elections done, as this will compound the problem of the President in terms of his ability to govern a nation which has shown palpable evidence of major divisions around his candidature and victory. This position argues that the far North needs to be effectively re-integrated into the political process by the manner in which the leadership rises above partisan divides and opportunistic pressures that will further alienate a vital section of the polity. It also makes the case that the far North actually substantially voted for President Jonathan, and gave him not only aggregate votes, but also the percentages he required to be declared winner by INEC.
These debates within the PDP are pointers to a more complex issue which is at the heart of the problems which the national leadership needs to deal with in the next few weeks. This is the manner in which it intends to handle its electoral victory, and transform it into an effective tool for governance. The arguments about which zones should receive which positions under the PDP’s zoning principles are only symptoms of a deeper problem. This is the problem of building bridges between and within Nigerian communities in such a manner that the rifts which became obvious and visible after the elections are managed with maturity and very high levels of responsibility. Most Nigerian politicians see politics only in terms of reward and punishment. Winners, who would have invested virtually everything in a contest, take all; and losers not only lose everything, but their supporters are also punished for disloyalty to the victor in the elections. Particularly in the far north, many prominent PDP members and people perceived as their supporters are seething with anger and indignation over the attacks, losses and humiliations they received in the hands of mobs, most of whom appeared to have been supporters of the CPC. Many of these victims in the PDP now want their pound of flesh, not only in insisting that the authors and perpetrators of their indignity must be brought to book, but also in insisting that they receive no political largess in the dispensations which the Jonathan Presidency is in a position to make. In spite of the fact that in most of the States in the North where General Muhammadu Buhari defeated President Jonathan in the Presidential elections, we now have PDP Governors, there are hawks who see the zones in the far North as hostile to President Jonathan. In the political pecking order, they will argue therefore that these zones receive the least in patronage and the dividends of Jonathan’s victory.
In the South-South and the South East, as well as the North Central, there are strong pressures for commensurate rewards for support and loyalty to President Jonathan. These zones will claim to have been responsible for his victory, and will point to the riots and the mayhem which followed his declared victory in parts of the North as evidence of deep hostility to his Presidency, which should not be rewarded. Even the South West, which has no single PDP Governor, will claim that it facilitated the emergence of President Jonathan in the manner it sacrificed its own ACN Presidential candidate, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, so that President Jonathan can beat General Muhammadu Buhari in the South West. It will demand requisite appreciation and reward in the manner key positions in the Party and government will be disbursed.
At the centre of all these pressures, President Jonathan and his colleagues at the helm of affairs of the PDP will have to take some major decisions. They will have to decide how far they will go in acknowledging and rewarding loyalty; and how they intend to treat parts of the nation which voted against the PDP, and then went on rampage when it was declared winner. The setting up of a Panel to investigate the pre-election violence in Akwa Ibom State as well as the civil unrest in some States following the 2011 Presidential Election will hopefully settle the issue of dealing with the perpetrators of the destructions and the killings which followed the elections. But a Panel cannot provide political solutions to political problems, even if it addresses adequately the need to investigate and provide a basis for some action towards justice, law and order. The real work of rebuilding political bridges has to be undertaken by the political leadership. And this is where President Jonathan will decide whether he wants to be remembered as a Statesman or a politician. President Jonathan as a Statesman will resist the temptation to run a government strictly on the basis of votes cast for his victory. He will recognize the imperatives of re-integrating many sections of the country, and assuring the vast majority of the citizens who were, in fact, all victims of the mayhem that followed his election, that as Nigerians, they will form part of his constituency. He will resist the hawks who will argue that the far north will be best dealt with an iron fist, and that the free exercise of the rights of citizens from that part of the country to vote for candidates other than President Jonathan amounts to disloyalty which should be punished.
The politician in Jonathan may attempt to build his administration around areas and zones which had supported his candidature and which voted for him. He will be tempted to consolidate, and hope to weaken the resistance around regions which voted against him. He may have his eyes on the next election, not on the next generation. He may achieve some immediate, short-term goals among a small clique of political appointees, but he would have lost a historic opportunity to turn the tide against him, and reclaim the lost ground in terms of the unity and survival of a democratic Nigeria. He will rule with the agenda of another political party, because if he treats the far north as a region undeserving of equal and adequate treatment, he will merely strengthen the opposition, and even punish the millions of PDP supporters in the region.
The recent elections, unlike any other in the past, have created massive problems which will require very delicate handling to solve. These are times requiring deep reflections on the genesis and nature of the problems which the elections have thrown up. Even as victors celebrate, they will do well to remember that while they contest for offices on partisan basis, they are elected as leaders of all the people. The areas where President Jonathan needs to accord the highest priority in terms of attention and resources are the very areas which appears to have turned their backs to them. Getting them back on board in terms of governance and securing the future unity of Nigeria may be the greatest challenge for President Jonathan, and the best legacy he could leave behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment