Tinubu, you don hit my car...

“He who slings mud, usually loses ground.” Adlai Stevenson 1954

Some years ago, a song by Tony Tetuila lamenting a road incident involving a poor man’s car ruled the air waves and was a must at all parties. It captured a drama involving one of our innumerable wrecks on four wheels being hit by another wreck and the chaotic spectacles which they provide as drivers, police and members of the public all raise voices over what should be done by which party. The song also celebrated the joy of a driver of a wreck who is hit by a well-off member of society. I do not know whether it was intended to get the attention of the then Governor Bola Tinubu, but the singer called such privileged God-sent driver Tinubu. He made an exception to being hit by Tinubu, because unlike other incidents where only noise is made, a Tinubu will roll out money.

I was reminded of that song a few days ago when Asiwaju Bola Tinubu arrived the country after a long absence, and went straight for President Jonathan’s jugular. Guns ablaze and shooting from the hips, the leader from the part of the nation you would ordinarily expect to see a red carpet laid for Jonathan’s Dialogue gambit, approached Jonathan’s contraption on the road with such apparent abandon that you can only believe that he hit it deliberately to clear it off the road. For a man whose political career was shaped largely by challenging received wisdom on seemingly settled issues in Nigerian politics, he took a monumental risk in his denunciation of the initiative. Unlike the Tinubu in the song whose ‘bashing’ of the poor man’s car was welcome, this Tinubu’s brush with Jonathan’s car was unlikely to be celebrated by the President.

The President’s men took a few  days to let Tinubu’s audacious assault sink in. Perhaps they hoped the Asiwaju will be drowned in a torrent of abuse and muck from his immediate constituency, particularly from those elements who earned their stripes from pursuing the Sovereign National Conference (SNC) agenda as the holy grail of the Yoruba nation. They were wrong. The reactions to his bellicose provocations were muted and timid. Prolonged silence was likely to win his position wider credibility. He wasn’t alone in the first wave of repudiations of the Dialogue idea, and it was becoming clear that further silence will confer  on the Asiwaju the status of the mouthpiece of the South West.

So the Presidency rolled out its fairly-used guns and aimed them at the Asiwaju’s derision of the Dialogue idea as a  diversion, a half-baked, fully deceptive Greek gift. “The APC leader”, thundered Doyin Okupe, “as usual, is completely off target...” To Tinubu’s question, “where is the capability, where is the sincerity...” Okupe said Tinubu cannot see them because his politics is all about his personal ambition, capital accumulation and 2015.

The problem, however, was that Dr Okupe’s salvos risked having the unintended effect of reinforcing the carefully-cultivated image sought by Tinubu as the leader of the national opposition. So the President himself ambled in with his characteristic take on complex issues. Last week, he lampooned the cynics and nay-sayers of the dialogue idea. “Those who continue to say that our initiative is diversionary or aimed at promoting certain political agenda are in error”.

Like the big man who hits a poor man’s car, Tinubu should be sitting smugly, daring the owner of the jalopy to do his worst. Clearly, Jonathan had veered off his lane into Tinubu’s, when he did a drammatic summersault over the idea of a conference. Tinubu could see the crass opportunism of Jonathan’s ploy, being a permanent driver or front seat occupant of everything remotely related to Conferencing, rebelling, dissenting or otherwise generally resisting. He knows the traffic police will be on his side. The public will also likely beg Jonathan to “dobale” for his blatant disregard for road etiquette, and being witnesses, are unlikely to join in begging Tinubu to repair or replace Jonathan’s car.
President Jonathan will be hard put to prove lack of faith or trust on the part of Tinubu, or any of his critics over the dialogue idea. To complete the car bashing analogy, Jonathan would be advised to tone down his hysteria over the state of his car and plead with Tinubu to drive on and not press charges.

But Tinubu hit more than Jonathan’s car when he rushed to denounce the dialogue idea. He has taken a calculated risk, and in his own interest, one will only hope that he had looked at his odds very carefully. To turn his back on the dialogue offer so emphatically, even with good reasons, is to assume a number of givens. One of these is that he has such control or influence over mainstream political opinion in the southwest [South West] or among Yoruba people that he can predict that hostility to his position will not harm him, or polarize his constituency. If critical segments of opinion in the southwest [South West] do not rise up against Tinubu, he would have pulled off an expensive gamble, and his image as the architect of Yoruba fortune today would have been strengthened.

If, on the other hand, elements outside his suffocating political control of the southwest [South West] rebel and create a momentum in support of even the tepid dialogue offer by Jonathan, Tinubu will have a battle in his hands. Certainly his formidable APC structures and governments will resist this, but his enemies are by no means dead and buried. Jonathan’s people and the remants of the PDP in the South West may rally behind an idea of sustaining the flame of a National Conference, and could damage Tinubu by asking what he has to offer in its place. Tinubu is likely to find out that it is easier to kick Jonathan’s idea than to extinguish the long-held idea that Yoruba people, or to borrow Professor Nwabueze’s caricature, all southerners, will only find peace in Nigeria if they engage other Nigerians (read: Northerners) in a no-holds-barred conference at the end of which, they will create a nation after their own image.

There is also the risky gamble of speaking conclusively over a matter of great sensitivity when you are not in possession of all the aces. Tinubu is a co-leader with General Muhammadu Buhari and others in the APC. The latter have not said what they think about the dialogue, but a large part of their constituency, the North, is carefully evaluating what it all means. At this stage, all it knows is that it represents a potential danger to its interests, but it is divided over how to approach it. Some northerners want to take it on for what it is worth, and avoid the trap of being seen as cowardly scavengers. Others see some good in it, but only if it is rid of its damaging trappings, such as the ambition of President Jonathan, or the wholesale appropriation of the nation’s oil and gas resources by less than 20% of the population. Many more, however, see it exactly as Tinubu does: a deceptive diversion which should be rejected in totality.

What is the position of the APC on the dialogue? Has Tinubu spoken for it? Can the party or other leaders within it offer differing views? Is there the possibility that the bulk of the North and the Southwest will take two different positions on the dialogue? Has Tinubu exposed the APC to potential manipulation, or are we finally being reminded of the real leader of the APC? Will Tinubu’s position on the dialogue strengthen his hands or expose his weaknesses in the South West?

Tinubu’s repudiation of the dialogue initiative has damaged it rather badly. It will be difficult to gather a genuine momentum behind it in that part of the country where Jonathan must have hoped it will win him a standing ovation. But these are early days yet. Tinubu and Jonathan will both need to work harder to convince Nigerians that they represent all our interests in their positions on the proposed dialogue. Both have taken expensive gambles, and it is Nigerians outside their firm political grips that will decide who wins this round.

Of butchers and surgeons

“A sieve is not acquired to fetch water.” Hausa Proverb

Butchers and surgeons have one thing in common: they work on bodies. Butchers, however, live off dead bodies, while surgeons work on bodies to save lives. There are fine arts to both professions. Butchers learn to make the most out of carcasses, and their knowledge of dead meat is valuable in determining how much is made out of it. Surgeons have to posses vast knowledge about anatomy of living things and sharpened skills to work on bodies to save lives or relieve illnesses. They do not always succeed, but the worst surgeon knows better than to operate like a butcher.

The national dialogue advisory committee is President Jonathan’s butcher. His choice of its members is evidence that he does not require the fine skills of a surgeon to advise him on the nature of an ailment, and to work on it towards healing. A butcher will kill the animal and dispose of its as commodity. His goal is to make maximum use of the carcass, in the same way little effort has been deployed towards hiding the real intent behind the committee.

President Jonathan says his advisory committee on national dialogue is his response to popular clamour for a forum to discuss the manner the nation is structured, and to seek ways of improving it. The committee is to advise him on modalities for organizing the dialogue and linkages between its output and constitutional amendment. In this respect, President Jonathan can be described as a relatively new convert to the old idea that only a tribal conclave which disregards the constitution will provide real and final solutions to all the problems of Nigerians. A surgeon would have advised him to first appreciate the nature of the ailment, and evaluate the links between the illness and the treatment. The wrong diagnosis will almost certainly lead to the wrong prescription, and the patient may be a lot worse off after treatment. A butcher will take a look at the problem, and see the potential to make capital out of it.

Those who have campaigned for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) will not be impressed by an arrangee conference facilitated by advise from a hard core of government supporters. They will, at best, lean hard on Senator Okurounmu and Professor Nwabueze to rebel against solid barriers and push through proposals for a conference that will not be answerable to Jonathan the Nigerian constitution. Even if they can, and this will be difficult, they will only register a moral victory in having an SNC voice heard at the highest official levels. The bulk of the nation will reject any forum that exists outside the constitution and takes away power from elected representatives.

If the elderly gentlemen of the old SNC genre need help, it will have to be from hard core PDP people in the committee who, while not supporting a tribal and sovereign conference, will seek to achieve objectives that specifically serve President Jonathan’s ambition. Prof George Obiozor, Dr Indabawa, Mr Tony Uranta, Alhaji Dauda Birma, Dr Aisha Amshi, Colonel Tony Nyam and Senators Khairat Gwadabe and Adudu will provide a critical mass around certain objectives. These could include recommending a forum that focuses on contentions issues not being resolved by the current reviews of the constitution such as terms for elected executives, fiscal and revenue allocation and the structure of the federal system. They could also represent a bloc that will prevail in debates over representation and the legal status of the dialogue outcome. Knowing the deep crises in the party of the President, they will be sensitive to recommending modalities which will best reinforce his tenuous hold over rebellious tendencies, or which shield him from them. There will very likely be two lone voices from Dr Abubakar Siddique Mohammed and Malam Buhari Bello who may attempt to resist recommendations that worsen the nation’s problems. They will have an uphill task working in a committee designed to produce a pre-determined goal, and they may work under the pressure that they are part of a programmed process which will harm their constituencies.

We are a long way from an actual dialogue forum at this state. This makes it a good moment for some speculation. Whether he specifically intended it or not, President Jonathan’s middle-of-the-road approach would have fatally damaged the idea of a sovereign national conference. He will argue that his facilitation of a pure talkshop has created a fair solution for the two extremes represented by proponents of SNC and those who repudiate any idea of conference at all. He could strike a balance between a pure, ethnic-based representation and a selection process which seeks some elements of ethno-religious inclusiveness and some weighting to reflect demographic indices. He could also fill up the dialogue agenda with the type of issues which will satisfy ethnic champions, as well as matters which are currently under review by the national assembly in the context of constitutional review. Then again, he could undertake to forward, untainted and unedited, the outcome of the national dialogue to the national assembly to do as it wishes. This way he would wash his hands off what happens to it. Attention and hostility or high expectations will turn to the legislature, which is very likely going to ignore it.

President Jonathan cannot pretend not to know that the nation has had a bitter history with conferences. He must also know that neither his dialogue nor SNC enjoys popular, national support. Time after time, attempts to amend the constitution have been floated by the legislature merely to guzzle massive resources. The nation is more or less resigned to live with a constitution and a federal system which are virtually immutable in their fundamentals because those who should change them prefer them they way they are.

So the logical question to ask is what benefits will President Jonathan derive from the planned dialogue? The answer may lie in the desperation of the administration to secure some relief and additional space to fight its legion of challenges. A dialogue process which absorbs all national attention, from its conceptualization to operationalization to output will be very beneficial to President Jonathan. The thinking may be to foist a controversial process on the attention of the citizenry and hope that it will represent a new and different focus of interest and hostility. Diehard SNC proponents will tear it apart at every turn. Others will debate its value, debate whether to participate in it or ignore it; debate every word uttered in it; and debate measures which may be deployed against or for it. A few fringe groups may see it as a backdrop for irredentism, and others will see it as evidence that it is designed specifically against them.

While the arangee dialogue is going on, the hope will be that Nigerians will be less critical of the administration’s dismal record in fighting insecurity, corruption, brazen theft of our resources and keeping our economy afloat. If nothing tangible comes out of the dialogue forum at the end of the day, little other than huge expenditure and the death of the dialogue concept would have been lost.

But President Jonathan may not be able to pull off the gamble. Large sections of the nation may have nothing to do with it, either because it promises too little for them, or because it promises too much for him. His opponents within the PDP will be likely spoilers to the extent that every step he takes henceforth will be seen as a hostile move. All Progressives Alliance (APC) leaders will resist an attempt by Jonathan to earn a few brownie points, even at the risk of offending a geriatric support which has lived on SNC oxygen. The media may resist the temptation to play along in the diversion strategy, in spite of massive resources which will be used to entice it.

President Jonathan’s dialogue forum represents a butcher’s attempt at a surgeon’s job. His advisory committee has his ambition’s imprint all over it. This will inspire very little confidence in what it will advise the President in terms of planning the dialogue forum. But it will read its mandate well, and will attempt to capture its essence. The nation, however, may think differently. Whatever happens, President Jonathan will have his dialogue, and the nation will pay for it from increasingly dwindling resources. As for the response of Nigerians, the President may find citizens ignoring his arangee dialogue altogether.

Dangers ahead

Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed

hakeempublic@gmail.com

“We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Walt Kelly 1971

Politics is threatening the fragile Nigerian democratic process in a manner that is likely to create unprecedented levels of crises. Overheating the polity is the popular phrase Nigerian politicians like to use against opponents. In this context, this is an appropriate description of the cumulative effect of the utterances and manouvers of elected leaders and others with responsibility for managing the democratic process. At no time in its history has this nation needed more cohesion and consensus around vital matters on politics, governance and security at its leadership levels than now. Rather tragically, at no other time has the nation been more exposed to damaging absence of unity and commitment to national interests as it is today, fifty-three years since politicians quarrelled and squabbled over dates and duties, but settled around the fundamentals of political independence from the British.

It is difficult to see how the nation can be freed from the depth of despair and paralysis which its leaders have plunged it. Democracy is many things to many people, but at its barest minimum, it is a social framework for resolving basic human challenges such as conflicts over social goals, leadership and allocation of resources. It becomes a threat to social existence when its operation becomes the source of massive quarrels over leadership and security of communities and citizens. The failure of democratic institutions and leaders to resolve conflicts opens up the nation to opportunistic threats. These compound the weaknesses of the state, and expose it to more serious threats. 

Many things can, and do go wrong with democratic systems. Elected leaders fail to lead well, and nations pay a huge price for inept or corrupt leadership. Many elections are rigged, or widely disputed, and governments limp on through terms battling to justify mandates and acquire some credibility and influence. Voters and citizens are quick to judge, and difficult to please, so leaders are often stampeded into taking decisions or adopting policies which create solutions that compound problems. Not all inter-related democratic institutions work well, or together, all the time. Failure of one or all to operate above the most minimal levels of integrity and competence compromise the entire system. Viruses such as corruption and endemic insecurity infect the entire system, and although nations can be substantially rid of corruption in vital organs of the state, this can only be achieved under very strong and committed leaders who enjoy high levels of support from critical political sectors, and who operate within a consensus framework that identifies the fight against them as national priorities.

Precisely because democratic systems are both instruments for conflict resolution and sources of conflict, they are designed to operate with flexibility and adaptability. Values which keep the system working include broad and sustainable consensus among the political elite over the mode and goals of exercising power; inclusiveness which reduce the potential damage of partisanship and vulnerability and weaknesses of those without power; respect for laws and rules for political competition and the deployment of political power; and above all, a recognition of the fact that power does belong to the people, and the people have interests that transcend those of politicians at any time. 

The Nigerian democratic system is gradually losing all the elements which should make it work. The damaging quarrels within the People Democratic Party (PDP) represent a disastrous failure of a major pillar which supports elite consensus, and both for good and evil, has kept the quarrelsome and cumbersome democratic system in Nigeria ticking since 1999. The edifice which has provided a platform for power sharing and economic appropriation by the largest segment of the elite is being assaulted by a leadership which appears bent on destroying the legacies of the party. These legacies include the creation of a broad elite concesus around a Yoruba president in 1999; the creation of expertise and competence around the manipulation of the electoral process which got more sophisticated with every election; the generation of sufficient levels of elite support and commitment to stick together in spite of serious assaults from the opposition; the establishment of a veritable resource base which target and manipulate ethno-religious and other security faultlines of the nation towards retaining power; and huge experiences in the use of state resources to weaken the opposition and compromise other vital organs of the democratic process, such as the judiciary and the legislature.

This party which had pulled many chestnuts out of its own fire now seems incapable of overcoming its problems. It appears to have boxed itself into a corner, and there is very little room for manoeuvre. President Jonathan, whose candidature for the 2015 elections is at the heart of the battle cannot step back, or out. He has to run in 2015 because not doing so will expose him as weak and intimidated by northern pressure. He will be powerless for the rest of his presidency, and will be fair game beyond 2015. His considerable army of beneficiaries will not hear of it anyway. Where will they go with their largess after 2015? What will be their fate under a different administration which may have a huge appetite for inquiring into the management of national resources under this administration? Without Jonathan in power beyond 2015, what will be the fate and role of the new billionaires from the Niger Delta who have the nation’s substantial oil and gas assets in their custody today?

If Jonathan does run, the split in his party will be well and truly sealed. The PDP governors who are rebelling against his ambition will have nowhere to run under a new and improved Jonathan, post 2015. He won’t run without winning, whatever the ballots say. A stronger opposition and the rump of the PDP rebels can defeat him, provided there is a credible election in 2015. But the stakes will be too high to be left to the electoral process to decide. With incumbency, massive resources, control of security assets of the nation and a morbid fear of life in defeat, Jonathan’s people will throw everything into the fray for another term.

The opposition will also fight like it has never fought before. Starting from those rebelling against his ambitions in 2015, it is becoming clear by the day that an acceptance of reconciliation on their part will amount to the most foolhardy capitulation. It will say only one thing: they are now well and truly part of his plans for another term in 2015.  They would have effectively lost all ground they may have gained under the cover of protecting Northern interests or the achievement of improvements in intra-PDP democracy. What would they gain by conceding to a Jonathan candidature in 2015? Clemency from E.F.C.C? Guaranteed Senate seats? Free hands to appoint and install successors? Can they trust President Jonathan to deliver, even without Bamanga Tukur as chairman of the PDP? Can they ever be trusted by President Jonathan’s people, particularly in the heat of the campaigns for support in the North and parts of South South?

At this stage, it is looking increasingly unlikely that the PDP will heal itself of the damaging rifts within it. Too many bruised egos are smarting from the crises. The stakes are too high to stand down. A no retreat, no surrender posture has been forced upon all parties in this conflict, and the prognosis is very bleak for the party and the nation. The judiciary will be sucked into the crises in the very near future, and the legislature will feel the heat and reflect it across the nation.

The crises in the PDP will assume dangerous ethno-religious dimensions. If the rebels in the PDP join the opposition APC eventually, they will expand its potential to defeat the PDP, but at the expense of very damaging geo-ethnic dichotomies. An alliance between majority North and the Southwest can make some additional capital from anti-Ijaw grievances in the south-south, but it will also have to contend with damaging exploitation of ethno-religious faultlines in the North. With many parts of the North daily shedding blood from the activities of insurgents and scores of inter-ethnic conflicts, a significant rise in tension engineered by political competition will represent a very serious threat to manage. Much of the North is under one form of military presence or the other, and an escalation of tension or breaches of security may mean that the 2015 elections are conducted under a substantially militarized environment. All elections in Nigeria are liable to be hugely disputed, but one conducted under heavy military occupation will most likely erode all credibility.

President Jonathan will have to fight for his political life while battling escalating security challenges. The Jamaatu Ahlil Sunnah Lid’daawati Wal Jihad (a.k.a. Boko Haram) appears bent on continuing its fight, this time holding as hostage, rural communities. The national landscape is dotted by low intensity conflicts that take lives routinely in villages and hamlets, particularly in the North. Criminal activities such as crude oil theft and kidnappings are digging in around weaknesses of the security infrastructure of the nation. They damage the image of the leadership, and cause incalculable damage to the economy and the reputation of the nation as safe for business and investment.

Where will President Jonathan strike the balance between his politics and national security? How much will he deploy to fight blatant theft of the nation’s resources and assure Nigerians that the economy can survive and grow in spite of massive assaults by brazen pillage and corruption? What credentials will President Jonathan take to Nigerians in 2015 to convince them to give him another four years? 

Virtually every critical institution in the democratic process will be exposed to the current tensions and stresses being generated by political manoeuvres. INEC says its is being severely undermined by powerful political interests with any eye on 2015. It will get worse when it asks for funds and is told to make do with little; or when its vulnerability is further exploited by professional fixers. The opposition will make capital from the internal conflicts of the PDP, but will make many mistakes of its own. It could narrow its goal around replacing President Jonathan, rather than achieving a holistic regime change. It will pay a huge price for the wrong choices in candidates and failures to articulate how it differs from the PDP. It will have to engage in delicate negotiations with the rebelling PDP members, if they choose to join it; or it will have to contend with a major opposition particularly in the North if they choose to pitch their tents elsewhere. It could push elements in the Jonathan camp to take desperate measures if they perceive that life without power will be unliveable in Nigeria. It could alienate a substantial rump of the elite if it adopts a rigid posture on corruption, and it could alienate many supporters if it mishandles intra-party issues.

The next few months will be very difficult for the nation. The token offer of a National Dialogue is unlikely to represent much of an asset for President Jonathan as he battles widespread public dissatisfaction over his performance, damaging and debilitating opposition from his party, serious security challenges and an economy apparently limping from poor management and industrial-scale theft of sources of revenue. If he is pushed beyond his current position, President Jonathan could also conceivably dig in and seek re-election at all cost. His opposition will want to see him out at all cost. At all cost is the very point democratic systems exist to avoid.

ADRIFT IN TROUBLED WATERS.

“How awful to reflect that what people say of us is true.” L.L. Smith

President Jonathan’s mind-term scorecard would appear to have been aptly captured by the extended melodrama culminating in the emergence of two factions of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum(NGF). This farce has all the elements that characterize President Jonathan’s sojourn since May 2011. Its crude maneuverings against enemies and opponents will remind the nation of the bitter  disputes and potentially dangerous circumstances which gave birth to the Jonathan presidency. The laughable (if that is the right word) disputes over the outcome of an election involving 35 voter governors (majority of them PDP), complete with allegations of illegal ballots, unqualified candidates, press conferences denouncing results and emergence of factions will sound very familiar to Nigerians. The President’s failure to stop the re-election of Amaechi will signal a further dip in his hold over the political machinery he so desperately seeks to control. There will be the other side of course, which will go to town with the claim that he had at least crippled this albatross; and if he cannot use it as a weapon, he cannot be harmed by it either.

There are a few other dampers to the celebratory atmosphere as well, although you will not hear them in the President’s broadcast. Like the NGF saga, there will be room for arguing that the cup is half empty only because the opposition does not see very well. Like Amaechi, President Jonathan will feel that a series of vicious battles have left him with some territory and troops with questionable levels of morale and loyalty, but he is still in charge. But his flanks are dangerously exposed, and the enemy could strike at will while he takes stock of his strengths and weaknesses.This will not stop him reeling out statistics and other details which he quite possibly believes represent a fairer assessment of his record,if only the stubbornly ill-informed Nigerian public will care to listen.

Two years since the boy who went to school without shoes grew up to become President, the nation has shown many signs that Presidents who come from minority groups and poor backgrounds are not necessarily the best material for leadership. The first few months of his Presidency showed an administration shell-shocked and frozen stiff by the sheer depth and spread of the anger and violence which followed his election in many parts of the north. The instinctive and knee-jerk reaction which labeled the brief uprising as a partisan and ethno-religious resistance turned out to be a tragic miscalculation. Much time and energy was devoted to attempts to paste crimes to perceived masterminds, while many parts of the nation were made to believe that the “born-to-rule” north has become a threat to the rest. An insipient, religion-inspired and grievance-driven insurgency seized the opportunity to expand and dig in. By the time it unleashed its full force, its mis-classification as a northern Muslim resistance front began to be felt, especially when it hit Muslims and Christians alike, and particularly when it  targeted high profile symbols of Muslim authority.

For all practical purposes, the first one year of President Jonathan’s administration was wasted. Unable to shake off the ashes of the post-election violence, it approached governance with hesitation and a meek demeanor as if it was begging for space. No new grounds were broken in improving the quality of the decision-making process. All the old ghosts came back to haunt the new administration: inept management of the economy; massive corruption, spreading insurgency and criminal activities such as crude theft, kidnapping and crumbling institutions of state. Bold initiatives such as removal of subsidy on petroleum products were stoutly resisted by citizens in a manner unseen in the nation’s history. The administration stepped back, exposing itself to more intense clamour for increased transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector. Responses to this clamour merely exposed the administration’s limitation in the fight against corruption. Ministers and other influence peddlers around the administration shot down credible suggestions on improving openness. Scammers in the sector tweaked weak regulatory systems, a corrupt judiciary and weak boundries between government and big business to frustrate real reforms and exposure of massive fraud. Other scams exploited the same weaknesses in other areas which included looted pensions.

By the beginning of his second year, it was obvious that President Jonathan was not going to win the battle against large scale plunder of the nation’s resources. New challenges were making him look even weaker. The Jamaatu Ahlil Sunnah Liddaawati Wal Jihad (JASLIWAJ) was registering devastating blows on the capacity of the Nigerian state to protect lives and property of its citizens, and was even taking over territories from the state. Unprecedented levels and variety of internal security challenges were being registered by the week: communal conflicts, rampaging criminals that took over and killed many villagers; kidnapping as a thriving industry; the systematic bleeding of the nation through crude oil theft and the apparent collapse of routine policing, law and order institutions in many parts of the nation.

In the midst of all these challenges, the political terrain was also shifting away from the President. His attempt to improve his hold on his party, a vital pre-requisite for another term, was being challenged by elementary mistakes in the management of the emergence of its leaders, as well as the determination of governors to continue to be the dominant players. He ended up with a weak leadership and a host of new enemies that saw his ambition to pocket the party as an asset towards 2015 as a serious threat. Reinforcing his hand with the appointment of Chief Tony Anenih as PDP Board of Trustees Chairman does not appear to have done the magic. If you want to be charitable, you could say President Jonathan has succeeded in breaking the ranks of the Governors, including PDP governors that he will need to rely on for 2015. If you are not, you would say he had spent too much time and energy chasing shadows and the wrong enemy. 

As his party eluded him routinely, the opposition finally found the political will to attempt a merger that will represent a credible challenge to the PDP, come 2015. A few clumsy attempts to frustrate the merger exposed how jittery the President’s party is over the development. Spurred by the impression that the PDP’s internal squabbles and an abysmal record of the administration will guarantee electoral success, the opposition made credible attempts to solidify the merger, although it is by no means certain that it is out of the woods. It has many vulnerable points which even a PDP at half mast can exploit, and the journey between now and 2015 can be made very hazardous by the manner the opposition itself handles sensitive issues such as leaders, flagbearers and internal democracy and cohesion.

Midway into his term, you are unlikely to find ten informed Nigerians that will tell you that President Jonathan will not want to run again in 2015. The nation he has led is a lot more insecure than it was when he started in 2011. Corruption, insecurity and poverty are much more widespread, inspite of his two-pronged approach to dealing with insurgencies. The nation is making huge money from legitimate export of crude, and a few people are making billions from stealing the crude and revenues from it. More people are getting poorer as insecurity threatens economic activities in most parts of the North. More Nigerians live with fear from a variety of threats to their lives and property than perhaps any other time in the history of the nation. Dire consequences are threatened by the President’s loyalists if he is not re-elected in 2015. Equally scary rhetoric answer such threats, and young Nigerians in particular will be forgiven for believing that they will spend their lives living with insecurity, poverty and crime. The nation is more disunited politically than any other time, with boundaries marked by poverty, blood and political enclaves.

In spite of the legion of issues on governance and security begging for attention, President Jonathan is still likely to focus his attention largely on re-election. He and his opponents will turn the PDP inside out and tear it to pieces in his bid for the party’s ticket. If he wants it badly enough, he will get it, at great cost to the party’s fortunes in 2015, and even the unity and security of the nation. It will be difficult to see President Jonathan declining to run again in 2015, because those in his camp will find life difficult to live in Nigeria in peace and with freedom,  fortunes and their records in a post-Jonathan Nigeria. Yet if the current levels in performance of the Jonathan administration are sustained, or they decline between now and 2015, what he will bring to the nation’s table during the electoral contest will make his chances of being elected in a free and fair election even less likely. And this is where the real danger lies: will President Jonathan allow the ballot to decide his fate in 2015?

In 2011, the nation had an opportunity to elect a leadership that will heal massive political wounds and bridge dangerous distances between key components of the federation. It had the opportunity to put into office a leader who will deal decisively with corruption, insecurity and declining effectiveness of critical institutions of state. It had an opportunity to stop the drift set into motion from the ill-health of late President Yar’Adua right up to 2011. Two years into the journey, all those opportunities have been lost. Sadly, the primacy of political office as a means of private accumulation of wealth and power will compound the problems arising from those lost opportunities. There is little to show that the next two years of President Jonathan’s administration will be better than the first two.