OVERVIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS

OVERVIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS
By Sam Onimisi
In the last four weeks or so, attempts have been made to showcase the known presidential aspirants struggling to emerge as their Party’s Candidates in the 2011 general election. Each aspirant has been examined, using the index of their past and the public’s perception of their persons. Attempts were also made to evaluate their suitability for and chances of clinching the presidency, come 2011. It has to be admitted that our assessment may not be perfect just as our opinion is not sacrosanct. We hope also that we have not sounded sanctimonious, even if we owe no apology for our own opinion.
The benefit for the people and the country is the recount or portrayal of the characters of the aspirants as this enhances the making of choice by readers and the electorate. Unless more aspirants emerge, the known ones as at now are mostly retired military or Para-military officers. These are gritty individuals whose training, orientation and presumptions are very useful in situation of emergencies, natural disasters and rescue missions. In this instance, it is assumed they are under Civil Authority which itself is subject to the consent of the generality of the people. But if the aspirants assumes near absolute authority, our collective experience as a people suggests that they may not be ideal for a democratic dispensation. One of their genres, General Olusegun Obasanjo came, saw and conquered Nigeria, leaving the people helplessly prostrate and despoiled. Can we afford another one so soon even when we have not yet overcome the debility of OBJ’s capricious rule?
Obasanjo’s administration has injected so much impunity, arbitrariness and corruption into Nigeria’s democratic practice such that the country cannot survive his type now, especially coming from a region who believed they were targeted for humiliation. The potential for revenge and more offences is very high. Aside from vengeance, the persons of the aspirants have intimidating antecedents, whose ego and personality may have been bruised, ignored or neglected. As former heads of state and Vice – President or security chief, their hubris were on edge for the period of Obasanjo’s rule. In any political contest involving such personalities, the clash of hubris and ambition often doubles the heat on the polity.
Cognizance must be taken of the ethnic group of the aspirants, although some people may want this aspect ignored. Because we have always swept the ethnic factor of our challenges under the carpet to our regret, we must learn to engage the problem it poses if we must over come it. Four of the five known aspirants are either Hausa-Fulani or Fulani, three from the North-West and one, the North East. The four are Muslims. While the chances of their unity may be said to be bright, giving their common ethnic, regional and religious origin, their individual pride, ambition and rivalry may obviate any co-operation between them. On the other hand, their co-operation or unity if based on sectional, religious and regional interests portends danger for the rest of the country.
We need not misunderstand this viewpoint. A situation where four outstanding aspirants with the same worldview and values are determined to wrestle power from another aspirant in a manner suggestive of preserving their region’s patrimony could be combustive and highly volatile. To diffuse the inflammable contents of this mindset, what gave cause to that belief must be confronted. No one who lives in this country is a stranger to the concept (I am not too sure if it qualifies to be a concept) that the commonwealth of Nigeria is shared along regional divide, vis-à-vis; economic and technological power to the South and political power to the North. Because this belief is prevalent and no effort has been made to disabuse it, who do we blame if a section of the country regards power as its birthright?
The concern of this overview is the means and methods which may be employed to achieve the goal. In democracy, dialogue, negotiation and compromise are tools to resolve knotty issues such as power rotation; not just within a Party but between parties, regions and religions. Attainment of power in a multi-ethnic and plural society is more prone to violence if approached with the mindset of fighting for one’s inheritance. The acceptable method in a democracy is through a contest that is seen to be free and fair. But selfish ambition and sectional interests does not lend themselves too much rationality. There lies the danger.
The resort to force and violence in expressing ones preference is common in Nigeria. We have spilled so much blood in the choice of religions, in the accident of ethnic origin or birth and in the geopolitical area in which we were born. How do we prevent the resort to or the employment of force in the current quest for power as it relates to 2011? And if a section succeeds in attaining or retaining power by force of violence, how does that help the unity of Nigeria?
Rather than preaching against violence (as we all know the consequences) we can only warn that violence begets violence and whoever may wish to employ it must remember this fact. Since we refuse to devolve power as superior to its rotation, and because we failed to apply our revenue to economic development of our country, we are left with no better choice than to cling to the puerile view that economic and political rights are mutually exclusive.
We need prayers to avoid violence in the next general election. We need more than prayers if we must live in peace with ourselves. We must learn to do what must be done to recognize, respect and understand our differences as a multi-ethnic polity. Until we do so, every general election or transition from one government to another is a potential occasion for the disintegration of what appear to be a pack of cards we put together as a house, called Nigeria. May the will of God be done!