Déjà vu all over again: Tenure extension for Nigerian presidents and governors.
In 2006-2007, former president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo embarked in a disastrous quest for a 3rd term which would have extended his presidential tenure from 8 years to 12 years or more. After 8 years in office, he started seeing himself as indispensable to the Nigerian progress and peaceful co-existence. He cobbled together various reasons to justify his position. One reason advanced by him was that God does not believe in failed projects, meaning that he needs more time to complete all the projects he started. His unwise quest for tenure elongation as we all know turned out to be very catastrophic for his integrity and image at home and abroad. Foreign governments, especially western democratic governments and Nigerians who hailed him as a democrat when he was first elected turned against him. Obasanjo never recovered from his wrong-headed adventure.
Today, President Goodluck Jonathan is set to embark on another ill-conceived adventure. This time he wants to change the constitution and increase president and governor’s tenure from a four year to a seven year single term. In Nigerian current political dispensation, presidents and governors can run for two consecutive four year terms, but in his proposed plan, presidents and governors can only run for one single seven year term. President Jonathan said that four year tenure is too expensive for the country and he will not benefit from the change in the tenure. I think he is probably telling the truth with regard to future beneficiaries of this effort. It is true that a four year term is too expensive. However, a seven year single term may be far more expensive figuratively, by that I mean the cumulative cost may be terrible for Nigeria. Let’s examine the potential pros and cons.
Pros:
- Seven year tenure will mean that election will be held every seven years instead of four years which means less money will be spent on elections.
- Seven year single term may encourage some presidents or governors to take bold steps with regard to the economic, political or social policies they think will benefit the country in the short and long-run without fear of negative backlash when they seek re-election.
- Zoning will be easier to implement across the six geo-political zones in a seven year single term compared to what we have now.
Cons:
- Seven year single term will be more likely to enshrine the culture of impunity that already exist in Nigeria. Politicians will be less responsive to the electorate if they do not have to worry about re-election.
- Corruption is likely to increase because they will accumulate all they can without fear of immediate repercussion from the electorate.
- Seven year single term gives less incentive to successive presidents or governors to record achievements quickly so they can be rewarded with a second term. This incentive is a critical part of two terms. A President or governor will be more responsive to the electorate and less likely to govern like an emperor. Four year or five year consecutive term creates a self- perpetuating incentive of reward which in turn benefits the entire country. Typical example is the United States where four year two consecutive term have been in existence since post Franklin Roosevelt era. It is not perfect, but it has worked so far.
- What happens if the electorate mistakenly elects an incompetent leader? That means Nigerians will be saddled with the person for seven years. Some leaders are so narcissistic to the point of believing that their policies are correct and should not be questioned. One may say that the Senate, House of Representative and House of Assembles are there to check and balance the executive power. That may not always be the case.
President Goodluck Jonathan’s proposal will not be good for Nigeria. The negative consequence of this proposal is enormous. Nigerians will be better off shunning this proposal. President Goodluck Jonathan means well, but good intentions are not enough. This type of proposal is especially bad for a developing country like Nigeria where democracy and strong laws is just taking root. Mexico is practicing six year single term, and it does not seem to be working well. France has a seven year term but the president can run for re-election. Five year two consecutive terms will not be a bad idea, but length of politician tenure should not be a priority for Nigeria at this time. Zoning should be discarded in Nigerian politics. Selection of leaders should be based on merit and capability not ethnicity, religion or geography. A good leader ends up lifting up the entire country. Conducting free and fair election should be of utmost priority for Nigeria at this time. Politician elected in a fair and free election is more likely to be responsive to the electorate which will take care of the malaise bedeviling Nigeria.