The second area, which is to be looked into, is the area of comparing Nigeria’s political platform with that of the developed countries of Europe and the US. While the constitutions of the developed countries makes the central governments less attractive, in Nigeria, the aristocrats have in themselves, without consulting the people whom they claim to be serving, made the constitution to their own benefit, by making the center the most attractive tier of government.
The attractiveness of the central government is so pronounced that politicians would do ‘anything’ to get into power including mass murder. Again talking about murder, this is another issue (although related to the issue under consideration) that has effectively being married to governance in Nigeria’s politics.
In the 60s, political killings took such an enormous proportion in the old western region that it was tagged “wild wild west”. But by 1999-2003, political killings became greatly improved upon that it was not restricted to just a particular region. So from “wild wild west” it became “wild wild Nigeria”. Even the US government expressed this fear by warning its citizens to stay away from Nigeria in December 2002.
And when accusations and counter-accusations were pouring out in numbers, President Obasanjo in a bid to defend his party maintained that people should stop accusing his party, The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), as being responsible for the murder of politicians. He maintained, “Death is an inevitable feat.” Though the president is correct in saying that death is inevitable, the question I like to pose at this point is: what kind of death is the so-called Mr. President talking about? Is it natural death or death by murder?
In fact, political murder happened when he was barely two months in office, the governor of Anambra state (who himself had obtained the mantle of leadership in a questionable manner) abducted by a chief of the Nigerian Police Force on the ground that the governor was been given police protection. But for the timely intervention of the press, only God can tell what would have happened to him.
All these show the attractive nature of Nigeria’s politics. Nigeria’s politics is plagued with the recurring or replaying of events. It doesn’t stop at this; it does have a way of bringing in the same faces into its main stream.
Only God knows what the future holds for us as Nigerians, when people steal so much as military leaders, only to come back civilian Presidents. One only wishes that the constitutions will not be reconstructed to make them get back to power as emperors or monarchs of some sort.
The situation and politics of governance in Nigeria is so unique that it cannot be compared to politics of any other place in the world over. Until recent happenings in Nigeria, it has never been heard of that recycling of brigands and bigots have been so enormous. The system is so bogus, that it gives room for mediocre to always find their ways into power.
Nigerians did not give deep-rooted meanings to the words of General Ibrahim Babangida when he said he was “stepping aside,” until the era of this civil rule that the nation (or a nation-state) is experiencing. The difference in Nigeria’s ideology of governance or leadership is so great compared to that of other nations (including other African nations). Brief analyses of such differences would be looked into for proper understanding of the political field or game in the nation.
First, let us compare the situation of Nigeria to that of other African states. Apart from South Africa (since the independence of the country), other African leaders have sat tightly in their respective government houses, preferring to die rather than give up the powers they possess. The idea of stepping aside has never gone down well for them because they might not be to step back in once they live their positions.
However, what has often happened in Nigeria is that “stepping aside” or going on recess means becoming the order of the core area of Nigeria’s politics. When President Nnamdi Azikiwe was ousted in the 1960s, a lot of people had thought that the man would just go and rest and possibly be playing some sort of advisory roles to state affairs. But the expectations of people with such beliefs was thrown out, when in 1979 and 1983 respectively, he went to the polls in a bid to complete what he did not finish.
Similarly his counterpart Obafemi Awolowo, having been at the head of South-western region and finance minister at different times, also felt the need to come into power, at the same time Azikiwe also decided to do so.
In a similar fashion, our dear President today, General Olusegun Obasanjo, who ascended the throne after the coup which led to the death of General Muritala Mohammad, later told the world that he did not have any intention of becoming the head of state and that he was called upon to lead the affairs of the nation at the time.
As stepping aside is the norm, the stage was set for him to come and start from where he stopped in 1999. Like the excuse given to Nigerians regarding when he took over the mantle of leadership as head of state, Obasanjo reiterated that it was the Nigerian people who had confidence in him as the best option in a country of over 130 million people.
On coming back again in 2003, the people stopped calling on him and as such he had to consult with the Almighty, which gave him the second mandate, making him the only one sent by both God and man.
General Ibrahim Babangida was later to become the head of state. He, in actual fact, mentioned to the world that he was a military President, an assertion that is most unacceptable.
« return.