The 2015 presidential election took place under the watchful eye of the world. The flurry of diplomatic activity before, during and after the election was unprecedented. The United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union played crucial roles in steering Nigeria towards a peaceful and credible election. They aligned with respected statesmen, such as Kofi Annan, Emeka Anyaoku, and former head of state, Abdusalam Abubakar, to ensure the election was not derailed or allowed to degenerate into chaos.Even Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, weighed in with pleas for a credible and non-violent election. Of course, the US made the most direct political interventions through intense diplomatic engagements ,such as Secretary of State John Kerry’s visits to Nigeria and meetings with President Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, Vice President Joe Biden’s phone calls to the two leading contestants, and President Obama’s direct broadcast to Nigerians, reminding us of our famous civil war slogan: “To keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done”!
All of this was, of course,against the backdrop of a high-stakes election and of local and international predictions of widespread post-election violence and possible disintegration of Nigeria. But,post-election crisis apart, world leaders were also concerned about the future political direction of Nigeria. The possibility that Nigeria could continue in the socio-political rot under the Jonathan administration for four more years weighed heavily in the political calculations of Western countries. So, far from being neutral, Western countries, like most Nigerians, preferred another man at the helm of affairs in Nigeria.
The first shots were fired by Western media. Several influential Western publications, such as The Economist and the New York Times endorsed Buhari, having branded President Jonathan “an utter failure”. But Buhari’s endorsement was not universal. A few writers, such as Roger Boyes, of The Times (London), and Richard Grenell, of The Washington Times, were critical of Buhari’s past, and wanted Jonathan to continue as president. However, most western media hoped for a change of government in Nigeria. As for Western countries, the US sent out the most powerful pro-Buhari signals. For instance, as The Washington Times observed, “Despite the policy against state visits near election time, Kerry lent the political legitimacy of his office as the president’s representative to the opponent of the current elected leader of Nigeria”.
Indeed, throughout the election, the US and the UK maintained an unusually close watch and vigilance over the entire process. For instance, the joint statement by John Kerry and his UK counterpart, Philip Hammond, warning of “disturbing indications that the collation process may be subject to deliberate political interference” was pre-emptive and remarkable, prompting an editorial in The Times, stating that “It’s not the voting that makes a democracy, it’s the counting”. Given that nothing significantly untoward eventually happened, it’s tempting to dismiss the US-UK joint statement now as alarmist. But I believe it was based on sound intelligence, and supported by circumstantial evidence, including the undue delay in announcing the final results and repeated claims by senior PDP apparatchiks that the party had won in 23 states! Some have rubbished the predictions of post-election chaos because, thank God, they didn’t come to pass.But without the concerted efforts to prevent vote count manipulation, and had the final results been tampered with, it would probably have been a different story!
So, my point is that, yes, we should congratulate ourselves on the historic achievement of an orderly transition of power, but should also acknowledge the contributions that others, particularly the Western world, made towards this. Let’s not deny, for instance, that Western pressure contributed to forestalling the shenanigans that could have caused President Jonathan to try to hang on to power. Presidents who hang on to power after an election defeat often do so because of powerful cabals or hawks around them. So, while President Jonathan’s personal preference was to concede defeat, and he has been widely and rightly commended for doing so, we should not forget that the West also strengthened his will and hand against contrary forces.
That said, the West’s level of involvement in the presidential election was unprecedented. In the past, Western countriesrefrained from interfering directly in the electoral process in Nigeria, only to complain about malpractices or question the outcome of the poll afterwards. But in this election, their approach was proactive and decidedly hands-on. Why? My view is that, apart from the need to avert crisis,the West also strongly believed Nigeria needed a new leader, and found a candidate they could support: their sympathies lay with Buhari, who they reckoned was a better alternative to the rudderless Jonathan.
But is anything wrong with that? None, I argue! To some people, however, the West’s unusual visibility and involvement in the election was diplomatic meddling and a breach of the doctrines of sovereignty and non-interference. But I disagree. For a start, the Westphalian principles of sovereignty and non-interference are not absolute. They are circumscribed by reservations and qualifications. For instance, the principle of humanitarian interventions is now well recognised in international law. But nothing has weakened the rigidity of the principles of sovereignty and non-interference more than globalisation or greater interconnectedness between states. When the domestic policy or action of one country can have serious consequences on other countries, it’s futile to discuss the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in absolute terms. However, the legitimacy of intervention in the internal affairs of another state depends on the purpose of the intervention and the means employed. For instance, military intervention is a no-go area, except on humanitarian grounds or in self-defence. But external political interventions, of different forms, are now common, especially when the stakes are high.
Take the recent decision of the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to go over the head of the US administration to appeal directly to the US Congress and the American people on President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Certainly, Netanyahu would also seek to influence the 2016 US presidential race, through powerful pro-Israel groups in America, to ensure the next US president is someone sympathetic to the Israeli position. Take another example. Assuming the Conservative Party wins the May 7 general election, it would hold a referendum in 2017 on whether the UK should leave the EU. Clearly, if the UK votes to leave the EU that would have an existential effect on the EU, and so several EU countries would try to sway public opinion in the UK in favour of EU membership. They would definitely seek to engage in the domestic debate and exploit divided opinions within the UK in order to bolster those campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU. Take also the 2014 Indian general election. Most Western leaders had strong reservations about Narendra Modi, of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and most Western media, including The Economist, did not endorse him as Prime Minister, because they feared he would polarise India, given his party’s attitude to India’s Muslims and other minorities, and could turn India into a difficult global player.
The point here is that when a country is so significant that its policies could have serious domestic and international consequences, the world would take an interest in who leads that country. Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy. According to the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, it could be the fourth largest country in the world after India, China and the US by 2040, and has the potential to become Africa’s only global superpower. A mismanaged Nigeria is not in the interest of Nigerians or of the world. Conversely, a successful, prosperous and peaceful Nigeria would be great not just for Nigerians, but also the world.In other words, like a giant multinational corporation, Nigeria is “too big to fail”. A fractured Nigeria would have significant systemic consequences, a serious contagious effect. So, the world cannot sit on its hands and allow Nigeria to fail!
However, the West, particularly the US, has long concluded that corruption, insecurityand maladministration were killing the Nigerian dream, and believed President Jonathan’s government was responsible for the malaise. For instance, Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State, once made a provocative statement that “Nigeria under Jonathan has squandered oil wealth and has bred massive corruption”, and that “the Nigerian government has failed to address the underlying challenges” of the Boko Haram insurgency. The truth is that most Nigerians agreed with the Clinton analysis. Nigeria under Jonathan was no longer respected around the world, and had strained relationships with key Western countries. So, just as well, then, that Buhari appeared to offer a better alternative, and naturally the West supported him, as did most Nigerians.
The world was certainly right to support the aspiration of Nigerians for positive change. This is a national and global public good. The onus is now on Buhari to make sure he doesn’t let Nigerians and the world down!
Olu Fasan
