In the week of the postponed presidential election, I wrote in this column on February 9 that the election presented Nigerians with two mutually exclusive yet unsavoury options. Neither candidate, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, I argued, had a holistic solution to Nigeria’s multiple problems. And neither inspired enough confidence about his competence, values and vision to emerge the obvious choice for the next president. The hard choices reminded me of Nevada State in the US, which has “None of these candidates” as a voting option. If this option is available on Nigeria’s ballot, many Nigerians would probably have voted “None” in the presidential election had it taken place on February 14.
However, as Harold Wilson, former British Prime Minister, said: “A week is a long time in politics”. In other words, in politics, things can change quickly. The postponement of the presidential election for seven weeks was thus significant for the candidates. It gave President Jonathan and General Buhari fresh opportunity to define themselves and their vision for this country. But what difference has the seven-week interlude made? Has it brought about a seismic shift in our perception of the candidates to make the choice of the next president easier this Saturday, March 28? Let’s reassess the suitability of the candidates in light of what they said and did since the election postponement. Take, first, the incumbent.
Certainly, President Jonathan has been more active and visible in the past six weeks than at most times in his six-year presidency. The military offensive against Boko Haram clearly threw him a lifeline to demonstrate some previously lacking leadership on the security issue. Forget about whether or not he looked the part, wearing army camouflage uniform and talking tough as he visited soldiers in the Boko Haram strongholds of the North East were positive symbolic gestures. And the military’s decimation of the Boko Haram insurgents is a well-deserved victory for the armed forces, and a welcome relief for Nigerians in the North East. But it’s totally indefensible that the military offensive had to wait until the general elections. A five- or six-year insurgency, with more than 13,000 Nigerians killed, and over 200 girls still being held captive, is not a good record for any president.
President Jonathan also made several barnstorming visits to the electorally significant South West, with a promise to implement the report of the National Conference, which he has since followed up with last week’s Federal Executive Council’s approval of the implementation. However, whatever brownie points the president may earn for these efforts, the diplomatic row over whether or not he had a telephone conversation with the King of Morocco was a serious setback. President Jonathan is not the only one embarrassed by the row; it shames Nigeria even more! And the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contradicted the presidency on what actually transpired between the two leaders is beyond the pale! Few presidents seeking re-election would survive such an embarrassing diplomatic row in an election year. So, whatever momentum President Jonathan may have picked up over the past weeks, perceptions about his leadership and the competence of his government may still count in this election.
What about General Buhari? Well, he too has been active in the past weeks. His flagship activity was the Chatham House speech he gave in February. In the speech, Buhari played to his strengths, and exploited positive international perceptions of him, on the security and corruption issues. To the delight of his international audience, he vowed that “if I am elected president, the world will have no cause to worry about Nigeria as it has had to recently”. To this end, he made the following bold commitments: “I will always lead from the front to combat terrorism”; “there will be no confusion as to where I stand on corruption”; and “the corrupt will not be appointed into my administration”. Surely, Buhari is setting himself up to fail with some of these promises. For instance, how would he establish whether or not his ministerial nominees are corrupt? Simply by asking them to declare their assets? Would he also establish the sources of their wealth? Or would he redefine “corruption” so that more people can pass the test? Given the controversial characters in his party, if elected, Buhari should brace himself for endless allegations of corruption and improprieties against his government, founded or not.
Indeed, it’s very worrying that APC’s electability and fitness for office is built solely on Buhari’s reputation. For instance, some have said that the fear of, and respect for, Buhari would restrain people in his government from being corrupt. Really? Saint Buhari would soon find that he is leading a party of pathologically self-interested politicians. As I wrote last week, APC is a grand coalition of strange bedfellows, few of who are motivated by progressive politics. Indeed, APC’s brand of progressivism strikes me as very permissive. For instance, what kind of progressive leaders would abandon their party’s presidential candidate in the middle of an election and do a secret deal with the candidate of the conservative ruling party? It shows that the end justifies the means, and interests trump values, in APC, which mirrors PDP. So, if elected president, Buhari will have his job cut out for him. For instance, although he may be a “sandal-wearing ascetic”, as The Economist describes him, he would soon discover that he’s dealing with people with acquisitive tendencies. I think Buhari is overegging his reputation on corruption by giving the impression he can tackle the hydra-headed problem by the sheer force of his personality. Nigerians should manage their expectations about what he can actually deliver. Good intentions are simply not enough!
The same optimism bias is at the heart of the huge credibility gap in APC’s economic policy. Buhari believes he would inherit “huge debt and empty treasury” from the Jonathan government, yet his “Covenant with Nigerians” repeats APC’s unfunded manifesto commitments. BusinessDay recently estimated that APC’s spending plan would cost N53 trillion over four years. If Buhari believes he would inherit an “empty treasury”, how then does he intend to fund the commitments? He said he would use savings from blocking leakages and “proceeds recovered from corruption”. How much of the estimated N53 trillion would come from these savings, especially given he would not probe any past leader? This is ‘pie-in-the-sky’ economics, and it’s not the way to prepare for government.
So, despite what we now know about the candidates, there is still no real choice in this election. Despite presiding over Africa’s largest economy and one of world’s fastest growing, President Jonathan doesn’t understand the primary purpose of politics, which, according to Aristotle, is “the actualisation of human flourishing”. He has failed to ensure the personal safety and wellbeing of most Nigerians. Presidents usually win re-election when their people feel good about themselves and their country. Jonathan hasn’t engendered such feelings in Nigerians. Of course, he may be Nigeria’s “Comeback Kid” and still win the election, but it won’t be a well-deserved win. On the other hand, if Buhari wins, it would mainly be because Nigerians can’t stomach four more years of Jonathan, and not because he is “the solution”. Of course, Buhari would be a breadth of fresh air, but don’t believe all the hype about his ability to transform Nigeria. So hold your nose and vote for either candidate this Saturday. But don’t clink glasses, whoever wins!
Olu Fasan
