By now, assuming the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has announced the final results of Saturday’s presidential election, we should know the winner, or whoever has been declared the winner. So, as you read this, something very significant and historic may have happened in Nigeria. For the first time in the history of Nigeria, an incumbent president may have lost to a challenger. If that has happened and President Jonathan has accepted the verdict, as he said he would, then that would be a history-making development. An electorally induced change of government at the federal level in a free and fair election would be a remarkable “First” for Nigeria, and signal to the world that Nigeria has come of age democratically. Conversely, General Buhari may have lost to President Jonathan. If that has happened and he too has accepted defeat, and congratulated the president, that would also be significant and historic. So far, only Kayode Fayemi has done that after losing the Ekiti State governorship election to Ayo Fayose.
But it would be a miracle if the post-election situation is not already acrimonious. Following the unprecedentedly rancorous and bad-tempered election campaign, in which both PDP and APC adopted a desperate, “do-or-die” attitude, the stakes are extremely high, and it would be a pleasant surprise if the loser readily accepts the verdict. At the very least, the losing party and candidate will by now be raising a lot of dust alleging “massive rigging”. More worryingly, of course, is the possibility of post-election violence, which was widely predicted. There have even been speculations about possible military coup. My fervent hope is that none of these grim predictions comes to pass.
That said, I believe the challenges this country faces transcend the election, whatever the outcome. As I have consistently said on this page, none of the main parties or candidates can tackle these challenges alone. And it would be a disservice to this country to pretend otherwise. However, the election presents a huge opportunity for transforming this country. In that regard, my aim in this intervention is to advance a basic proposition: Nigeria needs a political settlement, and needs a National Unity Government to deliver it. The premise of this proposition is simple. I believe that if a country can get its politics and institutions right, other things, including the economy, will adjust positively.
Thus, those who scoff at politics and think everything is about business and the economy miss the point. The economy and business respond to external stimuli, and the most potent are politics and institutions. It’s not for nothing that the 19th century economists, such as Adam Smith and David Hume, were called political economists, and not just economists. They were concerned with the interplay between economics, law and politics, and in particular, with how a country is managed or governed, taking into account both political and economic factors. So, politics and institutions matter hugely. And political settlements are the preconditions for politics; they also influence the form, nature and performance of institutions.
Nigeria, of course, has never had a proper political settlement. There has never been a negotiated political arrangement about how the people of this country should live peaceably together; how power should be organised and exercised to generate political stability; and how the institutions and the economy can work harmoniously to promote sustainable growth and development. The pre-independence settlement, negotiated with Britain, was not a political settlement. When a country negotiates a political arrangement with its colonial masters in order to secure its independence, it can’t call that a political settlement. In any case, the pre-independence settlement collapsed within years, first as a result of the 1966 coups, and then the civil war. And even though the civil war prevented Nigeria from breaking up, it did not produce a political settlement. Essentially, Nigerians were kept together by the use of force and not through a negotiated arrangement by its people.
Those former military leaders, such as General Ibrahim Babangida, who take Nigeria’s unity for granted by constantly reminding us that they fought the civil war to keep Nigeria together, and still carry scars from the war, should know that military victory in a civil war does not bind a country together, only a post-war political settlement does. The Americans still had to negotiate a political settlement after their own civil war, as did many other countries that went through a civil war. Unfortunately, Nigeria’s civil war did not result in a negotiated political settlement, and so the issues that caused the war still linger on, along with others.
Yet Nigeria cannot make real progress without a political settlement. There is a large body of scholarship that puts political settlements at the heart of the development process. As the UK Department for International Development puts it, “… the political settlement is central to all development”, adding that “political settlements explain the difference in performance between countries with apparently similar endowments or disadvantages”. They are central to explaining the degree of economic and political stability, and institutional performance, in a country. It is thus not surprising that classical political theorists, such as Plato and Aristotle, stressed the causal relationships between political and institutional arrangements and political stability and sustainable development.
But political settlements are almost impossible without elite cooperation and inclusivity, which is why the National Conference is diminished by APC’s refusal to support it. To avoid such inter-elite conflicts, most countries negotiate a political settlement by forming a National Unity Government (NUG). South Africa is a good example. The NUG headed by Mandela in 1994 delivered for that country a political settlement that eliminated political violence and extremist groups, and produced a constitution that is universally praised for devolving significant powers to the provinces, guaranteeing several individual rights, and creating and strengthening critical state institutions. Kenya is another example. The NUG that was set up after the post-election violence in 2007 produced a political settlement that has transformed the politics of that country. The peace and progress that are now being enjoyed in Northern Ireland, after decades of conflicts, are also due to a political settlement. There are several other examples. Of course, political settlements and NUGs are not panacea for all problems, but they tend to remove structural obstacles to progress and sources of internal tension.
So, whatever the outcome of the presidential election, the winner should lead a National Unity Government, with a four-year national unified agenda to negotiate a political settlement for Nigeria, covering political, economic, security and institutional reforms. This is not a token gesture of simply inviting some opposition politicians to join the government to avoid a “winner-takes-all” approach. It must be a genuine NUG, involving the major parties and other key groups. However, appointments to the NUG should be meritocratic so that the government can direct the negotiation of the political settlement and still govern effectively to meet the critical needs of the people.
Despite the bitter election campaign, there are no unbridgeable ideological differences between the parties to make forming a unity government unachievable. And there are no constitutional constraints. The only possible obstacles are personal, factional and parochial interests. But if the politicians really care about Nigeria’s future and progress, they should put the national interest above parochial interests. Once the dust settles after the election, they should form a unity government to deliver a political settlement for this country. Nigeria’s future depends on it!
Olu Fasan
