WHEN President Goodluck Jonathan first made the curious proposal of a single term tenure for elected chief executives at federal and state levels, it was roundly condemned for its tenuousness and undue distractions from serious governance. Two years on, the Senate Committee on Constitution Review is reportedly waiting for an endorsement by the Senate at Plenary of a similar committee proposal on non-renewable six-year tenure considered at a recent working retreat in Lagos. In the interest of democracy, the Senate should consider that committee’s decision as dead on arrival, because it can only generate a needless controversy capable of detracting from the task of addressing the country’s numerous and pressing problems.
Lawmakers and other stakeholders should again be reminded that any short-coming in governance stems not from the current system but from politicians’ own inadequacies in discipline and accountability, which have inflicted pain and misery on the citizenry. The renewed campaign is a classic case of misplaced priority. There are far too many existential challenges that have beset the country, creating critical gaps in social and physical infrastructure. Working to resolve these problems must rank higher on the list of priorities than overhauling a system that benefits only a few politicians and does little for the people.
Sharing thoughts on the six-year tenure, the committee was said to have considered exclusion of current holders of the offices under reference and their deputies as beneficiaries of the new political process. In addition, under the proposal, a deputy will be ineligible to present himself for election at subsequent poll if he had, by reason of removal of his principal from office or death or incapacitation, completed another person’s term even for one month.
Not surprisingly, the committee will justify its action with the same beaten tracks of the need to prevent tension in the political environment by aspirants for offices, developments in the political turf at the approach of an election year – such reasons as were also advanced by President Jonathan during his first media chat when he publicly expressed preference for a single seven-year term. His excuses included frequency of elections every four years, acrimony engendered by re-election issues, removal of attention from service delivery and focusing more on preparation for next elections.
So far, however, those arguments have not proffered any cogent reasons to jettison the two tenures as practiced in most countries of the world where leaders aspire for excellence in the hope of reward by way of re-election.
The single term issue has undoubtedly been an old chestnut. For instance, a non-political group of senior citizens, The Patriots, once canvassed in 2002 for a single tenure of five years but the position could not be sustained, just like the call in 2003 by then Chairman of the National Assembly Constitution Review Committee, Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu.
But the proposal, good as it sounds, is not and should not be a priority of the lawmakers even as they attempt to amend certain portions of the imperfect document bequeathed by the military in the twilight of the last regime. It is wrongheaded because almost every segment of the country has raised meaningful voice against it, popping questions on how beneficial an unnecessary diversion would be to the people who are becoming more politically sophisticated by the day.
Political chief executives should without fail always apply themselves to proper governance. Nigerians do not need ball gazers to say that most of the self-seeking elected politicians have not made the best use of any four-year first term. They are unlikely to do better if given a single term in office. The current system is already problematic, so jumping midstream to yet another untried arrangement may be chaotic.
A six or seven-year single term is arbitrary; its endorsement can, therefore, be counter-productive. For selfish interests, the lawmakers who are clamouring for precluding certain categories of persons from benefitting from the proposal can turn coat and start mouthing the doctrine of necessity at the critical point of implementation.
Clearly, what obtains among Nigerian politicians is a lack of character. They have demonstrated this trait for too long to be suddenly trusted with promoting the destiny of the people and the country, in another experiment.
Under any purposeful democratic dispensation, as argued also by a number of political groupings, the Senate committee’s proposal would not only encourage corruption but also discourage good performance as it “lacks the basic elements of motivation and incentives needed in any management of human affairs for performance”.
There are more pressing issues dogging the country for anybody to continue dissipating time and energy on this debate. If the Constitution must be amended, the restructuring of the Nigerian State to enthrone true federalism is desirable. Serious issues of corruption and insecurity militating against the smooth running of the nation are yet to be addressed; the nation still groans under the load of mass poverty, inadequate social services and unemployment among others; most federal roads are dilapidated just as the electricity supply is epileptic, among a legion of challenges.
Those are the issues begging for the legislators’ attention, and not the tenure of office of elected politicians.
| < Prev |
|---|
