By Isaac Asabor
There is no denying the fact that “Turn-By-Turn Presidency”, popularly known as “Rotational presidency”, which is based on ethnicity, race, religion or region in Nigeria may sound all-encompassing and considered to be a better way of calming the nerves of agitating indigenes of any particular region, such as those in the South East Region, that have from one political dispensation to another been unjustifiably denied the opportunity of producing a President, and some key political appointments.
The reason for the foregoing line of thought cannot be farfetched as the relegation of the Igbos is from its all ramifications unjustified even as it has by each passing political dispensation made them the most sidelined ethnic group in Nigeria since the end of the civil war. It is indeed worrisome and inexcusable that they have been so much relegated and sidelined as if they are no more Nigerians. Argued from the foregoing perspective there is a school of thought that totally disagreed with rotation of the office of the presidency, saying it does not pave the way for merit, and that it is encouraging atmosphere of bad governance. Let me quickly chip in in this context that if doctrine of necessity is required to make the South East the only region in the Southern part of Nigeria to benefit from rotation of power to the South that the region and its people unarguably deserve it, and that those agitating against power shift to the South East should perish their thought.
Be that as it may, not few Nigerians see rotational presidency to be limiting, ill-advised and potential descent to mediocrity. In fact, those that see “Turn-by-Turn” Presidency to be retrogressive are certain that Nigeria’s economy can only be bettered if Nigerians conduct primary and general elections in a manner that will produce the most qualified and forward looking candidate. They also argued that best leaders can emerge across constituencies in the country only if politicians eschew rigging during elections which will ensure that the best candidate emerges after each election.
Even if it would be difficult for most Nigerians to look beyond ethnicity, race, religion or region during electioneering and polling, it is certain that electoral behavior of such people will change for the better with time.
It is not an exaggeration to say that, to a large extent, that the seed of primordial sentiments along the line of ethnicity, race, religion and region was unarguably sown by the government as evidenced in official forms wherein applicants of such forms are compulsorily expected to indicate the ethnic group, race, religion and region they are affiliated to. Against the foregoing background, it would placidly be pragmatic to advise government in this context to always expunge such discriminatory requirement in official forms or documents so as to deepen the sense of belongingness in every citizen of being a Nigerian. To me, every Nigerian should be made to have a deep sense of being a Nigerian in the true sense of the word wherever he or she domiciles. Indeed, such requirement should exclusively be made applicable during an official count or survey, especially of a population.
It would be recalled that Nigeria initially was divided into Western, Eastern and Northern region after independence, before it was further classified into six geopolitical zones thus: North Central, North East, North West, South East, South-South and South West.
In fact not few Nigerians have been kicking against power rotation. For instance, Pastor Tunde Bakare, in November last year, criticized rotation of power, and said the confrontation between the Northern and the Southern parts of the country over who will run in the 2023 presidency was uncalled-for.
Bakare, who is the Overseer of the Citadel Global Community Church (formerly Latter Rain Assembly), said the issue of competence should be at the heart of the debate rather than dwelling on inanities.
It is not an exaggeration to say that reactions have continued to trail the adoption of rotational power system, which is in this context dubbed “Turn by Turn Presidency” as its opposers unanimously said it would encourage “mediocrity and sectional leadership.
They insisted that the issue of rotational power system will lead to mediocrity, sectional and divisional leadership, in the sense that when anyone is a leader in a particular zone, other zones will be left behind and such a leader can only develop their area, leaving other states to suffer.
There has been advocacy emphasizing that rotational system should not be enshrined in the Nigerian constitution, arguing that even if it is been practiced at the federal level between North and South, that it should not be considered to be applied at the state and local levels.
Now it is expedient to ask, since the rotation of power between the North and South commenced, has better governance being delivered at any point in time in our nation? The answer to the foregoing question cannot be farfetched as the challenge of governance in Nigeria has never being in the system adopted but in the people (the politicians) that operate the machineries of governments across the three tiers.
As appropriately posited by most political observers, it is difficult to ascertain who is a patriot, upright and sincere politician in Nigeria. The reason for the foregoing cannot be farfetched as many a politician had in the past appeared to voters with pleasing mien only for the politician to reveal through his seemingly anti-people activities and utterances while in office, that he or she is a wolf in sheep clothing.
As it is now, it appears most of them are in government to impoverish the people and diminish the wealth of our blessed country.
Laughable enough, when a typical politician is interviewed in order to ascertain from him what actually motivated him to leave his profession or business for politics, the most likely response is always, “I want to serve my people” or “my people dragged me into politics” or “I have been involved in politics right from student union days”. “All fake! Fake! Apology to Governor Nyesom Wike.
Sincerely, most politicians have used any of the above or similar responses to respond to media interviews when asked what motivated them to join a political race. Any of the responses may appear candid and logical on the surface, but when they are deeply and properly analyzed, it would be discovered that they are spurious. The underlying reason they joined politics is to make money, acquire fame and power. I stand to be corrected but without being pretentious we all know it is the truth.
Be that as it may, in the Christendom, the book of 1 Samuel chapter 16 verse 7 says “The LORD seeth not as a man seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance but the LORD looketh on the heart”. In the same nexus, in politics, the electorate tend to cast votes for candidates based on their outward appearances.
At this juncture, it is expedient to urge fellow electorates that there is an important qualification they should discern in any political aspirant that would woo them for their support ahead of the 2023 General Elections. That is, they should be able to discern whether the political antecedent of an aspirant shows that he has been able to distinguish sharply between democracy in principle and in practice in his previous political position. The reason for appraising an aspirant with the yardstick of his past achievements or failures is because there is near-universal agreement that our democratic system is not working well, in particular, that it is not delivering the results people want. This is troubling because most people value democracy for its fruits, not just its roots.
