Towards 2019, Which Way Nigeria?

By Bunmi Makinwa

There are many voices in Nigeria that express regret for having chosen then candidate Muhammadu Buhari during the 2015 presidential elections. In understanding the present, the past must be made clear.

Muhammadu Buhari raises fist after registering to vote on Saturday in Gidan Niyam Sakin Yara. Pic: The Telegraph.

In the choice between All Progressives Congress (APC) party’s candidate Buhari and Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) then President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015, Buhari was the right decision. The Jonathan government had outlived its relative usefulness. It was hardly breathing under the weight of corruption, insecurity especially Boko Haram’s numerous willful attacks, false economic growth, inept leadership and rampant official unresponsiveness to peoples’ needs.

President Buhari is in office today because most Nigerians decided that they had enough of bad leadership of former President Jonathan. Yes, there were some very commendable achievements under Jonathan, but the decay was more.

At the time, Buhari and his coalition of “progressives” offered a possible alternative. Their three-pronged campaign themes of economic development, security especially arresting the growing territorial expansion of Boko Haram, and stopping or reducing corruption resonated well with electorates. It was the appropriate time for the country to climb out of a known sinkhole, and to firmer ground, though it was not to a solid rock.

A New York Times article that I quoted in my write up of March 2 2015 titled its strongly worded editorial, “Nigeria’s Miserable Choices”. Buhari did not come with a pedigree that could rescue Nigeria from its abyss of under-development. But compared to where Jonathan had led the country, “anything but the same” was acceptable.

Two and half years later, as the debate escalates on what is the next road to take for Nigeria, it is appropriate to consider whether the country has made strides under Buhari. And whether the successes are sufficient to justify a continuation of the same government come the 2019 presidential selection.

In a democracy, elections present the opportunity for reflection, reconsideration and action. It is a time for people to exercise their democratic rights by voting for political leaders. Nigeria has the opportunity once every four years to confirm a sitting president or welcome a replacement, according to the constitution.

It must be said that Buhari’s government tackled Boko haram convincingly, and heralded confidence in the nation’s military machine. It revealed many facts about massive stealing and corruption in the previous administration. It exposed humongous monies and wealth that were stolen and often hidden by so-called leaders and their surrogates.

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari presents Lance Corporal Kenneth Kulugh with the Purple Heart medal for gallantry. Pic: BBC.

Unlike the Jonathan government, it reined in unbridled and reckless spending and began to save for possible difficult times ahead, despite major fall of petroleum price. And Buhari talked tough a few times about how to make the country gain traction in reducing imports.

Notwithstanding, the enthusiasm and positive “moment of actions” that accompanied Buhari into office was wasted by the new government. Rather than send out unequivocal actions to build on the high level of credibility that was shown by voters towards him, Buhari went literally into exile. Strangely, appointment of his own cabinet proved difficult and took six months, and other important offices were left unoccupied for a long time.

Many cheerleaders of Buhari, including my humble self, wondered if he was the same person who had aspired to rule the country numerous times.

Perhaps Buhari’s illness accounts for the slowness in many spheres where urgent actions were needed. Yet, it is not justification to absolve the leadership from its accountability to the people. It is correct to assert that, in many aspects which are explained daily in public discourse, Buhari has not done as well as expected.

Albeit, there is a greater problem.

Beyond the lack of performance of the government according to public expectations, there is a major concern that Buhari is leading the country progressively into territories of no-return. The actions and decisions of his government undermine the country’s nationhood. The country is tottering.

A few critical issues will serve to illustrate the point.

The commendable actions of the government on Boko Haram and engagement, though less successful, with the Delta area insurgents gave the impression that former military general Buhari understood security and could protect the country.

Still several security threats have ensconced themselves. The problem is not only that they should have been contained before they assumed serious importance, but that they were allowed to fester and grow. Kidnap, inter-religious fighting, open ethnic rivalry, insurgency by local militias, horrendous actions of herdsmen have all become serious threats to national cohesion. The government has been careless and ineffectual, to say the least. To date, there is no clear sense of urgency and actions to reclaim the girls, women and people abducted by Boko Haram or explain the lack of serious progress.

In appointments, assignments, and placements of senior officials, the government has been as partisan as it has been in sleeping on official reports, decisions on investigations. Management and containment of crisis within the presidency, executive arm and ruling political party leaves much to be desired.

The economy is one of the foremost areas of strength of Buhari’s government. Unlike many other sectors, there is a blueprint and direction. There are promises of results and often a timeframe is defined. However, the results are far too few and lightweight to deal with the problems on the ground. It does not matter that the previous government caused enormous damage to the nation’s economy. The solutions must come from the current government. Despite overwhelming control of states by APC, the sad non-payment of civil servants’ salaries on time or at all persists.

Unemployment, high food prices, high costs of fuel and transportation, high costs of education and health care, among others, are common and becoming normal.

Characteristically, religion – arising in part from the general insecurity, economic deprivation, poor governance, loss of confidence in government’s capability to be fair, firm and honest, – has become the only straw to which many people hang their hopes and trust. In the absence of official decisive actions and communication, people revert to religion or faith to explain many issues. As a result, a much polarized nation has become even more divided by religious differences.

Nigerian Naira notes. Pic: Daily Times Nigeria.

This government shows poor understanding of the dynamics of the country. It deliberately or inadvertently allows ethnic arguments to thrive; accusations of partiality in government appointments appear germane; and government often waits for inter-ethnic attacks to germinate and take roots, before it shows its feeble hands.

On corruption, Buhari’s government shows a consistent desire to act. It demonstrates commitment to tackle it. But the actions are too little, too limited, too weak, too narrow, very incomprehensible and more laden with failures than successes. The greatest fear is that Buhari’s government may leave so much disillusion due to its poor showing on corruption that apathy may set in – if Mr. anti-corruption, straight-as-a-rod Buhari cannot succeed in fighting corruption, maybe nobody can. Then, as many pro-corruption advocates argue, “corruption is a Nigerian, and let us live together”. It is a wrong thesis and corruption should and can be fought successfully. This government’s anti-corruption approach lacks honesty, strategy, direction and it is devoid of mobilization of people. It cannot succeed.

What is next towards 2019?

There should be an admission that Buhari’s government did succeed in changing some things for the better. Though far below what is expected. Much more can and should be done. There are four possible new directions to take.

One is to have the current government change its tempo and change from not being “in a hurry to do anything”, as Buhari himself admitted recently. The problems are known and by re-organising to have the right people around him to think and implement decisions in the best interest of the country, much more can be achieved.

The second possible way is for Buhari to be a statesman and accept that due to his health and factors beyond him, he cannot lead the country. His party, APC, may be able to find a capable replacement.

The third one is for Buhari to step aside and also opt out of APC. His illness and political party have made it difficult for him, he says, and he becomes a most respected statesman by such a wise step. He can provide a rallying point for an alternative force to the big political parties.

The fourth possible route is to re-invent the political fundamentals of the country. It should be possible for independent candidates and candidates of smaller political parties to run for presidential and other offices. Time and test have shown that APC and PDP are two sides of the same coin.

Buhari came into power to arrest the drift under Jonathan. It has done some of it. As things stand, the government cannot do better. It can most probably get worse. PDP does not have known leaders of the quality needed to handle Nigeria’s current and future challenges. It means that in 2019, as in 2015, presidential election may be a repeat of “miserable choices’.

Given the numerous proven corrupt people who may present themselves for the coming elections, strong are the chances that Buhari will have a second term in such a situation. It will be unfortunate.

Bunmi Makinwa is the CEO of AUNIQUEI Communication for Leadership. Formerly, he was Africa Regional Director of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Advertisements

Where “change” begins in Nigeria

By Bunmi Makinwa

change-begins-with-me

President Buhari hands over ‘Change Begin With Me’ flag to Alhaji Mohammed (thenewsnigeria.com.ng)

The “change begins with me” campaign of the federal government of Nigeria is running into obstacles. One of the latest undesirable hitches is plagiarism of President Obama’s speech in the text of President Buhari’s statement delivered at the recent launch. News, opinions, reports, commentaries and jokes in print, electronic and online media are full of subtle and scathing attacks on the campaign.

A major argument of some critics is that change begins with the leadership that had promised change but is backpedaling on its responsibility for it, and turning it over to the populace. Another line of criticisms is that the targeted change is undefined, nebulous and opaque. The nuts and bolts of “change begins with me”, it is argued, are as unclear as many policy issues that the President Buhari administration pursues. Put together, the contextual issues around change do not align with the new campaign.

In communication theories, change is a well-trodden area. Human communication is replete with uses of communication to effect change of knowledge, attitudes, practice and behavior. Change communication underlies the intellectual discourse of behavior and social modifications as a critical step towards change. The “change begins with me” campaign, whether stated or not, is premised on the thesis that change of behavior by Nigerians can and should result in change of the Nigerian society. The behavior change of citizens will, over time, aggregate to social change of the Nigerian nation. It is, theoretically, a solid basis to build an action programme. This must have been what Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, had in mind.

It is widely accepted that change of behavior, and ultimately change of society, is complex. It is hardly linear. It requires collaboration of communication with sociology, psychology, anthropology and related fields of human interactions. Extensive studies in change communication show that “good intentions” are far from adequate. In other words, no matter, how well intentioned a change idea is, it does not by fiat materialize into acceptance by the community or society where the change is advantageous or sensible.

In development communication, examples of good intentions leading to bad outcomes are soberly common. Whether it is smoking, driving while intoxicated or use of seat belts, change of habits and behavior is arduous. For example, health promotion campaigns that focused on negative health impacts of smoking achieved little for decades. Facts on the nefarious health effects did not discourage reasonable, knowledgeable smokers. The breakthrough came in many countries by making smoking appear so “un-cool”, unfashionable, repulsive, anti-social to “right –thinking” persons. And it was combined with treatment medications, psychosocial approaches, alongside policies and legislation that made cigarettes expensive; smoking was barred from public spaces; and smokers were restricted to corner spaces of undesirability.

Campaigns against driving whilst intoxicated are witnessing increasing successes in countries that combine special attention to what should be done when one drinks – designate a driver who does not drink alcohol at that occasion, have colleagues monitor each other’s alcohol consumption levels, have bar tenders take charge and restrict drunk drivers, use taxis to return home – with stringent checks by police officers as people leave parties and drinking places. Tough legislations penalize drunk driving, including heavy fines, temporary or permanent ban from driving.

Advertisers and marketers, to mention a few, use change communication extensively to create acceptance of new products, or to effect change from existing services to newly available ones. It works.

Success in change of behavior and society is grounded in theoretical understanding of people and society, and adaptation of knowledge from empirical studies. Behaviour modification and change does not happen quickly. There are short, medium and long term phases, and some successes can be recorded, even in the short term phase when norms begin to be questioned and re-ordered.

Without enough understanding of the work – theories, studies, processes – that inform Nigeria’s “change begins with me” campaign, it is difficult to say much about it. However, given the official actions and criticisms of it, some points are well in order.

-

A poster of leading opposition All Progressive Congress presidential candidate Mohammadu Buhari and deputy Yemi Osinbajo (www.news24.com.ng)

President Buhari and his All Progressives Congress (APC) party was voted in on the platform of “change”. The massive voters’ support confirmed that change was awaited and would be supported. How will change occur? The first positive signal is that the leadership should demonstrate change.

Whilst the government, during its 16-month tenure, succeeded convincingly in dealing decisively with Boko Haram, it is yet to show that it can deal with security in its many ratifications. See how long it took to have any serious official pronouncement on herdsmen who ravage farms and villages, kill and maim people.

Also, whilst government struggles to rein in the spreading kidnap menace, the Niger Delta insurgents appear to thrive under various names. And the initial official commitment to locate the abducted Chibok Girls has fallen by the wayside. Rather, the Police harass peaceful protesters who serve as a constant beacon of the historic tragedy bleeding the nation.

Corruption, another pillar of the campaign manifesto of the government, has seen some positive efforts at curbing it. But even the consternation and anger of people as revelations of massive looting were revealed is now being dulled by time and inconclusive lengthy processes that drag on. It is apparent that some officials, especially civil servants and law enforcement agents, are falling back willfully into old ways of public bribe-taking and oppression of the people for the slightest reasons. Not only national budgets are “padded” under the nose of the change leadership, contracts are being padded heavily again. The fight against corruption is being cast as “Buhari’s thing”. His immediate entourage, collaborators and, especially, state governments are not even remotely part of any obvious anti-corruption efforts.

The dark cloud that covers the nation right now is economic and financial difficulty. It hangs like a giant elephant tusk on the neck of the masses and so-called middle class. It drags people down, into anger, intolerance and hopelessness. The people want to hear more on how and when it will change.

Candidly, everything seems right about the wording and need for “change begins with me”. But political communication of contradictory verbal and non-verbal exchange is problematic. The entirety of change should be manifested in many more areas and should be read, heard, seen, and interpreted – without doubt. The government, with its main pillars of change agenda in doubtful suspense, cannot expect its subjects to trust that it can lead or sustain change.

Bunmi Makinwa is the CEO of AUNIQUEI Communication for Leadership and former Africa head of United Nations Population Fund

Buhari: Beyond 2015 Elections – An End to Corrubration

About a month to the elections, already something hidden about Nigeria has emerged.

Is it a fact or fiction – that a certain Nigerian politician is not corrupt? Is it a fact or fiction that a presidential candidate for a political party in the current political system is not corrupt and cannot be identified with any instance of corruption? Is it fact or fiction – that General Muhammadu Buhari, the presidential candidate of the main opposition part, All Progressives Congress (APC), has served as governor, federal commissioner (minister) of petroleum resources, president of Nigeria, and chairman of Petroleum Trust Fund, yet does not have the material acquisitions that have become characteristic of Nigerian leaders and political leaders especially?

Continue reading

The Theatre in South Africa’s Parliament

You can make your choice – either to laugh or to cry. The raucous in the parliament in South Africa is not going to stop anytime soon. It may get worse before it gets better.

In the new multi-racial democratic South Africa, the first and only known serious breach of protocol and rowdiness in parliament was between a ruling party member and an opposition legislator in 1998, four years after the end of a long ignominious apartheid rule in the country.

But that was until August 21 in 2014 when usual decorum of debate in the hallowed hall of legislation disappeared. President Jacob Zuma came to parliament for a scheduled question and answer session in the parliament in Cape Town, but it was not to be. Mayhem overcame the session when members of parliament of the recently-for med Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party heckled him. EFF members were dislodged by stern-looking security officers.  EFF wanted President Zuma to answer their questions on “Nkandla” – the name of his country home which has become synonymous with use of public funds for enhancement of personal assets. In a critical report, the public protector had said that official expense to renovate President Zuma’s Nkandla homestead was improper and that such items as swimming pool and amphi-theatre could not be included as security items paid for by government. The report concluded that unaccepted items should be reimbursed to government coffers by the president who was the beneficiary. The president had countered that he had nothing to do with the decision on what was done at his homestead, and the project was handled by designated officials. A committee set up by parliament on the report did not find the president guilty of any wrongdoing and the African National Congress (ANC) party with compelling majority in parliament exonerated the president of any wrong doing.

But business could not go on as usual. EFF, hastily formed as a political party a few months to the election of May 20 2014 and surprisingly garnered 25 seats in parliament at the election, has used its new membership in the house to torment the majority. EFF is the third most popular party with 25 seats in the 400 member house and six per cent of all votes, next to Democratic Alliance (DA), the lead opposition party, with 89 seats in parliament and 22 per cent of votes. The 102-year-old ANC has 249 seats in parliament, 62 per cent of votes and has ruled since 1994. Despite its few members, EFF has made itself a major force to be reckoned with. It made “Pay back the money” its permanent cry in parliament and vowed that President Zuma would have to return monies spent on non-security and un-entitled items at his Nkandla home or no smooth business would be conducted anytime the president showed up in parliament.

Living up to its word, EFF members turned parliament into a fighting field for the second time on February 12 2015 when President Zuma came to read his annual State of the Nation address. Barely had he started the address than pandemonium broke out with shouts of “Pay back the money”. On cue, smartly dressed security persons swarmed on the EFF members and bundled them out. But not without a struggle that left several people injured and bruised. For the second time in six months, South Africa’s democracy was stretched tautly.

The incident of February 12 generated a lot of heat. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and opposition parties walked out of parliament in protest against breach of parliamentary protocol by allowing in security personnel and for the ejection of EFF members from the house. Just moments before the incident, the airwaves were jammed and phone signals were not available, another action seen as strong arm tactic by the authorities to supplant democracy. There was no doubt that security forces were prepared to forestall the expected disruption of the president’s address. What resulted though was that a traditionally celebratory and almost banal event became a historic marker for parliamentary order or disorder and President Zuma had to deliver his address to only ANC parliamentarians.

EFF leader Julius Malema, 34, and his party leaders have not relented. Their cry is that President Zuma should return to parliament to answer questions on “Nkandla” and other matters, or he would be forced to answer questions on the issue at any opportunity in parliament.

“Nkandla” has split South Africa across many lines. Some use the term “Nkandlagate”, a recall of the infamous Watergate scandal of disgraced United States President Richard Nixon, to signal the importance of the subject. “Nkandla” is seen as yet another in a number  of accusations of corruption against President Zuma, even though he has not been convicted of any offence. In counterpoints, “Nkandla” is portrayed as just the latest dirty dress that opponents and critics of President Zuma hang on the line hoping that it would draw attention among several non-issues. The parliamentary committee’s report which did not find the president guilty of any wrongdoing should have closed the issue, they asserted.

Critics of EFF say that the new party has merely tagged on to the “Nkandla” agenda to cultivate publicity. It is advocating anarchy, including in its policy of championing land appropriation and attacking the private sector. Julius Malema was previously a popular leader of ANC’s youth league that played a major role in orchestrating the wrestle for power within the ANC that saw then deputy President Zuma out-manoeuvre then President Thabo Mbeki, to resign abruptly from office. With full backing and support of Malema, President Zuma assumed office in 2009 after a short interim arrangement. But rather the friendship between President Zuma and outspoken Malema fizzled and turned sour as Malema made several pronouncements on economic and political issues that embarrassed the ANC but captivated youths and energized disenfranchised, marginalized people. In 2012, Malema was expelled from the ANC and faced investigations.

In anger, Malema poured strings of accusations on President Zuma and ANC. Malema founded a movement that became a political party called EFF to contest elections in May 2014. That EFF won a respectable percentage of votes and seats in parliament confirmed the resonance of Malema’s message with a sizeable population, mainly among the black majority, erstwhile supporters of ANC who were disenchanted with the party. At the same election, President Zuma won his second mandate and has to deal with the EFF in parliament.

The new strong voice of EFF and its uncompromising position is playing out in the parliamentary chaos that may not be resolved anytime soon. Dressed in red housemaid-style gowns for women and red worker-style overalls for men, EFF parliamentarians stand out as rebels-by-choice in parliament. When they wish, they adhere to parliamentary rules. At other times they put up a mastery display of protests and civil disobedience. Although they were suspended and fined for the first rowdiness in parliament in August 2014, it has not daunted their zeal and they turned the parliament upside down a second time in February this year.

After the first incident, deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa intervened and attempted to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution to all parties. It did not go far and compromise could not find a place over political anger . In a recent interview, former President Mbeki described the situation as a political one where technical parliamentary rules approach would not lead to a solution. President Zuma has said that he wanted people who have the competency to make the decision and advise him on whether he ought to pay for any of the jobs done at his private home. For Malema, despite facing criminal charges and friction within his new EFF, he is unbowed. “We are not scared of the ANC. We are not scared of Jacob Zuma. We are not scared of Baleka Mbete (Speaker of parliament). We were elected by our people to hold the executive responsible.”

The new date for President Zuma to appear in parliament is March 11. Until some way forward is agreed, South Africa’s parliament will from time to time turn into “Sollywood” soap operas, a copy of Nollywood, and a mirror of many legislative houses across the world where rowdiness is part of the parliamentary order.

Makinwa is a communication for leadership entrepreneur based in South Africa and Nigeria. Twitter: @bunmimakinwa

This post fist appeared on Sahara Reporters.

Elections 2015: The World Speaks (part 2)

Many African countries are holding elections in 2015. Of some 14 scheduled elections a few are predictably fraught with problems and may not be held at all. The most doubtful ones are Central African Republic and Mali – countries that have had serious political and violent crisis preceding their current fragile peace. In that vein, that Nigeria’s election was postponed and its certainty is still in dispute may expectedly raise questions about the country’s stability and how peaceful it is.

The first part of the article, before announcement of the postponement of elections in Nigeria from Feb. 14 (presidential) to March 28, looked into what the world thinks of the elections through comments, advice and analysis from various reports and media sources outside Nigeria. The article characterized the information as: first major election that shakes the dominant political Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) since 1999; the electoral contest is mainly between two major political parties – PDP and the All Progressives Congress (APC) key opposition; highly polarized electorate that has dug in its heels in the face of rising importance of faith and ethnicity, resulting in a divided nation; violence during electioneering and very likely potential for violence after results are known; questions on readiness, capacity, credibility of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); democracy will shake the country to its roots but Nigeria will remain one; and huge presence of international observers and media.

In this second part, we shall review information and analysis that is available from announcement of postponement to date. The facts obtained can be sorted into: explanation of the reasons for postponement and speculations on unstated reasons; recurring violence and how it can deteriorate; deeper issues on nitty gritty of campaigns by leading contenders of the two dominant parties – General Muhammadu Buhari, who is a former President under military rule, and current President Goodluck Jonathan; visible importance of positions taken publicly by former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka; and speculations on degrading security and further possible postponement.

We shall take the issues one by one and delve into each briefly.

Immediately following the announcement of the postponement on February 7, reports stated that Boko Haram’s offensive and lack of readiness of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were the main offiCIAL reasons behind the postponement decision. There was obvious reluctance among several analysts to accept the official reasons stated and allusions were made to decreasing popularity of the ruling PDP and government’s intention to arrest the losses. Some reports wondered how Boko Haram’s conquest could be reversed within the six-week period of postponement.

There was near total agreement that violence was going to accompany the election campaigns. Overwhelmingly, any further postponement was seen as a lighter that would ignite violence, which, in any case, could be a preferred scenario for those who would rather not have elections held anyway. The calls made by governments, institutions and persons to hold the elections as scheduled were reaffirmed in the interest of Nigeria and the world at large.

Some reports, mainly from the USA, went deeper into the nuts and bolts of electioneering by the PDP and APC. In explicit details, two top consulting firms of US Democratic political party were cited to have worked for the two parties in Nigeria. AKPD Message and Media, owned by David Axelrod a confidante and close associate of President Obama, worked for the APC whilst Joseph Trippi of The Potomac Square Group worked for PDP. Trippi is reputed to have worked on campaigns of UK’s Tony Blair, George Papandreou of Greece, Italy’s Romano Prodi and President Jonathan’s last election. These advanced, expensive consulting firms claim capability to deliver results for their clients. The reports elaborated on the sharpness of messaging and use of multi-media outreach including the social media to canvass support of voters.

Jonathan’s public adverts featured students, new building projects, and generally a lot of Nigerians smiling and working and .Buhari’s campaign had an aggressive social media strategy that made “change” a persistent theme. The competing demand to get attention of voters is not likely to change voters’ inclination appreciably during the six-week postponement span.

Notably, a respected but usually conservative magazine, The Economist, has run series of reports on the elections, and their titles speak volumes – Nigerian politics: Bad luck for Nigeria; Nigeria’s election: The least awful; Nigeria’s postponed election: A powder keg; Why Nigeria has such poor election choices; Nigeria: Grim reading. In the “Least Awful” article, the weekly explained why “a former dictator is a better choice than a failed president”. In the same vein, the liberal-leaning newspaper, The New York Times, titled its strongly worded editorial, “Nigeria’s Miserable Choices”. According to NYT, “That Mr. Buhari, who helped launch a coup against a democratically elected government in 1983 and ruled until late 1985, has emerged as potential winner is more of an indictment of Mr. Jonathan’s dismal rule than a recognition of the former military chief’s appeal.”

Looming increasingly large over the elections are two different personalities – former President Obasanjo and Nobel Laureate Soyinka. Both of these well known figures have ceaselessly commented on the elections and their views and positions are reported worldwide. Criticisms have also trailed their views, especially those of President Obasanjo.

The national elections, presidential and national assembly, are to hold on March 28, 2015; governorship and state assembly elections are to hold on April 11, 2015. It does appear that skepticism continues over the postponement and whilst INEC’s state of preparedness is an important item, the security angle looms larger as the primary obstacle. INEC’s ill-preparedness may be overcome within the time. The non-readiness of the military to provide security for the voting exercise in February, twinned with declared intention of government and military to suppress Boko Haram is “the elephant in the room” – an obvious difficulty that cannot be resolved easily. What will happen if the security situation does not change for the better within the postponement time?

Least reported are several ongoing court cases which decision can halt the leading presidential candidates General Buhari and President Jonathan, rumours of possible interim government arrangement to further delay elections, and suggestions of military intervention – all unpopular choices. With so much at stake, and yet such darkened skies, it is correct to say that the world will watch closely the coming elections.

Makinwa is a communication for leadership entrepreneur based in South Africa and Nigeria. Twitter: @bunmimakinwa

This post first appeared on Sahara Reporters.

Elections 2015: The World Speaks (Part 1)

Africa is witnessing some 14 elections this year. Nigeria is one of the countries expected to have elections early in the year, after Zambia that voted in January to elect President Edgar Lungu to serve through two years only, being the unfinished mandate of President Michael Sata who died. Lesotho will vote on the last day of February to resolve its political turmoil that almost set the country on fire but for intervention by South Africa.

Of all African elections in 2015, a whole lot is at stake in Nigeria. USA Secretary of State John Kerry signaled this much with his visit and messages to President Goodluck Jonathan and General Muhammadu Buhari. When anything goes wrong in giant Nigeria, Africa rattles and the world quakes. Prevention of upheavals is best.

Nigeria attracts attention for many good and bad reasons. For the present, let us deal with the good reasons, many of them obvious – its enormous population, economic attraction including huge oil reserves, citizens who are present all over the world, many of whom are distinguished men and women, Nollywood, faith and religion tourism… In the past months, the well known Boko Haram insurgency and its seemingly unstoppable horrible acts, and elections have concentrated world’s attention on Nigeria.

Continue reading

Nigeria Elections: Letter To My Friends

Dear friends in many parts of the globe: You asked me for my thoughts on the recent Nigerian elections. Not what you have seen on the broadcast and television networks, nor what you read on the various online forums and websites. You wanted to know many things, and each of you has his/her priorities. It is difficult to answer all the questions individually and I have combined them into groups and responded accordingly. You have always been interested in Nigeria and we all agree that it is not just another country.

You asked for my views and that is what you will get. Some of them are joyful. Many are troubled and others are depressing. I do have profound views on my well endowed country, as you well know.

Electoral officers. Photo credit: Sahara Reporters Media

Electoral officers. Photo credit: Sahara Reporters Media

On the presidential elections of March, you wanted to know whether I agree with the uproar over President Goodluck Jonathan’s concession as an extraordinary issue. I do and I do not. It was a statesman-like decision that became a popular gesture. It was extraordinary for us in Nigeria. It was the first time that a sitting president was voted out of office. It was the first time that a presidential candidate who was losing accepted defeat and did not shout “robbery”. It doused tension and suppressed ill-intentions of agitators. That was important for us, and for the rest of the world. Forget about what we said here that it was the first in Africa, deserving of platinum medals. Like many large countries we pay little attention to what happens around us. We forgot that in several African countries elections take place regularly; fairly and peacefully organized to a large extent. Senegal, Botswana, Tanzania, many of the islands, and joined more recently by Ghana, Zambia, Lesotho, and post-apartheid. South Africa, to mention examples. In these countries and others, conceding defeat before winners are officially declared is usual. However, give it to us, we can now be counted among those countries where democracy is taking a foothold.

Continue reading