By Douglas Anele
According to media reports, Gen. Buhari has rejected invitation to debate with President Jonathan as proposed by the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON). Probably, he is unaware that presidential debate has become an accepted feature of normal democratic practice, given that it offers a great opportunity for aspirants to speak directly to a wide audience and for the electorate to assess spontaneously the intellectual quality of those aspiring to govern them. As usual, Buhari did not marshal convincing evidence to support his allegation that the proposed debate has been programmed and skewed by the organisers to favour Jonathan. On this issue, APC is acting like a jittery football team that refused to play the reigning champion in the final match of a tournament on mere suspicion of bias by the referee. The way I see it, Gen. Buhari is dodging the debate for two major reasons, (1) he is not eloquent in English language, (2) he does not want to be embarrassed with some troubling questions about his educational qualifications and his tenure as military head of state and chairman of PTF.
The upshot of our discussion up to this point is that Gen. Buhari is not a good presidential material for our fledgling democracy and that, contrary to what some people might think, APC made a big mistake in choosing an ageing, barely educated and puritanical retired military officer as its candidate. Consequently, the question that naturally rears up is: what about President Jonathan, is he more electable than Gen. Buhari’? Before a reasonable answer can be given to that question, one must examine, albeit briefly, the achievements and failures of the incumbent President and compare them with what we have observed about Gen. Buhari in the preceding paragraphs. Now, given the enormity of problems President Jonathan inherited from his egoistic and opinionated penultimate predecessor, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, it would require careful analysis of different aspects of our national life in order to identify Jonathan’s achievements and the extent they have impacted on the suffering masses. Again, we must acknowledge that Jonathan, because of the perception in certain quarters that he has not delivered on the promises he made in 2011, has lost some of the goodwill he enjoyed when he became substantive President over five years ago. In my candid opinion, President Jonathan can be validly criticised on three major counts, namely, his laid back attitude to corruption, overreliance on economic prescriptions from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and slow response in tackling insecurity, particularly in North-eastern Nigeria.
On the issue of corruption, for instance, he was mistaken in granting presidential pardon to Diepriye Alameyeseigha; he also erred by refusing to declare his assets publicly as a symbol of seriousness to enthrone transparency in public service. On the economic management, Dr. Nhgozi Okonjo-Iweala and her team have not managed the economy with the degree of astuteness and creative imagination needed for sustainable economic transformation – they are still using the paradigm of economic management formulated by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which tend to jeopardise economic growth in Third World countries. The major problem here, aside from the grotesque unitarist political structure that puts our economy in a Procrustean bed, is this: the bulk of our foreign revenue is still tied to the vicissitudes of crude oil in the international market, which makes budgeting vulnerable to stochastic fluctuations in prices of the commodity. Although the present administration is making efforts to diversify the economy, it has yet to achieve substantial progress in this area. The Boko Haram terrorism constitutes a serious security challenge for the present administration. Obviously, the bloodthirsty sect is supported by few atavistic elements in the North and, lately, it has assumed an international dimension. Although the body language and pronouncements of APC chieftains tend to suggest they really do not want Boko Haram liquidated in order to use its nefarious activities to disparage the President, and there are saboteurs both in the army and government working for the sect, the military authorities were unduly tardy in responding to the threat at its embryonic stage. President Jonathan, being the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, takes ultimate responsibility for the inability of the military to crush Boko Haram.
But we must not forget for one second the achievements of President Jonathan particularly in agriculture, road construction and aviation, education, job creation, restructuring of the power sector and so on, detailed discussion of which would elongate our discourse considerably. Nigerians must remember that Mr. President has kept faith with democracy in the country. For instance, he has not interfered with other arms of government, unlike Obasanjo who sees himself as “Mr. know-it-all” always eager to pull down anybody who refuses to bow to him. Because Nigeria’s problems have worsened considerably over the years due to incompetent leadership, it would require consistent improvement to consolidate the successes achieved by the Jonathan administration. Sometimes, possibly due to political considerations, President Jonathan’s choice of those to work with may not be the best available. Yet, I strongly believe that in his second term, he would be a much more effective and decisive President.
This brings us to another area where President Jonathan is preferable to Gen. Buhari. Jonathan has considerable experience in democratic governance as a deputy governor, governor, and President, unlike his opponent who has none. Thus, if Buhari wins the election, he would need up to two years or more to adjust to the treacherous ecology of democratic governance. President Jonathan does not have such a problem; hence, it is better Nigerians vote for a tested hand in democracy, not for a hypothetical latter-day apostle of change with dictatorial hunchback.
Like all human beings, the two leading candidates for the presidential election are fallible. However, President Jonathan is more suitable than Gen. Buhari. Jonathan has learnt invaluable lessons as President, and should be given the opportunity to complete some of the good works he started. After all, a second term of office without the bugbear of seeking to please everyone for the sake of re-election, will allow him showcase his quintessential self and put his name in history as a great President.
Buhari’s reputation as the only military head of state who allegedly has no oil well, mansions in choice locations across the country, and business empire built from stolen public funds can easily be misinterpreted as a sign of selflessness in a society where political leadership has been shamelessly perverted as an avenue for primitive accumulation. But in truth, by avoiding the ensnarement of greedy acquisitiveness at public expense, Gen. Buhari did himself a favour. He has protected himself from the psycho-spiritual disequilibrium associated bulimic materialism, which does not necessarily mean that he would make a good President in an evolving democratic setting, given his rigidity, draconian military mindset, age, mediocre education, and puritanical disposition. And because he is being propped up by disgruntled greedy and corrupt politicians many of whom are PDP renegades, Buhari would soon discover, as the Igbo would say, that the sound of bitter kola in the mouth when chewed is not reflected in its taste.
Concluded.