For the Masses By Rufa’i Ibrahim
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
In a recent interview published last Saturday (Weekly Trust of August 21, 2010), former Finance Minister, Malam Adamu Ciroma drew attention to what we all know to be happening, but the full implications of which may not be obvious to all of us. Answering a question on Jonthan, Ciroma likened what is going on now in the polity to what happened during Obasanjo’s campaign for tenure extension or third term.
I crave the reader’s indulgence to quote Ciroma extensively: “What I observed is that the president is acting the same way Obasanjo acted in pursuit of his third term agenda. They are creating numerous campaign bodies. They are using the national media; NTA and other media institutions to promote the candidacy of the president but they have not declared. But you know internally that they are working on a declaration. Some people say that they are using lots of resources to create the millions of campaign bodies. We have seen this before under Obasanjo and it did not succeed. We are going to see if it will succeed this time. But it should be noted that whoever becomes the presidential candidate has a general election to face.”
There are now well over 1,000 Jonathan support or campaign groups spread across the country. And, going by the trend, there must now be many more either on the drawing board or about to be launched.
The groups are mushrooming faster than one can count them. But as Ciroma correctly observed, this is not new. Whatever may be the driving force for forming or joining these support groups – opportunism, or greed, or sentiment or a craving for excitement – the fact is that we have been through this before, both during the Obasanjo third term saga and earlier during the Abacha Tazarce fiasco. In fact, what is happening today seems to me to bear more resemblance to the Abacha campaign movement than to the Obasanjo third term campaigns. Of course, we are yet to see political parties adopting Jonathan as their candidate, as was the case with Abacha’s five political parties, but if some of the Jonathan-support groups are to be believed, there will soon be a two-million man march to Aso Villa to urge Jonathan to run for president.
But to treat these campaigns as an old song not worth much attention or getting disturbed about will be a big mistake. There is a lot that is really disturbing about them. Their implications are ominous. For one, these groups, as Ciroma pointed out and as we can all see, enjoy much more attention, coverage and air time in state-owned media houses than their importance warrants, or would be considered permissible in a democracy. For another, there are allegations that are not altogether unfounded, as well as hints, that public resources are used to fund these groups and their activities. In fact, there are strong allegations that all the over 400 federal agencies and bodies have been taxed amounts, in accordance with their revenue profits, as their contributions to the Jonathan war chest.
While all the campaigns and shenanigans go on, we have never heard either Jonathan himself or any of his top aides call a stop to it, or call anyone to order. Which is to say that if the man is not himself fuelling it, he is at least acquiescing in it, which comes to the same thing. And what this means is that we have a president who has no scruples cutting corners and indulging in illegal or unethical conduct to gain political advantage over other aspirants. Clearly, the methods adopted by the groups and the Jonathan campaign are highly subversive of the legal, political and ethical premises for democratic legitimisation.
And this raises grave questions about his core moral values, both as a person and as a politician and leader. And it forces us to ask the questions, first, whether Jonathan can be trusted to exercise power judiciously and fairly as president? And, two, whether we can expect free and fair elections in 2011? This second question is particularly important in that our security agencies, which aught properly to be interested in the activities of some of these shadowy pro-Jonathan campaign groups, are keeping quiet. And silence can mean consent. Which is to say that our security agencies have themselves already taken sides. And this seems to me to be a clear indication that we cannot expect free, fair and credible elections in 2011.
Elections are not adjudged free, fair and credible merely on the basis that votes are cast an counted and there are very few or no incidences of vote snatching and violence. There is more to free and fair elections. The rules of the game and the processes leading to the act of vote casting are equally important. And if these processes are marred, or subverted, as they now seem to be, then it can hardly be said that an election is free, fair and credible.
It should interest our security agencies to find out who is funding these campaign groups if it is not the state doing it. Who are their financiers? What is the source of their money? Is it drug money they are using? By keeping quiet, the security forces are showing that they are firmly on the side of their boss in a contest that should be fair.
But even more disturbing is the implication that such a possibility may have on the future of our democracy. For, if these pro-Jonathan campaigns are being funded by some deep-pocketed politicians and financiers, then there arises whether the government, when formed, will serve their interests before and over those of the masses. Are we going to have a captive state that will serve only the interest of an oligarchic few at the expense of the masses of our people?
The question is crucial because we saw that happen under Obasanjo when a tiny clique of carpet baggers rose to stupendous fortunes, after they have literally captured the state, largely through asset stripping and dubious deals. Is this the kind of state we may have under Jonathan?
What all this means is that there is an urgent need for INEC and other stakeholders to look more closely at our campaign finance laws with a view to tightening them. INEC in particular should take a closer look at the books of the political parties and closely monitor the campaign expenses of all the candidates.
Comments (0)
Show/Hide comments
