Nigeria: The NGF saga is the biggest fight for democracy today

The leadership deficit

Friday evening presented us with a clear indication of the leadership deficit that has plagued Nigeria for decades and still continues to haunt the country without abatement or respite, the trajectory to progress is not in the remotest sights, it is depressing.

As the day closed, we all waited on social media for the results of the election of the new chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) which as a political block within the Council of State, though not constitutionally relevant is significant in the power brokerage that defines the distribution of power and privilege in our federal republic.

Who they are

In some ways, it determines whether the executive at the centre will have untrammelled lien or negotiated settlements as regards federal and state distributions of the largesse of oil money amongst many other issues that could pertain to the ratification of federally promulgated laws at the state legislature – much of the dynamic is unscripted but it is by no means to be pooh-poohed.

It claims to draw its legality from Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which loosely guarantees the freedom of association and assembly. [Chapter 4 of the Constitution]

A battle royal so despicable

The apparently outgoing chairman of the forum is the governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi who recently had somewhat fallen out with the President over matters unnecessary for comment here apart from the fact that proxies of the Federal Government had engaged in frustrating and embarrassing the man. [Grounding of aircraft – Vanguard Nigeria]

The Nigerian House of Assembly had only the previous day excoriated certain federal agencies for overreach, lack of due process, bias and dissimulation, much of which should have embarrassed all the parties involved, but embarrassment is an unknown emotion in Nigeria - where in other countries there will be contrition, apology and restitution, maybe resignations, one cannot expect the slightest regret of officialdom if they can help it.

A vision unseen

Now, it would appear that the NGF works from this basic premise as articulated in their vision statement – to be, “An effective, proactive, inclusive, non-partisan forum which actively fosters, promotes and sustains democratic values, good governance and sustainable development in Nigeria.” [NGF – Our Vision and Mission]

They acknowledge this goal is idealistic but they believe that they have both the capacity and determination to realise and project this vision and thereby achieve it.

The reading of yesterday’s events shows that these gentlemen and that is a too effusive a compliment for them but for the want of a collective term, failed to attain in the slightest, the effectiveness, the proactiveness, the inclusiveness or non-partisan aims so succinctly expressed in the NGF vision.

Rotten politics at play

As it transpired, an election took place and Governor Rotimi Amaechi took 19 votes to Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State’s 16 votes and was duly elected the Chairman of the NGF.

However, it is the intrigue and machinations behind the scenes before the election that needs some scrutiny exacting excoriation in the starkest terms because it was tyrannous, underhand and atrocious at best.

The ruling party (PDP) has a majority of governors in Nigeria and so it is very likely that any vote will produce a PDP chairman and as a sop to the other parties, the deputy chairman might well land in their docket.

Really rotten politics at play

What really happened was that the PDP governors, 23 of them met and of the lot 19 resolved to post the governor of Plateau State, Jonah Jang, as the Chairman of the NGF with Governor Segun Mimiko of Ondo State from one of the minority parties as the vice Chairman.

This is after having persuaded other interested governors to withdraw their candidacy whilst Jonah Jang filed his nomination papers well after the deadline necessary to indicate interest in the chairmanship, something people have not yet touched upon.

The mover of this scheme was Governor Godswill or better still Devilswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State whose democratic antecedents is one of rigging, manipulation and dishonesty having confessed in March 2013 that he manipulated the PDP senatorial primaries in favour of his preferred candidate in 2007. [Akpabio Rigging - Punch][Video – Sahara Reporters]

Democracy is opportunity for all

One can easily say the non-partisan aims of the NGF were seriously violated with this factionalisation within the group along party lines but there is a more atrocious issue in play.

The PDP governors numbering 23 constitute a majority within the NGF but the other 5 parties sharing just 13 states are not insignificant. The governors had gathered in Abuja to vote for chairmanship of the NGF and the basic democratic principle will suggest that all of them will be given the opportunity to exercise a voting privilege together in the same place and at the same time.

For the PDP faction of the NGF to have engineered a resolution that garnered 19 votes to install Jonah Jang without the whole group constituting the NGF being present was wholly reprehensible apart from constituting themselves into a tyranny of the majority overriding the wishes of the minority even if eventually the result might go the way of the majority – that patently was not democracy at play, it reeked of subterfuge and dishonest politicking to ulterior ends.

Winning the argument

It is the victory of reason over corrupt enterprise that an election eventually took place because it gave everyone of the governors a say in who to lead the NGF, though one governor was absent; and if the resolution was really worth the paper it was written on, after being tested by secret ballot of all the governors, it should have stood – it fell.

Whereas 19 governors resolved to support Jonah Jang, by the time the votes of the secret ballot were counted, 3 of those governors had dissolved to renew Rotimi Amaechi’s tenure with 19 votes against 16 votes for Jonah Jang.

Secret ballots reveal truth

That in my view was democracy expressed as best as it should, a secret ballot with a count to determine who wins and it must for all intents and purposes if there is any justice and fairness in this world carry the greatest validation and authority over an open resolution that denied the full house of governors the opportunity together to decide who to lead their forum.

Sadly, the Presidency with its interference and weak leadership having been humbled and trounced by the basic tenets of simple democracy in action has not found the strong voice to support a clear democratic verdict that the spokespersons have vacillated and prevaricated on a matter of clear and honest principle, epithets none of the lot appear to possess to any discernable extent and I mean, honesty, character or principle.

This must not stand

The government with all its Machiavellian apparatus of state and calumny will do everything to undermine a democratic verdict for political and pecuniary advantage without scruples – this leaves Nigeria the much poorer where opportunity to show that progressive change is possible it is aborted for selfish interest and megalomania.

A parallel NGF organisation with allegiance to the President is now operating without a democratic mandate having conducted a selection rather than an election, claiming the election by secret ballot after the resolution was rigged, when it was not. The gormless men could not present their ploy to the full house of NGF governors and win the argument by persuasion where everyone had the opportunity to vote without coercion and menace – the NGF vision has well and truly been blinded and abrogated completely on the capriciousness of objectionable men.

We must stand with truth

I would hope that Nigerians will see what is happening in this machination of the utmost evil in high places and refuse to be conscripted into this rotten enterprise just for the aggrandisement of the powerful – Rotimi Amaechi won that election fair and square, the democratic principle should stand regardless of whether we like him or not – it is a matter of the basic tenet of democracy, the man is simply necessary to represent its purpose, somebody needs to be elected when people have voted and the votes have been counted.

The other issue of men who signed a resolution in the open not being able to stand with what they signed when presented with a secret ballot is simply expressive of the absence of good virtue in the men that lead Nigeria; it has been our eternal plague, I am sad to say.

Other references

Why Akpabio, Mimiko, others claim Amaechi rigged Nigeria Governors Forum election – Premium Times

Amaechi wins • Jang 19 votes to 16 as NGF elects chair • Drama as Jang, Akpabio, others reject election – Nigerian Tribune

Jonathan not involved in NGF election – Presidency – Vanguard Nigeria

Pro-Jonathan govs finally split NGF – Vanguard Nigeria

Jonah Jang says God helped him “defeat” Amaechi – Premium Times

Inside China: Hatchlings of Democracy get nasty

Inside China

BBC’s Inside China season seems to be getting more interesting as they broadcast the topical issues that give us insight into this world of history and culture that has been seriously abraded by the sameness and inequalities of Communism.

A teacher stepped before a class of 8-year old children and introduced the concept of democracy then called an election for class monitor with the contestants being; a girl (Xu Xiaofei) and two boys (Cheng Cheng, Luo Lei), one of whom had been hand-picked as class monitor (Luo Lei) the previous two years.

Please Vote for Me was an eye-opener into a possible future of Chinese democracy that left me seriously winded by the manipulation, treachery, scheming and cut-throat competition – this was definitely no child’s play by any stretch of the imagination – this was war.

Moi, The Class Monitor

In two different higher institutions I was class representative, I do not think I had any political savvy, I just went in front of the class and gave an unscripted speech, then left people to decide.

Strangely, I never had to set up a political campaign committee though for greater office I might have had to do that, but I always got the popular vote and the responsibility that went with that office.

Once an observer accused me of not leading my constituency by example because I was a noisemaker – well, my class did have a reputation for making noise and one had to separate example from representation – I replied, “My class is a noisy class, if I cannot represent them in what we are know for I would not be doing my job.”

No child’s play

I had hoped the selection of class monitor would be a speech and a vote; but the campaign involved a musical presentation, a debate highlighting the opponent’s faults with rebuttals and a final speech before the vote. Each contestant was allowed to have two class assistants to help with their campaigns.

This would have all been benign but for when the parents got involved as “political advisors” when in fact, they were literally living out their aspirations through their kids.

The China one-child-policy has unintended social consequences that are beginning to unravel, one of which was highlighted in another Inside China programme – Looking for a China Girl about the shortage of spouses for Chinese men.

The lone child dynamic creates a rather more selfish personality prone to demanding and obtaining their requirements without question, they become demigods – this is quite different from the first child personality.

Xu Xiaofei

Before Xu Xiaofei had time to give her quite talented musical performance, Cheng Cheng got the whole class to shout her down, she never recovered her confidence, but also being from a one parent family, it appeared lone children seem to need both parents more for their development of character than if they had siblings – her mother did try hard to prop her up.

Cheng Cheng also put her seriously on the defensive and the fault pointing debate that her final speech was more a plea for understanding than a manifesto for change.

Cheng Cheng

Cheng Cheng was something of the larger than life figure, garrulous, scheming and with ambitions to become the President of China, he completely intimidated his opponents that Luo Lei wanted to pull out of the election.

His musical rendition was a song that got everyone singing along after which he hugged everyone flattering them and asked them all to vote for him – he had cornered the electorate.

He could silence the class with his booming voice at one command, his confidence was overbearing.

His parents were the most pushy and forceful, they primed him, got him to rehearse and memorise his speeches and gave him all sorts of ideas to wrong foot his opponents – pollsters would have called the election for him.

Luo Lei

Luo Lei’s performance was rubbished by Cheng Cheng apart from saying that Luo Lei sang completely out of tune. He in fact did not think his parents should help him, he had a quality of self-belief that his parents first had difficulty becoming his “political advisors”.

Luo Lei’s father suggested he invite his calls for a free ride on the new monorail in town – that was the election bought the first time; everyone was going to vote for Luo Lei.

The big fight

Cheng Cheng was not going down without a fight but made the mistake of promising to vote for Luo Lei such that whilst he successfully listed a litany of faults of Luo Lei and was able to brand him a dictator by getting everyone who had been ruffled and beaten by Luo Lei to raise their hands; Cheng Cheng was a branded dishonest and a liar because he changed his decision to vote for Luo Lei.

Cheng Cheng was still the frontrunner though he did not trust his classmates would vote for him that he asked the narrator to enquire again of a girl who said she would vote for him when he was out of earshot.

The election bought again

At the final speech, Cheng again gave the best performance but Luo Lei had presents for his classmates in commemoration of an oncoming holiday after his speech.

The election was bought a second time and this time, it worked – Luo Lei was elected despite being a strict class monitor bordering on a bully and being a “dictator”.

Xu Xiaofei burst into tears and Cheng Cheng walked out of the class before the inauguration to shed tears in the toilet as his assistants were completely inconsolable.

They were eventually brought together to reconcile but these hatchlings of democracy looked like they would grow into leviathans with untrammelled might.

Even I would not enter the bear pit with these Machiavellian political heavyweights, I do fear if this is the democracy China would acquire in the next generation.

Preparing for a one-party state

The numbers are dangerous

We can safely say that the numbers peddled as results of the Nigerian Election in 2007 would be the basis for a lot more than we reckoned.

Already, people are looking forward to 4 years time and I really think that is being naively optimistic.

The ruling party has just swept about 70% of the vote for both the Executive and Legislature which gives them the ability to enact incumbency laws, gerrymandering commissions and change the constitution probably without the help of any member of the opposition.

You only have to look at the type of person who is going to the Nigerian Senate, the son, the assistant to the son and the son-in-law of Chief Lamidi Adedibu, the stark illiterate and celebrated hoodlum from Oyo State.

It only takes one idiot to look at the might of the PDP to start advocating a one-party state and that would go through the House and Senate in a breeze; just like the incoming President was able to spearhead the institution of Sharia Law in his state and the follow-ons in other Northern States.

Our Mark of the Beast

If we do not sort out this charade that is masquerading as democracy now, be prepared to be a card-carrying member of PDP to get anything done in Nigeria. We would have signed up for the proverbial "Mark of the Beast" and there would be no April 2011 for multi-party elections.

Four years is a long time in politics and plenty of time for a overwhelmingly powerful party to subscribe to the cult of eternal incumbency.

The examples of lame oppositions are rife in Africa and Nigeria is about to join that list. Africa used to have the most one-party states most of which went into decline in the 1990s giving birth to pluralism and multi-party politics, but if the state apparatus is so engrained in the ruling party it would be impossible to effect change except through revolutionary means.

We might all read this in denial, but just as sure as night follows day, we are already on that slippery slope to a one-party state, it would take a seriously disciplined executive and legislature to prevent that, if the Judiciary does not rise to claim our democracy from the tyranny of megalomania.

If I am just being a Prophet of Doom, please forgive me.

Before we lose the Nigerian elections gracefully

Understanding the rules of contest

Before we close shop and walk away from the bad situation of the elections in Nigeria, let us review some of the issues at hand.

There is an increasing tendency to accept that the deed is done to the extent that some are now being dubbed sore losers who cannot accept defeat gracefully.

Any contest should have a set of rules which are adhered to, there is a way to declare a winner through some sort of point-scoring managed by some umpire; that process should be seen to be just and fair for the loser to concede defeat gracefully and the winner take all the spoils in victory.

When it comes to the Nigerian elections, whilst the umpire in this case is INEC we have had international election monitoring observers review the process by planting independent personnel all over the country to ascertain that the voting process meets international standards.

Their conclusion is, the Nigerian election does not measure up to international standards, and this would be regardless of the reports of Nigerian bloggers whose oversight in terms of the election would be too narrow in scale and sampling to appreciate the trend towards fairness or irregularities.

Nobody is trying to do Nigeria down, rather these observers are trying to help Nigeria realise the real benefits of a democracy which by definition is the government of the people by the people for the people.

We have too long been plagued with a variant which is the government of the people by some people for their people (Read pockets and narrow interests).

One might wonder what international standards are and why we do need elections observed at all.

Quoting liberally from the OSCE Election Observation Handbook updated in January 2007, this forms the crux of what a democracy should expect as part of a democratic process.

Why Observe Elections?

Elections are a celebration of fundamental human rights and, more specifically, civil and political rights, and election observation therefore contributes to the overall promotion and protection of these rights.

A genuine election is a political competition that takes place in an environment characterized by confidence, transparency, and accountability and that provides voters with an informed choice between distinct political alternatives.

A genuine democratic election process presupposes respect for freedom of expression and free media; freedom of association, assembly, and movement; adherence to the rule of law; the right to establish political parties and compete for public office; non-discrimination and equal rights for all citizens; freedom from intimidation; and a range of other fundamental human rights and freedoms that all OSCE participating States have committed themselves to protect and promote.

Election observation enhances accountability and transparency, thereby boosting both domestic and international confidence in the process. The mere presence of international observers alone, however, should not be viewed as adding legitimacy or credibility to an election process.

Although the presence of observers may indicate that the process merits observation, it is the observers' conclusions about the process, based on the ODIHR's (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) methodology, that will form the ODIHR's opinion on the election.

Observers safeguard our democracy

Election monitoring involves being able to observe all phases of the election process this includes the preparation, the registration, access to the candidates, the electioneering campaigns, the voting process, the vote counting, the results collation, the results declaration and then allowing the winners to duly assume the position to which they have been elected.

However, what people miss about this whole electioneering process is the fact that elections are a fundamental human right in a democracy, this context seems to be missing from the minds of both the politicians and the their electorate.

It allows for politicians to think villages, towns, states or regions are theirs for the taking without contest or competition and the people acquiesce to that delusion such that their votes fail to count.

This ought not to be so; Annex A of the same reference document says "Democratic government is based on the will of the people, expressed regularly through free and fair elections."

Democratic countries must subscribe to the principle that affirms that everyone has the right to participate in free and fair elections.

The poor preparations of INEC are well-discussed and documented, the flawed gubernatorial elections of the weekend of the 16^th of April and the jaw-dropping ill-preparedness for the elections of last weekend which had ballot papers still in South Africa 24 hours to elections are evident.

The verdict

However, on the whole, when the observers reviewed the whole process, the elections had fallen far short of basic international standards and were marred by violence, poor organisation, lack of transparency, widespread irregularities, significant fraud, voter disenfranchisement and bias.

That is as damning an indictment of a process that one can get in diplomatic language, noting that we did not even scrape the very basic international standards, those who think we should forget this and move on would have to reflect this matter again.

The chief EU observer went on to say, "These elections have not lived up to the hopes and expectations of the Nigerian people and the process cannot be considered to have been credible."

Before we get all defensive about Nigeria and the Rome that was not built in a day, the observer has nothing to gain apart from hoping that people of our country get the government they have elected through processes that are not too extraneous to oversee.

We should be disappointed because this election was supposed to set an example for all other nascent democracies, but the lessons that would come from this would probably harden the inability-complex of many who prefer to conduct elections shabbily rather than encourage others to excel in protecting the democratic rights of their people.

Belling the cat

In the extreme, one can say with regards to the Nigerian Elections that the commendation for good work done as elicited by the Chairman of INEC is really trying to persuade Nigerians that in allowing for their fundamental human rights to be breached, abused and taken, they can be proud of having no one to lead them against this atrocious onslaught.

Who of those who aspire to lead Nigeria can stand up for the rights of every Nigerian to be able to know that whatever votes they have cast would be the votes that were counted and those that are honestly reported?

For now, there are none brave enough to bell the cat, either winners who know for sure that the elections that have rigged in their favour and have no integrity to challenge the injustice or the losers who knowing that this is the case would clog the process with the courts for their own ends rather than the principle of demanding the restoration of the fundamental human rights of 60 million Nigerians who were eligible to vote.

Because there is no one to bell the cat, we Nigerians would be lumbered with another unaccountable self-serving indolent machinery of nepotism, corruption and graft, four years on from now, would things have changed? I think NOT!

Galvanising by gay-bashing

There are three issues the President of the United States can use to divide the American People and galvanise his conservative electoral base in an election year.

In order of increasing potency -:

1. Outlaw all stem cell research (ambivalent support)

2. Constitutionally outlaw abortion (supported but can split the less fundamental conservatives)

3. Constitutionally ban gay marriage (widespread support)

We all know that this tack was used in the 2004 elections where 10 of the 11 states that had the gay marriage ban on the ballot during the presidential election went to the Republicans and the Democrats have still not cottoned on this sleight of hand.

To put paid to the dwindling polls that are reaching record depths, a God-fearing bible-bashing President is the tonic for calling the Lazarus polls back from death.

However, the technique is not so much to attack gay marriage per se, but to fault sections of the judiciary and denigrate them as “activist courts”, well, that is new parlance for the election – it would be heard, time and again.

With the Supreme Court beginning to look like cardinals in a conclave, we might as well find argument that would make the subjective and prejudicial look reasonably objective, but I am still not clued in as to how gay marriage affects traditional marriages.

You cannot use the courts to deal with ambivalent sexuality, but in America, we have a President who can divide the people like no other.

Sometimes the West is a community divided by its morals and united in its hypocrisy.

And the runner-up is - Lady Oddjob

Seconds from First

One thing about coming second-best is you get to speak first and cheer the leader as you humbly acknowledge that you have been trounced.

One could not have wished a better person to be in that position than Lady Oddjob (Mrs Rita Verdonk) the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Integration and Immigration.

The result of the VVD – Liberal Party Leadership contest was down to the wire as polls suggested the youthful Mark Rutte might come off worse having been an initial favourite when a no-runner tried to get name recognition by creating the similitude of a political joust – she, Jelleke Veenendaal mercifully got 3% of the vote.

The main result itself was 51% to Mark and 46% to Rita, a result that shows a modicum of Dutch ambivalence than Dutch courage.

Support as minister deny as leader

Generally, Lady Oddjob commands extensive support in the Netherlands, her populist approach to dealing with immigration cases has many times earned her the title of best politician – which we can say is down to being able to enforce the rules down the line.

A tough-talking, unyielding and firm minister is necessary for those matters, but it offers no training ground for leadership – that requires another set of skills that working in the prisons service and then moving to corporate consulting firm do not offer.

The generalisation I can deduce here separates the immigrant/expatriate community from the Dutch – Whilst we believe rules should and must be enforced, we also realise that humans made those rules and sometimes humanity requires that exceptions in application are valid.

As I have noted before, the Dutch do have a knack for breaking the rules but understand that the whole weight of officialdom and the law can be brought to bear if one is caught breaking those rules.

With that in mind, we would rather not break the rules at all, we can be found queuing, stopping at traffic lights, upbraiding others for being uncivil and suddenly be exposed as unDutched.

An opportunist looking like a pragmatist

However, when reviewing the issue of Lady Oddjob, what makes everyone breathe a collective sigh of relief is the opinion that her winning might have lead her to pull out of the governing coalition in a few months and capitalise on her popularity to become the first female Prime Minster of the Netherlands.

I, for one would not be surprised if she eventually decides to become the leader of her own party, considering the way she was carpeted by her party for what she did concerning Ayaan Hirsi Ali who also happened to be from the same party.

Vengeance is not hers

Before the election was over, there were rumours the those who were involved were already having their cards marked by supporters of Verdonk who was imminently going to take the prize – we have been spared the Night of Long Knives as vengeance would belong to another time and era.

Everyone likes Mrs Verdonk where she is and she has a lot of work to do the make her department, efficient, friendly and professionally capable of handling immigration and asylum issues humanely.

Having to deny that sick children get deported reveals without need for other evidence the feeling people have towards the way the agency operates.

My commiserations to Lady Oddjob, though I never intended to offer any congratulations – that belongs to a parallel universe, the one we do yet not inhabit.

References

Rutte crowned in choreographed 'Idols' show

We don't deport ill children - Verdonk

The Verdonk – Lady Oddjob Archive