The Imperative of Rotational Presidency in Nigerian Geopolitics

By Alphonsus U Nwadike

For some time now, there has been a renewed debate among Nigerians, at home and abroad, as to whether rotational presidency is a good political ideology for Nigeria or not. While some Nigerians see the idea as a bad proposal, many others view it as the best political leadership option for Nigeria.

As a Nigerian, born and bred in Nigeria, I strongly and sincerely support the latter school of thought in this matter. A clear-cut, constitutionally entrenched system, which rotates, in popular elections, the occupation of the offices of the President and Vice President of Nigeria among its existing six geopolitical zones or between its Northern and Southern parts/regions, is a sure door to true federalism, unity, patriotism, stability and development in our Nigerian nation.

In fact, Rotational Presidency embodies equity, political harmony and enshrines the principle of Nigerian Federal Character. Nigerians, who are opposed to this proposed presidential rotational/zoning system, have argued that it will endanger national unity; it is undemocratic and will hinder efforts geared towards electing credible and capable Nigerians into Nigerian presidency.

In my view, these arguments are mere dialectical and mechanical chicaneries motivated by ulterior political reasons, by greed for power, ignorance of Nigerian socio-political make-up, naivety about the true meaning and spirit of democracy, and insensitivity to the stark realities of our Nigerian society.

Nigerians who are opposed to rotational presidency ought to know that nothing kills or destroys a country or society more easily and rapidly than ethno-political domination and marginalization. They ought to know that fear of tribal-political domination was the immediate or remote cause of many of the bloody revolutions and civil wars known to human history.

Opponents of rotational presidency in Nigerian nation ought to know also that tribal and sectarian resentments, hatred, and distrust engendered by political domination and marginalization essentially led to many of the pogroms, genocides, and ethnic cleansings recorded in world history.

And they should know that the goal of rotational presidential system in Nigeria is to eradicate or abate these evils (ethno-tribal resentments, distrust, domination and marginalization) and promote national harmony in the society.

In truth, Political domination and marginalization, whether engendered by individual persons or ethnic group(s) through elections or coercion, have never done any society any good. Historically, these societal evils (political domination and marginalization) were what generated ethnic rivalry, resentment and distrust among the German Jews and their blue-eyed, blondhaired Aryan white neighbors before and after the First World War (1914-1918).

This ugly situation, in no small measure, precipitated Adolf Hitler, an Aryan German, to see the Jews as eternal enemies that must be eliminated during his administration as a German Chancellor. As a result of this distrust, Hitler never hesitated to unleash the historical Holocaust against the German Jews during the Second World War, a conflict in which about six million Jews were reportedly massacred and consumed in Europe between 1939 and 1945.

Again, the disintegration of Tsardom of Russia in 1721, Russian Empire in 1917, and USSR in 1991 was caused by social unrest, series of bloody civil wars, and revolutions triggered off by ethno-tribal and class political domination and marginalization. Likewise, in 1918, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which was later renamed as Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was formed, but in 1945 it balkanized.

And in 1946, the Federal Peoples’ Republic of Yugoslavia, which was later called Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was established, but unfortunately it broke up in 1991.

In 1992, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, renamed later as State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, was formed. However, this new country disintegrated in 2006, and even Serbia was further split, as Kosovo seceded from it as a sovereign nation in 2008.

It is indisputable that all these serial break-ups and dissolutions in the former Yugoslavia were engendered by civil wars and inter-ethnic distrust occasioned by political domination and its inherent marginalization among her component nationalities. Obviously, this same evil (domination with marginalization) also led to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.

In Africa, ethno-political domination and marginalization are intractable threats facing the independent existence, unity, patriotism and stability of almost all the countries in the continent. Sudan, for instance, got her independence in 1956, but the country has virtually known no TRUE peace since then.

First civil war in Sudan broke out between the Muslim Sunni Arabs in the North and the Christian entities in the South in 1955. While the country was enmeshed in her second inter-tribal war, which started in 1983, the third one ensued in the Darfur Region in 2003 again between the Muslim Arabs and the Black African Christians in the West, which culminated in the secession of South Sudan in 2011. Again, inter-ethnic war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire) reportedly engulfed over five million Congolese lives between 1998 and 2000.

The Rwanda genocide of 1994 in which about 800,000 Rwandans were exterminated was a direct or indirect off-shoot of the 1990 civil war that ensued in that country, between the Tutsis in the South and their Hutu neighbors in the North. Ethno- political domination and marginalization were squarely or essentially the root causes of all these civil wars, inter-tribal/religious conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda.

In Nigeria, resentments generated by fear of tribal domination and marginalization constituted the remote or immediate genesis of the fall of the first Republic and eventually ignited the Nigerian civil war.

Fear of ethno-political domination and marginalization overtly or covertly gave birth to the Niger-Delta uprisings which started in 1966 and the formation of MOSOP, MASSOB, OPC, Northern ethno-religious militias, Arewa Consultative Forum, Afenifere, Ohaneze Ndigbo, IPOB, Boko Haram and the herdsmen groups that cause mayhem daily in the country today.

As stated hereinbefore, the terminal goal of the proposed rotational presidential system in Nigeria is to eradicate or abate ethno-political hatred, resentments, domination and marginalization in the country.

Rotational presidency is in nature anti-Nazist, anti-fascist, and anti-totalitarianist.

It is also averse to aryanism, communism but highly democratic in spirit and purpose. Nigerians who believe that this system is anti-democratic ought to ask themselves: what, in essence, is democracy?

They should ask: is democracy about throwing elections into political offices open, so that indigenes/members of the most populous, most powerful, or best-connected ethnic groups in the nation will always win elections to and occupy juicy public positions (like the presidency) to the exclusion of the weaker social entities?

Is democracy about relegating perpetually, by design or accident, lower political offices to the minorities and preserving higher ones for the ethnic majorities in a society?

Is democracy about a rat-race in which every Dick or Harry can vie for political offices at any given time and without any restraint or decorum? Is it about a game of dog eats dog and the survival of the fittest as done in the jungle? Is it just about a rule of the majority, for the majority, and by the majority in a State or nation?

Contrarily, the paramount goal or ideal of modern democracy is to enthrone equity, social justice, common happiness of the people, and to dethrone indefinite, unchecked political domination and marginalization in a society.

Any Nigerian who is educated in world sociopolitical history must agree with me that the main reason Adolf Hitler (the racist father of Nazism) and Benito Amilcare Mussolini (father of the obnoxious Fascism) took intense objection to democracy during their lifetime was that it was the political ideology that could make it possible for the ethnic minorities in their countries to occupy the highest or principal political offices in Germany and Italy respectively, a situation they never wanted.

If the soul, the marrow of democracy is to ensure political equality among the minor and major nationalities in a society, it is therefore infantile for a right-thinking Nigerian to argue that rotational presidency, whose spirit is to achieve socio-political harmony and fairness in Nigeria, is undemocratic.

In his 1863 address, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, USA, described democracy as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

If democracy, as described by Lincoln, is a rule for the people, it consequently means that political domination, which intrinsically and usually creates marginalization, ethnic dissent, and resentment among the people, cannot exist in true democracies.

It equally implies that any principle, like presidential zoning system, which seeks to remove domination from the polity, is people-oriented and in tune with democratic ideals. Simply speaking, democracy is not just about the interest of the majority but about the common good of the entire people; it is about political sharing; it is about living and letting others live socio-politically. Democracy cannot achieve these goals in any nation if it does not consider the ethnocentric diversities and nuances in the peopeople.

In the proposed Nigerian rotational presidential democracy, the people will be divided into six geo-political zones, and occupation of principal political offices, like those of the President and Vice President is alternated or rotated among them in popular elections.

This plan will surely promote intra/inter-ethnic political harmony, unity, happiness among the Nigerian people, and eventually boost patriotism and development in Nigeria.

It is, therefore, uninformed and insincere for some Nigerians to argue that rotational presidential system, if officially and constitutionally introduced to Nigeria, is going to accentuate disunity in the country. Furthermore, rotational presidency will create a better sense of personal and ethno-official certainty, assurance, hope for political tomorrow, and will help to reduce the urge for political looting in Nigeria.

If an Urhobo man, for instance, were to be elected as Nigerian President today through this system, he would be less disposed to divert public funds and property to himself or to his tribal/zonal kinsmen, because he had the assurance and hope that in future he or another man from his political zone would occupy the same office and reap its benefits again.

However, if this security for political tomorrow was not in him, as it is the case now among Nigerian politicians, the desire for public looting and favoritism would be sharpened and kindled in him.

This corruption abatement is a part of the conventional wisdom in this proposed rotational presidential political system in Nigeria.

Some dishonest and ignorant Nigerians who are opposed to this idea of presidential zoning in Nigeria have even argued that it should not be introduced to Nigeria because it is alien to American or British democratic culture and practice. With all humility, this reasoning is ridiculous and repugnant to good sense.

I am constrained to ask those Nigerians: is the practice of democracy exactly the same in New Zealand, South Korea, India, Australia, Greece, Switzerland as it is in the USA and UK today?

Those Nigerians ought to know that modern democracy is more of a spiritual ideology, a value than a mere procedural issue; it is more of equity and substance than of form today. They ought to know also that democracy is a dynamic way of life which constantly reflects the ethos, the time, and mood of the people in a society.

Those Nigerians should know that when Universal Adult Suffrage was introduced to New Zealand in 1893, no other country in the world had before then ever made it part of its democratic experience or thought, including USA and UK. Today Universal Adult Suffrage has become a common decimal in all modern democracies.

Those Nigerians must also know that the features of democracy in the ancient Greece (the birth-place of democracy) and those in the USA (at independence in 1776) were not in procedural uniformity with what are obtainable today among democratic nations.

In the 1776 American democracy, for instance, only Adult White Male Property Owners could vote in elections, but today the case is different. True democracy is, therefore, a mercurial application that mirrors the ever-changing will and character of the people over a period of time in a geographical entity.

In sum, rotational presidency is an informed and a well-deserved political proposal for Nigeria. It will help to curb ethnic domination and tribal marginalization in Nigeria, promote peace and orderliness in political contests.

It will most importantly foster unity and sharpen patriotism and sense of belonging in an intrinsically heterogeneous and divisive Nigerian society. It will reduce unnecessary electoral expenses and help to fish out periodically the best Nigerians from each of the geopolitical zones or parts of the country for national leadership.

Every tribe, every geopolitical zone or even State in Nigeria has capable persons who can ably steer Nigerian national ship of governance in the right direction. The system will help to eliminate electoral frauds and unhealthy political rivalries.

In fact, rotational presidential system is the best option for contemporary Nigeria, a country where tribalism holds sway and where political votes are customarily cast on ethnic lines, a country where the fear of tribal-political domination, discrimination, and marginalization has killed all sense of national belonging, and a country where there are mountains of political and socio-infrastructural sabotage caused by ethnic/clannish misgivings and distrust.

Rotational presidential democracy should take its place now in Nigerian constitution before the existing widespread smolder of discontent becomes a blaze of balkanization tomorrow. Nigeria should not hesitate to practise rotational presidency simply because China, UK, France, or USA has not made it part of its political system.

All politics is local, geocentric, and ethnocentric in nature and essence, and Nigerian political red-herring must hang on its own bacon.

Alphonsus U Nwadike (Attorney at law and Certified Legal Nurse Consultant, based in Raleigh, NC, USA)