APC and the Dilemma of Choice The All Progressives Congress would have a hell of time making an intelligent choice between General Muhammadu Buhari and Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, writes Ojo M. Maduekwe It remains unclear what method the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) intends to adopt in arriving at who would fly its presidential flag. For political analysts, understanding the method to be adopted by the national leadership of the APC is imperative and could in a way reveal which of the presidential aspirants is secretly being tipped by the party hierarchy. Publicly, APC leaders are sceptical of being tagged to any aspirants, concerned that such grouping could be misinterpreted as an official position of the party. This is why officials of the party refused attending the declarations of two of the main contenders for the party’s ticket – former military ruler, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari and former vice-president, Atiku Abubakar. Buhari and his supporters are canvassing for the adoption of a consensus candidate or direct primary, which will involve all the supposed 18 million registered members of the party, while Atiku is asking for a Modified Direct Primary, to involve about 20,000 delegates. The party ‘kingmakers’ are expected to adopt a method favourable to their choice aspirant. But since the APC hypes itself as progressive, several political actors are closely observing how she would handle this, and if the process would be guided by the party’s constitution and the collective aspirations of Nigerians. This has always been the litmus test in proving the genuineness of its claims as a progressive party that is different from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and represents the people. Thus, the need to be seen to represent the masses has become the APC’s dilemma. Divided into two, there is the group that is driven by the popularity of Buhari and is convinced that his presidency is what Nigeria needs. There is another group, driven by the collective aspirations of every Nigerian. To this group, all that matters is not popularity but for the party to field a candidate that symbolises the collective aspirations of Nigerians. The APC national leadership would have to make the tough choice of either aligning with the first group in choosing a popular candidate, or go against them in favour of a candidate that symbolises the collective aspirations of present-day Nigeria. Divided along ethnic and religious lines that threaten the country’s unity, there is the opinion that Nigerians need a leader that is capable of uniting them and forestalling a breakup. Even Buhari, during his declaration for the APC presidential ticket in Abuja, alluded to the importance of saving what’s left of the fractured unity of Nigeria. “Since 1999, PDP has presided over our country’s decline. Nigeria, in my experience, has never been so divided, so polarised by an unthinking government hell-bent on ruling and stealing forever whatever befalls the country,” Buhari was quoted. A cursory look at several analyses, interviews and news stories relating to the state of affairs of the Nigeria, points to two demands. First, Nigerians are increasingly becoming divided on ethnic and religious lines. Second, both at the federal and state levels of government, there is an outcry by Nigerians against the increasing high rate of official corruption. The presidential candidate of the APC is expected to address either of these demands. As at today, there are four aspirants jostling for the party’s presidential ticket. There is Buhari, Atiku and then trailing behind in popularity are the incumbent Kano State Governor, Rabiu Kwankwaso and publisher of the Leadership newspaper, Mr. Sam Nda Isaiah. Contrasting each other, Buhari and Atiku symbolise the demands of a corruption-free Nigeria, and a united country respectively. While Buhari is touted as being anti-corruption, Atiku is considered a moderate and someone likely to unite a divided North and South. Both Kwankwaso and Nda Isaiah are yet to be properly tagged as representing any idea. The question that is expected to guide the national leadership of the APC and the delegates in electing the party’s presidential aspirant is: what does Nigeria and Nigerians need more – a corruption-free or a united country or both? Many would agree that both are important to the survival of Nigeria, but also, to fight corruption, first there must be a country in existence. In trying to arrive at a candidate, the APC leadership and delegates would have to take a critical study at each of the aspirants and how their perceived individual personalities measure up to local, continental and international demands. Nigeria does not only need a local hero but it also does a president that can earn the country respect among the comity of nations. Buhari, among the top two main APC aspirants, is regarded as anti-corruption among a segment of the country and largely acceptable, but there are those who have had reasons to interact with him on a personal level, and consider his rigidity to national issues as not suitable for presiding over a plural society like Nigeria, whose several ethnic nationalities and religious groups demand a flexible president that understands politics of give and take. Former military ruler, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, during his coup speech on August 27, 1985, said what necessitated the coup against Buhari, was his failure to comprehend the plural make-up of Nigeria. According to Babangida, it became necessary to change leadership less than two years after Buhari came into power because “The principles of discussions, consultation and co-operation which should have guided decision-making process of the Supreme Military Council and the Federal Executive Council were disregarded soon after the government settled down in 1984. “Regrettably, it turned out that Major-General Muhammadu Buhari was too rigid and uncompromising in his attitudes to issues of national significance. Efforts to make him understand that a diverse polity like Nigeria required recognition and appreciation of differences in both cultural and individual perceptions, only served to aggravate these attitudes.” In a 2012 interview with a national newspaper, Buhari responded to Babangida’s claim thus: “From my own point of view, I was the chairman of the three councils, which, by change of the constitution, were in charge of the country. “They were the Supreme Military Council, the Executive Council and the National Council of State. I was the chairman of all. Maybe when you interview those who were part of the coup, they will tell you my rigidity and whether I worked outside those organs: the Supreme Military Council, the Council of State and the Council of Ministers.” That aside, there remains the need for a president who not only understand the workings of international politics but one who can diplomatically foster better relations for the country. Several analysts argue that the alleged rigid character of a Buhari presidency may be good in instilling discipline amongst Nigerians but could be counter-productive when the need arises for Nigeria to interact with other countries, even though such thinking can be said to exist in the realm of guess. But Babangida, in his speech, posited that under Buhari, Nigeria’s role as Africa’s spokesman diminished. “The ousted military government conducted our external relations by a policy of retaliatory reactions. Nigeria became a country that has reacted to given situations, rather than taking the initiative as it should and always been done. More so, vengeful considerations must not be the basis of our diplomacy. African problems and their solutions should constitute the premise of our foreign policy.” The attitude to approach national matters with vendetta is one of the reasons many political elite were believed to have opposed a Buhari presidency for three consecutive times. In as much as the country needs to fight corruption, those who oppose Buhari’s emergence argued that a presidency on a vengeful mission would be detrimental to the country’s survival and unity. Again, there are those who believe such a tag on Buhari is purely perception. Currently, Nigerians are said to be bitter and divided, and Buhari’s opponents maintain that the country cannot afford a president, who could only deepen that division and bitterness. Buhari as president, they however fear, could split the country along religious and ethnic lines. Bet the Buhari supporters would disagree. In another breath, those canvassing for Atiku cite the following as reasons. They claim he is moderate, detribalised, a bridge builder, organised, can attract talent, possess both political and business experience, capable of mobilising the youths, has an intimate working knowledge of the North-east, and has both local and international exposure. But they are yet to put up a strong argument on whether or not he could contain corruption, especially that he has had to battle allegation of corruption since he left office. Again, Atiku has openly challenged anyone with anything on him to come up and confront him with it. Generally, in choosing a candidate, the APC leadership desires to win the 2015 presidential election, and dislodge the ruling PDP. But, the party has a greater burden of redeeming and preserving the unity of Nigeria by presenting that one candidate that will be acceptable to both the North and South. For this, the answer lies in the APC making an intelligent and right choice.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:44:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015