It will be recalled that in the first week of March 2011, General Buhari advised his supporters to “lynch” anybody who tries to rig the April polls. In his words: “you should never leave polling centres until votes are counted and the winner declared and you should lynch anybody that tries to tinker with the votes.”
Subsequently, with his supporters having been so incited, General Buhari disclosed that he did not intend to go to court as a person, but that his party could do so, in the event of his not winning the election. In the same month of March 2011, Buhari’s running mate, Pastor Tunde Bakare also allegedly declared that there would be a “wild wild North” if the elections were rigged. Buhari and Bakare were strongly criticized for this, with pointed insinuations by a group called “Coalition for Transparency and Integrity” that the CPC duo did not have the right temperament for the job that they sought. On April 16, General Buhari after voting complained about unusual aircraft movement and the distribution of ballot papers that had already been thumb-printed: “Buhari said that it was the responsibility of young people as major stakeholders to ensure that the elections were free and fair. If they allow the ruling party to mess them up, it is they who will suffer for the next 40 years.” (The Punch, April 17, at page 14). There has been a lot of lynching in the North since then! Today, we also have on our hands, a “wild wild North”. So, what exactly does General Buhari want? And what should he do?
I think he should place national interest above personal ambition. If indeed he does not believe in the violence that has erupted in the North, he needs to go on radio, and on television and advise his supporters to stop fighting now and to allow the next elections on April 26 to hold peacefully. He must say so pointedly, and unequivocally. This is a message he cannot afford to bury in the midst of complaints about electoral malpractices. And he must convey that message in his own voice and repeatedly in Hausa and Fulfude, the languages that the rioters are more likely to understand and appreciate. He must in doing this, enlist the support of the same emirs that his supporters are denigrating, and the imams and ulamas. Today being Friday, the sermon in all mosques in the North should be a sermon of peace, the angry youths must be told that there is nothing gained by the CPC, the North or the “believers” through the slaughtering of youth corps members and other innocent Nigerians. General Buhari is obviously a folk hero among his supporters. But he must realize that the whole of Nigeria is his heritage having served once as the Head of State of this country. He must not allow himself to end up as the man who would be remembered as the catalyst for a third implosion of the country, a possibility that is signposted by the reference in the President’s speech on the crisis to the Civil war of 1967-70, and June 12, 1993. Today is Good Friday, a day that symbolizes sacrifice. The meaning of Good Friday needs not be explained to either Buhari or Bakare, except that both men are at that same crossroads where they are required to make sacrifice for their country: a sacrifice for unity, peace and stability.
I have read the statement issued by General Buhari titled “Message of Peace and Hope.” There is very little about hope in that message. A speech in which the General writes off the entire election as fraudulent and Jega as insincere, and shows no sign of reconciliation with the opposition says nothing about hope, rather it says everything about the likely dangers ahead. General Buhari should realise that it is precisely this kind of attitude that led to the current crisis in Cote D’Ivoire. In the US Presidential election in 2000, Al Gore could have put his feet down over Florida: the margin between him and George Bush Jnr was so close, but in the end, he conceded defeat so America could move on. In 1979, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who commanded like Buhari, a cult-like following chose to go to court to contest the results of the Presidential election in part, his disciples insist, in order to prevent violent protest in the South West, and the occurrence of another “wild wild West phenomenon.” It is such statesman-like conduct that is required from Buhari at this moment.
The Congress for Progressive Change has declared its intention to go to court. While it is doing that, the party should also help to educate its angry and violent supporters in the North about the meaning and nature of democracy. In a democracy, the minority may be right and wise, but it may lose to the majority, and once it does so, the majority is allowed to have its way. On April 16, the majority of Nigerians spoke in unison across 31 states and gave victory in the Presidential election to Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP. It is only the tribunal or the courts that can upturn that result, not the mob, relying on self-help. Clearly, voter education remains a problem in our emerging democracy. The CPC did not help matters by arguing that it approached INEC and asked that Professor Jega should not go ahead with the announcement of the Presidential election results without addressing the party’s complaints. Didn’t the CPC big men know that no political party has such powers to order the abortion of an electoral process mid-way?
The CPC has every right to go to court. But they should stop telling us that it is the party going to court, not General Buhari. In my view, there is no difference. The CPC is General Buhari’s special purpose vehicle. He set up the party in 2010, after disagreeing with his former colleagues in the ANPP. He deserves credit for building up a new political party into a formidable force in less than ten months. In terms of performance, the CPC in fact did well, capturing 12.2 million votes. It lost the big prize due to its special handicaps: it lacked a strong structure as well as financial resources; it also adopted on a strategy that relied on Northern demographics, and third, the party failed to take advantage of the proposed merger/alliance with the ACN which could have been a game-changer in the Presidential election. Now weeping uncontrollably before and after the election, the CPC alleges that there were malpractices in the South South and the South East and a total of 23 states across the country. The party alleges that its polling agents were chased away from collation centres and that the Excel software used by INEC was deliberately configured to sabotage the CPC. Ironically, the same CPC had earlier praised the National Assembly elections of April 9 as “free and fair.” The party is talking about malpractices, but it has not said that it won the election or that Jonathan did not win. Even if the elections in the South South and the South East were cancelled, and a re-run ordered, Jonathan will still win in those states. If CPC’s ambition is to defend the credibility of the process, then why is it not protesting the large turn-out of under-age voters in all the states where it won its 25% in the North?
No comments:
Post a Comment