Interrogating Jonathan’s Statesmanship: a Recipe for Political Development By Chuka Okeke

It is no gain saying that “one man’s opportunism” as Milton Friedman succinctly puts it, “is another man’s
statesmanship”. Suffice it to say that one significant feature of March 28, 2015 presidential
election in Nigeria is the swift acceptance of defeat by the incumbent president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. Observers around the world interpret the manner President Jonathan reacted to the outcome of the election
as an art of statesmanship.
 It follows that it is uncommon in Africa for an incumbent president
to accept defeat in good faith without resistance or taking advantage
of the state apparatus within his control to upturn the outcome of the
election to favour his candidacy. In fact, in most cases, a sitting
president wins election in Africa!  Nevertheless, whether to
interrogate the president’s willingness to concede defeat as an art of
statesmanship or a “no alternative option”, the truism remains that
the telephone conversation in which Dr. Jonathan called Gen. Muhammadu
Buhari to congratulate him even before the official declaration of the
winner is indeed a turning point in Africa’s political development.
I therefore opine that the acceptance of the election result by
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) under Jonathan’s administration should
be seen as part of  Nigeria’s sterling role and status as the giant of
Africa . It further positions the country in a nodal spot where other
African states can emulate her viable leadership in electoral affairs.
  Politics in Africa right from decolonization period has been
dominated by leaders or more appropriately, rulers who over stay in
the office and defenestrate any attempt to grapple power with them.
For instance, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema of
Equatorial Guinea, Muamar Gadafi in Libya and host of other leaders of
African states are well known for their ubiquitous sit tight
dispositions in the office.  Even back home in Nigeria, the story of
how Gen. Sani Abacha tried, though unsuccessfully, to transform
overnight from a military dictator to a self made civilian president
still occupies our memory.  Another instance in Nigeria points to this
conclusion.  Olusegun Obasanjo, a former president, at the last count
of his stay in the office, nurtured an unconstitutional third term
agenda which was again frustrated and rendered impotent. In other
words, for so many political actors in Africa, it is easy for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle than for them to relinquish power
to a successive government. It is however, not surprising. The maxim
of Lord Acton says much about “power and corruption” Though Acton
wasn’t talking directly to Africa, he aptly captures the scenario we
face in Africa when he said that “power corrupts but absolute power
corrupts absolutely”
Yet, the response of some observers to Jonathan’s sense of humility
and personal sacrifice at the altar of power raises questions on the
genuineness of his expression after the election. The crux of this
interrogation therefore, lies in whether to interpret his rectitude
and the way he extended a hand of friendship to Gen. Buhari as a
“cowardice” decision, since the presence of African statesmen and
other international observers was pronounced in Nigeria at the time
INEC was announcing the result, or to view it as a democratic gesture
from a humane and just president.  They argue that it’s never a big
deal to talk about Jonathan’s acceptance of the result, and that his
action doesn’t necessarily make him a statesman. The reason they
advanced is that he couldn’t have done anything under the watch of
foreign observers in Nigeria. This argument is superficial because it
ignores the fact that what makes a statesman is his ability to foresee
the inevitable and takes appropriate measures in the interest of the
State.  Or would it not be a self-delusion for Jonathan to have
thought he could win, even when the result that was trickling in at
the collation centre have given him hindsight on who would eventually
emerge victorious? To clinch the argument, let me remind them that
Jonathan’s preference for a peaceful transition in the most populous
black nation in the world is consistent with his campaign statement
that his personal ambition does not worth the blood of a single
Nigerian.  That is truly the hallmark of statesmanship!
It is, therefore, useful at this juncture, to point to those who hold
the opinion that Jonathan was under intense pressure to accept defeat
that we have had cases in Africa where political leaders failed to
realize that they can lose in a political contest to an opponent. And
when it is dawn on them that they have lost election, they still
refuse to quit, even amidst pleas and strenuous pressures from
continental and international organizations to cede power. For
example, if Jonathan had proved otherwise that he was not mindful of
our nascent democracy; the country would have plunged into a chaotic
front as we saw in Ivory –Coast.  Under the leadership of Laurent
Gbagbo of Ivory-Coast, the country became an emblematic case of
electoral dictatorialism which President Jonathan completely debased
in Nigeria.  After the presidential election in November 2011, Gbagbo
refused to hand over power to Alssane Quattara who was internationally
recognized as the winner of the election.  Gbagbo continued to cling
onto power until he surrendered to series of repulsive attacks which
culminated in the siege of his palace by pro-Quattara militia.

 Unarguably, as the case in Ivory-Coast clearly shows, party agents in
Africa identify their counterparts from other political parties as
enemies, perhaps an enemy that has the capacity to threaten their
victory at the polls. Again, in this regard, President Jonathan stood
out from the crowed. His show of political maturity goes a long way to
admit the saying that “in politics ,there is no permanent enemy but
permanent interest”  It is also worthy to note that during the
collation of the election result in Abuja, Peter Orubebe, a former
minister of Niger Delta distracted the process on the basis, as he
publicly claimed, that the INEC chairman, Prof. Atahiru Jega was
partial and tribalistic in the conduct of the election, yet Jonathan
was not lured into any unwholesome act,  neither did he hinge on
Orubebe’s dramatic attitude to destabilize the whole electoral
process. Rather, he allowed INEC to perform its constitutional duties
without undue interference from presidential quarters.

From the foregoing, it is evident that Jonathan has proved to be a
true statesman. Nigeria is composed of a heterogeneous society where
internal strives and claims of marginalization from active
participation at the centre makes electoral process an arduous task.
This Nigerian factor, often leads to die hard struggle for power by
diverse interests (do or die approach to politics), and if it is not
properly managed it can threaten the unity of the country.  In other
words, political elites, as Jonathan has shown should see politics as
a nationalistic concept that seeks to cater for the interest of the
State, rather than restricting it to personal level.  When politics is
drawn to personal level, constitutionalism, rule of law, free, fair
and credible elections amongst other dividends of democracy are
undermined only to satisfy ones selfish interest. At that level,
politicians strive for their personal gains at the detriment of
national development. Hence, the task of strengthening democratic
institutions to serve the interest of the masses should form the
priority of Muhammadu Buhari’s administration in Nigeria.
Okeke, a Social Commentator writes from Abuja, Nigeria