A vote for single-term tenure [OPINION]

By Simon Kolawole

First, a caveat: I do not pretend to know the magic solution to Nigeria’s assorted problems, so what you are about to read is not an attempt to say I have suddenly discovered our way out of poverty, disease, unemployment and insecurity. Rather, I have taken another look at our political trajectory since the independence era and I have observed that the quest for a second term in office by incumbents always comes at a heavy price that hurts our progress, even national integration. I have, hence, been seriously thinking of an experiment: amending the constitution to stipulate that no president or governor can do more than one term of a maximum six years in office. Please follow me.

Why do I support the proposal for a single term of maximum six years and why am I here to re-echo it? In an article I wrote nearly 15 years ago, entitled ‘Jonathan Must Do Just One Term’ (THISDAY, May 1, 2011), I made three arguments: one, incumbents usually fill their first cabinets with barely credible appointees in an attempt to repay political IOUs — particularly to appease or compensate financiers, supporters and hangers-on; two, incumbents usually spend the first term accumulating resources to build a war chest for re-election; three, incumbents have the tendency to take their feet off the pedal during the first term since they could get another chance via a second term to redeem themselves.

Those were my takes in 2011 when President Goodluck Jonathan toyed with the idea of a single, six-year term. Have I changed my mind? Not really. I remain convinced that the second-term syndrome is a big distraction to governance and a drain on the treasury with heavy expenditure on elections every four years. Many will argue that one term is too short for a president or governor to make an impact. I wouldn’t disagree, but evidence from Nigeria tends to show that even if some leaders spend 20 years in office, the problems will remain. We have also had governors who made an impact in their early years but petered out as re-election politicking kicks in. We need a new experiment.

My first argument in favour of a single-term tenure is that if presidents and governors know that they have only one chance in the world to make an impression, there is an incentive for them to focus on the job at hand. There is no second term ahead. They know they will live only once. They have to put their best foot forward from the get-go. They can hit the ground running. They can take the toughest decisions that they would otherwise shy away from for fear of becoming unpopular and risking re-election. A governor once said he was trying to move fast with some far-reaching decisions — only for worried party leaders to warn him: “Slow down! These are things you do during a second term.”

One-term governors can also stand up to overbearing godfathers. In many states, sitting governors are at war with their godfathers whose first line of threat is often based on dashing their second term dreams. This always takes the focus away from governance. You also find governors insanely stealing public funds to build a war chest ahead of re-election, which is usually more expensive. There are downsides to my argument, I know. For one, godfathers can still make life unbearable for term-barred incumbents. But a performing governor will likely get some public sympathy. I also admit that a useless incumbent is a useless incumbent — but, at least, we won’t be stuck for two terms.

My second argument is that a quick turnaround time will help address the very explosive issue of power rotation. One of the hottest issues in Nigeria in the last 15 years is the north/south balance of power. A six-year single term will facilitate the alternation and maybe calm down some nerves. We need a peaceful political atmosphere to make meaningful progress as a people. There is always this impatience, even tension, over when power will move from one region to another. A major issue of concern in the African Democratic Congress (ADC) today is where the presidential ticket should go, and we can see hopefuls making promises to serve only one term. There is a reason why this is so.

I have never hidden my support for power rotation. It is very critical if we want to address perennial political discontent in Nigeria, which often unsettles the nation-building project. And one way of fast-tracking rotation — in addition to the zoning formula — is a single-term tenure. Power goes to the south for six years, goes to the north for six years, etc. The divisive emotions that heat up the polity every election year can be better managed this way. If a northerner wins the presidential election in 2027, it will be interpreted as short-changing the south and we may be in for another turbulent ride for four years — as we saw with Jonathan after the 2011 elections. This is the real situation with us.

In sum, the single-term proposal is principally to manage the distractions that often hurt our progress: distractions by the second-term syndrome and distractions by political discontent over power rotation. I know this proposal is flawed — if the leaders are bad, they are bad, no matter how many terms they spend in office — but, as I have said, I am not suggesting a way to end poor leadership. I am only trying to challenge us to begin to think of unusual political experiments to tackle some of these things that so easily drag us down as a nation. If conventional methods don’t work for us, let’s go unconventional. It is not as if two-term tenures have solved our problems.

I now need to insert this caveat before I shut down my laptop: by way of a transition clause, the single term should apply only to those elected for the first time under the proposed amendment. Those elected for a first term under the current constitution will still be entitled to run for another term, but that would be for four years. Let me say it again: until an amendment is effective, those who are serving (or have served) a first term will still be eligible to go for a second term. However, the second term will be for four years, not the proposed six years. This is in line with the well-established convention that an amendment does not take retroactive effect. I hope this helps.

Culled from The Cable