In their effort to reign in rebellious PDP MPs who are threatening to disregard the zoning formula approved by the leaders in the selection of National Assembly presiding officers, the PDP bosses have invoked the principle of “party supremacy,” a concept that was last heard of in Nigeria in the Second Republic. The ruling party of those days, NPN, was not as overwhelming as PDP became in the last 8 years or so, because NPN had 4 very strong opposition parties throughout the years of its rule.
It preferred to be known by its simplified slogan, Food and Shelter, but NPN was best known as the champion of zoning, which it invented and which very strictly defined its operations throughout the Second Republic years 1979-83. NPN’s zoning policy was always worked out ahead of elections, taking into consideration the potential political weight as well as the historical claims of the various regions.
PDP’s leaders are therefore telling the truth when they try to emulate NPN, but with some important shortcomings. One, by repudiating or at least refusing to enforce their party’s constitutionally-enshrined formula for power rotation, they eroded their moral authority to enforce zoning, hence the current uproar. Two, they did not work out the zoning formula before the elections but afterwards, which has brought to the fore such issues as “level of contribution to President Jonathan’s election victory,” a concept unknown to NPN.
Three, the zoning formula that they are now trying to hoist on the party was not determined by an open regional give-and-take dialogue but is mostly driven by promises made by President Goodluck Jonathan to individuals in order to help him subvert the power rotation arrangement and railroad his way to the party’s ticket last January. The North East zone’s campaign to have the Senate President, for example, is not even entertained because Jonathan promised the job to Senator David Mark. And four, in working out the zoning formula, the PDP leaders are swayed by the wishes of some individuals, not the collective arguments of regions. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s desire for personal aggrandisement, for example, outweighs the South East’s argument to have the Speaker.
Anyway, while the party leaders are working out a formula, Senate leaders led by General David Mark unfolded a scheme of their own. They suddenly dusted up the Senate Standing Rules and they plan, this week, to ram into it a provision that enforces “seniority” in the choice of presiding and principal officers when the new Senate is inaugurated next month. They say that experience must count in the choice of the Senate President. David Mark’s supporters are telling the truth here, except that they forgot to do so in the last four years when the race for the top job was not impending and the selfish desire of some people was not so obvious. This is very much like Obasanjo’s Third Term, which David Mark supported, shifting the goal posts midway into the game.
There is also something fishy about current senators, 80 percent of whom will be gone in the next dispensation, rewriting the rules for incoming senators to use. Why not permit the new guys to work out their own rules? While the old senators are already referring to the incoming senators as “rookies,” other Nigerians don’t see them as such, because every senator elected from his state is seen as a very experienced elder there. Why, some of them were governors for 8 years, and in Nigeria at least, a governor’s cumulative political, administrative, financial, social, security and protocol experience is worth 20 senators’!
In their drive to shift the goal posts moments before the match kicks off, David Mark and his colleagues’ biggest argument is that they are copying the tradition of the US Congress. Well, if they want to copy it very well, they should know that there is no mention of “seniority” anywhere in the US Senate or House rules; it however exists as a very strong tradition nurtured over 200 years. Why then can’t we wait for 200 years to nurture it? In any case, in the US Congress, seniority is applied most strictly in the sharing of office space and membership of committees; when it comes to electing the Speaker, Majority and Minority Leaders and even committee chairmen, it is quite often observed in the breach.
Which brings us to the last leg of the truth-telling tripod, members of the Seventh Assembly Group of re-elected House members who have vowed to subvert PDP’s zoning policy and elect the speaker based on “merit.” They also said they are working to install the independence of the Legislature and save it from the tyranny of the Executive and the party. [Sigh]. Like the group around Jonathan and the group around Mark, these MPs are also telling the truth, because the National Assembly badly needs independence as well as merit in its leadership selection.
The only question is, when did the MPs realise this? During the nomination processes in their various constituencies, many of them won on the basis of zoning. There wasn’t a lot of merit in the selection of many of the MPs to represent their constituencies; many were rammed through by governors and assorted godfathers, often at the expense of much more meritorious guys, but then, it is not too late to insist on merit when it temporarily serves one’s ends.
All three groups are telling the truth. Somehow.
culled from Dailytrust newspaper
Posted: at | |