During his April 12 address to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Nigeria’s Acting President, Goodluck Jonathan adopted the tone and tenor of a reformer. Unfortunately he offered only a few encouraging signs of reform.
He outlined electoral reform, Niger Delta development, fighting corruption, and improving electricity as his principle goals. This indicates a refreshing sense of consistency with his other recent messages, suggesting that there is indeed a “Jonathan Agenda” taking shape. This agenda has been properly discrete, given the lingering uncertain status of Yar’Adua’s health. Yet to establish his credibility abroad and to generate political support for reform at home, Jonathan will have to provide a level of detail that is so far missing during his visit. He will also have to prioritize what so far sounds a bit like a laundry list of Nigeria’s ongoing challenges.
His reticence about his meeting with Obama the day before is understandable, and there was even a hint in his CFR comments that he was surprised that several other people attended what he thought was going to be a private meeting.
Electoral Reform
Jonathan’s public commitment to electoral reform is refreshing and significant. His stated commitment to allowing observers would depart from the strategy of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in 2007, which involved erecting obstacles for domestic and international civil society. He made clear that results should be declared at the polling unit level too, which he specified as a valuable means of demonstrating that elections are fair and verifiable. Such issues will fall in the lap of INEC, and following the firing of the attorney general and then the cabinet a few weeks later, Maurice Iwu, the discredited chair of INEC has been awaiting his fate. Jonathan provided some clues as to his next step by indicating that the term of several commissioners will soon expire, implying that Iwu’s dismissal is only a matter of time.
The disadvantage to waiting, of course, is that the 2011 election then becomes another hurried preparation process, replete with systematic corruption that can be blamed on logistical problems — which was precisely my own observation during 2003. A more urgent concern is his allusion that much of this reform can be accomplished without legislation. This comes as a great surprise since the National Assembly has been feverishly working on electoral reform amendments for several months, which will certainly require Jonathan’s signature. Electoral reform decreed or administratively implemented by an acting president is a recipe for electoral dystopia.
Human Rights and the Niger Delta
His answers were decidedly evasive on two key questions yesterday: First, asked about impunity by a representative of Human Rights Watch in the audience, Jonathan said that the security forces often respond heavily because they are outgunned – and those guns significantly come from the West. While he entirely has my sympathy, and the U.S. Congressional Research Service has indeed documented alarming arms export trends to Africa, this response has little to do with him making a commitment from the top to investigate and prosecute human rights violations at all levels and to follow the trail wherever it may lead (anyone watching Kenya?) His reference to the weather in Plateau State as a source of the migration that in turn led to violence in Jos sounded downright odd, and perhaps a bit like Montesquieu.
Nevertheless, his request for help from the U.S. on stemming small arms traffic in Nigeria is a near 180 degree reversal from the statements offered by Nigerian Foreign Minister Ojo Maduekwe all through last year. Africom, will you stem the flow of arms or will you contribute to the flow of arms? Obama has an opportunity to respond to a major African leader ‘s offer by creating disincentives for commercial arms sales and by enhancing the human rights conditionalities placed on government financing for arms sales.
Second, Jonathan’s response on the Niger Delta properly outlined the basic elements of the ongoing amnesty program, including demobilization and reintegration. But he missed an opportunity to demonstrate his seriousness by acknowledging its tragically modest progress so far — including reintegration camps for hundreds of militants without adequate toilets or showers and overpayment for disarmament. Though he has been intimately involved in the amnesty — and thus he carries some of the burden of these shortcomings — he also has an opportunity to increase the chances of this program’s success under his leadership now.
Is Nigeria Really Going Nuclear?
The moderator, former ambassador Howard Jeter, also asked a thoughtful question about Nigeria’s leadership on foreign policy. The easy answer, since Jonathan is in town after all for a nuclear summit, would have been to say that Africa is a nuclear free continent thanks to successful arms control (see Joe Cirincione’s excellent book on the history of nuclear weapons), and that Nigeria will exercise its leadership to keep it that way. Instead, the Acting President’s talking points produced a meandering answer that included Nigeria’s interest in nuclear power (!), acknowledging the critical role of the IAEA of course.
What next for Nigeria, Mr. Acting President? We await his public comments tomorrow.
Follow
email
Quite insightful for most part.
But for a guy with no handlers, team or set objectives (even when he was a governor in the N/Delta); one can hardly expect more. I just wished someone will reach his new teams of handlers (T Y Danjuma comes to mind) with the message that Goodluck’s time is short, and so should be the scope of his/their objectives. I think this angle is responsible for his meandering on issues. His handlers need to realize that if Goodluck fails to focus on electoral reform as his own project, no amount of resources poured into N/Delta will provide security; and that goes for the rest of the country as well, including the infrastructure that he was concerned about when he alluded to Nigeria’s need of nuclear power.
And we should remember that forces like IBB knows about this conflict of clues on the part of Goodluck; if not, why would he chose to announce his 2011 ambition and already granting interviews on BBC World Service while the acting president is in DC.
Here are some followup thoughts on Acting President Jonathan’s visit, based on his comments yesterday at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC.
THE IMPORTANCE OF EXTERNAL VALIDATION
In the face of the ongoing challenge to Jonathan’s legitimacy at home, his trip to Washington went far to generate legitimacy abroad. And as every student of Max Weber (or the cold war foreign aid, for that matter) knows, the external element of legitimacy can be critically important for a government’s empowerment and survival. So it should not go unnoticed that Senator Chuck Hagel, a spokesperson for the US foreign policy establishment, introduced Jonathan as “a distinguished world leader” and someone who has already had a big impact on the Africa during his brief tenure. Absent explicit constitutional blessings for his “acting presidency,” the social construction of Jonathan’s political authority abroad is working in tandem with the unfolding popular blessings at home – including unheard of levels of popular support in recent polls.
Perhaps because he is aware of the benefits of international acceptance, Jonathan further specified elements of a foreign policy yesterday. He reiterated Nigeria’s intentions to continue peacekeeping involvement, as part of its global role to be a voice for good. He also characterized the post-9/11 challenges at the door of his country, declaring his support for a counter-terrorism agenda by pledging to prevent shelter for extremists; apparently his briefings across town on “ungoverned spaces” as safe havens for terrorists sunk in. (In a separate post in the future I will critique this concept, though.)
NIGERIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
Following that blessing of sorts from the foreign policy establishment at a forum sponsored by the Atlantic Council at Washington’s Willard Hotel, Jonathan immediately distinguished himself from Yar’Adua in key respects. For starters, Jonathan conveyed a sense of urgency to free the country from “the shackles of poverty,” a sentiment which has largely been missing from Nigeria’s government recently.
More importantly, Yar’Adua and his team routinely refuted the value of any external involvement (such as neutral third party arbitration) in the Niger Delta, which is likely a sine qua non for any successful mediation of the long term political issues. By contrast, Jonathan began his comments yesterday by saying that he came to listen to the ways that the US can help Nigeria. He hailed the new Bilateral Commission formed during discussions with Secretary of State Clinton, although one US Government official explained that Nigerians were disappointed to learn that there would not be “commissioners” per se. As a sign of this swiftly deepening relationship with the US, he explicitly stated his appreciation for the change in US policy following the Christmas bombing attempt in Detroit, whereby a traveler’s nationality by itself is not sufficient to trigger additional security screening. During my visit to Nigeria last month, this repeatedly came up as a sore spot among elites who resented the guilt by association.
THE NIGER DELTA
In response to a question from Mel Foote of the Constituency for Africa, Jonathan also refreshingly declared that a military solution to the Niger Delta will not succeed. Any long term solution requires development and political agreement that involves youth – since their frustrations have been the most obtuse expression of the ongoing oppression in the Delta. He continues to place an uncertain hope in the amnesty process and the institutions necessary to implement it and the region’s development – including the NDDC and the minister of petroleum who have been targets of well warranted skepticism.
ELECTORAL REFORM – PART 2
My question to Jonathan during the Q&A about electoral reform resulted in his most compelling and lengthy response. Because he has stated repeatedly in recent comments that recent local elections in Abuja and Edo State are encouraging signs of Maurice Iwu’s improving competence, I prodded him about how this measures up to the apparent failure in the special election in Anambra with a turnout of less than 15 percent. Electoral reform does not begin with firing Iwu, he said. In my opinion, politically, this message constitutes an excellent strategy for now because it signals that Iwu will be established on his merit when the time comes. But substantively, Iwu is too vested in and symbolic of the electoral failure in 2003 and catastrophe in 2007.
From there Jonathan also provided additional details about where he will stand on key electoral reform issues, since, as I pointed out, the National Assembly is considering sweeping changes. Which reforms will his administration support, and which will it likely question? Reiterating his comments at CFR about the need to count and declare votes at the polling stations, he also explained that the expectation to vote “at home” rather than where you live contributed to low participation in Anambra, especially in the face of an increased fear of violence there. “At least the people voted,” he said. Interestingly, he suggested that as part of civic education, voters should be encouraged to stay at the polling station after voting to wait for the declaration, rather than departing. Let’s hope that the potential for collective action by lingering voters forms part of the security forces explicit training, ie, that people are supposed to stay around.
On the core issues of election reform, he declared an interest in criminally prosecuting those who perpetrate fraud, rather than simply letting the courts fight out the results (noting that whether such an appeal is underway will be a factor in such a prosecution). In my last post, I raised concern that he may be hinting at a circumnavigation of the Assembly but Jonathan also explicitly stated that his administration will report its views to the Assembly – and then leave it alone to do its work. We don’t want to “preempt” them, he said.
He also conceded that his administration will likely disagree with civil society’s ongoing demand that judges should appoint the electoral commissioners. This role properly resides in the executive, he said, and the separation of powers will help ensure that the appointments meet public expectations. On this point I agree, but the next step for Jonathan will also be to acknowledge and reform the excessive authority enjoyed by the executive in the hiring and firing of the commissioners. (Witness Afghanistan in recent weeks.) If he is truly committed to fair elections, this will be just as critical, and it is doubtful from my own conversations with National Assembly members that Iwu could survive a confirmation process anyway. But there must be a confirmation process – which would politically allow Jonathan to have the best of both worlds: being rid of Iwu and having an institutional partner in the National Assembly in an essential area of reform.
In the end, his demonstrated level of technical engagement on one of the three principle issues of concern to the international community is sure to bolster his credibility. Hopefully this message is heard at home and will be accompanied by the competent technocrats needed for its success.
Good piece for the most part. But I think the piece was a bit unsparing of the Acting President. I think he was tentative in some of response because of the circumstances that surround him back home. As much as the people who midwived the so-called doctrine of necessity will want him to believe that he can exercise full executive powers, the point should not be missed that it is a fluid situation and the rug could be pulled off his feet a moment’s notice.
I think the positives in his remarks and promises need to be acknowledged and every effort be made to help him do the best he can.
Great insightful analysis!
Jonathan will be a historic president if he spends his energy on electoral reform. He will not achieve much on energy reform and on the other items in his agenda. It is clear that he means well. But there is simply no time to make a significant difference in any of those other issues in his wish list….unless of course he is playing for 2001.
Whatever the case, he should choose his fight with one eye on history. He may yet in his short presidency make a greater name for posterity than those that misruled for a longer time.
With the judgement delivered by Justice Garbar in Osun State last week, I am confident that Nigeria has gotten to a state whereby anyone who could use a weapon should teach others.
Thanks for the exposition.
And we should remember that forces like IBB knows about this conflict of clues on the part of Goodluck; if not, why would he chose to announce his 2011 ambition and already granting interviews on BBC World Service while the acting president is in DC.
Let me just say that if Nigeria surely has nuclear aspirations, I am one to support this endeavour but with a some conditionalities.
Apart from the expenses and national political relevance (to name two of many) of being a nuclear power, Nigeria has the potential to be a global superpower. We have resources – human and natural – and the motivation to improve our country. When I say “our”, please note that this does not include those at the helm of leadership (at any level) who continue to waste our precious resources in order to line their pockets and support their prebendalist networks at the expense of the majority of the marginalized populace.
After suffering a brain drain, Nigeria has so much to gain from the “brain gain” that is awaiting. The Nigerian (and African) Diaspora have a major role to play in the progress and development of Nigeria and Africa. This is no understatement.
I understand that Nigeria is still an ‘unstable’ country in many respects, but I remember a comment Dr. Ali Mazrui made at his book launch at the Africa Institute of South Africa (in 2005 if I recall correctly). His comment centered on the imbalance of power relations and why the West does not want other countries to have nuclear power – to continue the power struggles and imbalance and to keep Africa on its heels.
I agree with his view because if African countries were to get their acts together and create a “United States of Africa” envisioned by Nkrumah and Qadafi, then the power imbalance of the world will shift with Africa at the helm of leadership – or as a very competitive force. If Nigeria can better itself and lead the way, then I do not see why not. After all, North Korea is always taken seriously!
Ideally, it would be lovely to live in a nuclear-free world. Yet, I continue to be a skeptic. If politics favours countries with nuclear power, let Nigeria get its act together and then, “o jare”, leave Nigeria alone.