Elections are due to be held in Nigeria in April 2007. Emman Ozoemena points out that as the elections get closer, “it is important to note that there is need for key actors to learn how to manage contestations for power in such a way as to ensure that the nation comes out of this season unscathed as one indivisible entity that cares for the poor and excluded in our society.”

For those who can hear very well, the drumbeat signaling the 2007 election is increasing in tempo each passing day. The signs of impending elections, usually characterised by electioneering campaigns and political activities are in the air across the country. For most citizens, the ubiquitous posters of aspirants, media appearances, and visits to communities by vote-seeking politicians are indicators for the approaching elections. Just like the hoofbeats of horses in war times, the harder the noise, the more obvious it is to see that it is yet another election year.

In the midst of all this, some die-hard pessimists and non-tough minded optimists (and if you may merchants of crises) are busy inventing webs and spins that cast doubts over the possibility of elections next year. Some months ago, new fears crept into the nation’s political circles under different euphemisms. They were crafted by professionals who know how to stalk fear in the system.

Just after the third term imbroglio failed the Interim National Government (ING), a hoax surfaced on the nation’s political scene. Like any political currency, speculations trailed this hoax while denials and counter-denials followed. What made it rather curious was that the alleged purveyors of the ING option were men not given to idle talk. Take Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, for instance. He was associated with the ING idea. He is a serious minded fellow, though he later vehemently denied being involved with the ING option. I believe no progressive politician would ever fall for such an inane thought as ING. Then enter Chief Sunny Okogwu, the avid public commentator. He was also reported to have canvassed for the ING idea in media reports. Aside from the two, swarms of voices joined in the debate for desirability or otherwise of ING in Nigeria.

But then, just like a well orchestrated drama, the focus shifted to the imbroglio in the Presidency leading to PTDFgate. This further polarized the polity into three identifiable camps namely ‘President Obasanjo Supporters’, ‘Vice President Atiku Supporters’ and the ‘Obasanjo-Atiku Must Resign Campaigners’. The EFFC Report that followed PTDFgate jolted the political landscape with every politician “taking cover” for his life as Mallam Nuhu Ribadu led an anti-graft commission, releasing damming score cards on public officials whom we elected to keep public trust.

Finally, we have the current impeachment spree that now looms over some states. Chief executives and the lawmakers are slugging it out with the Judiciary waiting in the wings to either remain the unbiased arbiter or be consumed in the ambition of its members to climb to the exalted seat of acting Chief Judge without due process. There is a daily increase in the number of political actors, NGOs and campaign organizations who have reportedly made their positions on the issue public.

But, then we should ask; what is at the heart of the issue? What do the people of Nigeria want? Does the posturing of the political class and/or the power elite represent the heartbeat of the citizens? Are there verifiable indicators that Nigerians are ready for elections in 2007? Are members of the political class laying booby traps to truncate the process? The fear being expressed by many is that if care is not taken, the ghosts responsible for failure of the nation’s electoral process in the past may be back to foist on us once again the “never-ending transition programme”.

It is important for us to ask ourselves where we want to be six months into our journey to democracy. This question is becoming a stark reality given the events of the past weeks, which have stirred up the collective indignation the citizens. What expectations would the 2007 elections deliver for the electorate? The questions are endless. As we review the emerging scenarios in the country, it is important to know that there is no choice facing the country other than for us to make up our minds that it is the process of democracy in action.

A similar situation happened in the United States of America between 1963 and 1973 - “the decade of tensions” in American history, similar to the civil war year during the 19th century. Owing to the unfortunate assassination of President John F. Kennedy in May 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson took over as President for the remainder of Kennedy’s term. When the term ended in 1964, Johnson contested as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and won the election. The United States Constitution allowed him to run for two terms of four years each in his own right. So though Johnson was eligible to run again in 1968 presidential election, within the ruling party, the Democratic Party there was an intractable internal crises. Some wanted the President to seek re-election, while others thought otherwise. The camps within the party were divided amongst supporters of Johnson and his ardent opponent Senator Eugene McCarthy, who decided to put up strong resistance to the president’s dream for a second term.

As power elites within the party impressed on President Johnson to break his silence on the re-election bid, he responded in an unprecedented way by backing down on his ambition for a second term. Instead, he lined up behind another candidate for the top job, the brother of JFK, Senator Robert Kennedy. With this development, Robert and McCarthy had to slug it out at the Democratic Party’s convention in 1968. But then Robert Kennedy, was assassinated in Los Angles by a young Syrian Immigrant, Sirhan Sirhan while on a victory party after the California primaries. The Johnson camp reached out and produced another candidate, Hubert Humphrey, the vice president at the time.

The Democratic Party lost the 1968 election to Richard Nixon, the Republican Party candidate. Nixon had previously lost the presidential election to President J.F Kennedy in 1959 in a narrow victory. Most historiographers have rightly described this period as the “season of tempest” in American history.

Are there lessons to learn from the American experience in managing an open political field? For those who take time to study democratic movements one thing that stands out is that election years in which an incumbent president is not seeking re-election, are usually tension soaked.

For the purpose of this treatise, we must explain the “Open Field Phenomenon”. This is when an election year involving the incumbent president or president who has served out his or her term and who is therefore barred by the constitution from running in another election. When attempts to amend the 1999 Constitution failed on May 16, the presidency of Nigeria technically speaking became open beginning from May 27 2006. Naturally, this created a scenario where contenders for the Presidential race worked hard selling their programmes and manifestos to Nigerians. The political firmament was filled with new tensions arising from struggles for space by a legion of aspirants. This could be rightly described as politics of succession.

Nigeria is standing at a critical stage in her political development. The outcome of the 2007 elections will impact greatly on the nation’s ability to develop a democratic culture. The army of aspirants at the national and state levels aspiring to run for elections are indicative of renewed interest and faith in the system by the people, and a strong indication that democracy is on course in Nigeria. The incumbent president and 58% of current governors are not candidates for the elections. Fresh hands are taking part in the contest.

Add to this that the number of aspirant state governors have considerably increased from the number in the 1999 and 2003 elections. With the expanded space, do we assume that aspirants now have more platforms to run from, or do we assume that they would want to operate largely from the point of aligning themselves with the winning political party? There is the temptation to ask why most aspirants want to run on tickets of the ruling party. The bandwagon effect of “join the winning party” is a common phenomenon which demands our attention.

We are then posed with the challenge of how to resolve the internal crisis and leadership tussle in the parties. The ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the opposition parties are all factionalized and crisis-ridden. How this impacts on the polity ahead of 2007 is open to conjecture. Even the newly registered political parties, which their leaders initially were operating as private estates, are not exempt from internal bickering.

There is no doubt that political parties in Nigeria operate poor internal governance mechanisms. The leadership exercise power arbitrarily, excluding members on key decisions. This is one area that requires serious work by the political class and the electorates, if we want democracy to grow in the country. Party leaderships must be accountable to their members if democracy will be deepened in Nigeria. Without mincing words, most parties were built on faulty foundations with no binding principles and ideology. This type of hollow politics concomitantly translates into what we have today, politics driven by desire for power, not issue driven politics that seek to either provide leadership or alternative and credible opposition. If anyone dared conduct a survey on the nation’s political class on the core ideology of governance, chances are that the result would be zero.

What emerges in the media is that most aspirants are yet to come to terms with what constitutes campaign issues, especially around development and the core expectations of the people. It was funny hearing some aspirants to the presidency simply muttering the trite cliché: “If elected I shall continue with Mr. President’s economic reform agenda”. I chuckled listening to a front runner presidential aspirant saying that he intends to be committed to President Obasanjo’s economic reform agenda, as if the Reform Agenda is a magic wand that would sway votes to his side.

As we get closer to the 2007 elections, it is important to note that there is a need for key actors to learn how to manage contestations for power in such a way as to ensure that the nation comes out of this season unscathed, and as one indivisible entity that cares for the poor and excluded in our society. There are several lessons to learn from the US political history of the late 1960s as we approach 2007 elections.

• Emman Ozoemena, a Public Policy Analyst is based in Abuja. He can be reached on [email][email protected]

• Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org