June 30, 1998.
The Head of State’s decision to reform the present transition
programme and make it accommodate a broader range of
interests within the nation is a welcome tonic for national
stability. One particular interest group that would invariably
require careful attention is the one the international mass
media refers to as the ‘Opposition’. These are the rather
prominent group of persons who have continued to insist on
the validity of the June 12, 1993 presidential polls widely held
to have been won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola, in a relatively free
and fair election.
Since the June 12 elections were annulled by an act of
government, what, in effect, the group is calling for is
government’s reconsideration and reversal of the annulment
decision. This is why, it must be supposed, they are referred to
as the opposition: they are pulling in a different direction from
government. How then can they be integrated into the
transition programme?
One possible way would have been to see their different
direction as that of the leg of a tripod: an oppositional slant
that actually provides stability. This way, we could, as a
national gesture of conciliation, select Chief M.K.O. Abiola as
the sole presidential candidate of the five political parties. This
could be made possible by a government consolatory dropping
of charges against the Chief.
The main obstacle here, however, is that June 12 activists,
rather than attempt purposeful negotiation after these five
long years of fruitless confrontation, seem to see the
unconditional re-validation of the June 12 results as the only
way forward. Unfortunately for this ‘only way forward’ based
on principle (the principle that the general will is sovereign) a
government re-validation act must also be based on principle
(the principle that laws are enacted for the good of the State)
to be morally acceptable. Although an action of government
need not be morally acceptable before it becomes legitimate, it
does help, especially to check subversive discontent, if
government actions are broadly perceived by the populace to
be morally right and socially desirable. For a re-validation of
June 12 to be generally seen as right, the annulment of June
12 has to be logically (not presumptuously) and publicly
understood as wrong.
This would mean a government reassessment of the reasons
for the annulment, a possible recognition that it had been
wrong, followed by a recantation (a public giving up of a belief).
We must suppose a military government would be bold enough
to take these rather phenomenal and historic steps but, and
this is very important, they would only thereby have helped the
nation if such steps are based on principle. The central principle
here would be that an election may not be wrongfully annulled.
This principle, depending unfortunately on information and
insights which are not yet available to the generality of the
populace, is very different from the principle that an election
once concluded may not be annulled for whatever reason. That
election results can be lawfully annulled for good cause is
evident from our recurrent use of election tribunals. We also
have practical examples of the annulment in 1992 of the
presidential primaries, which, at the time, strongly presented
the late General Shehu Yar’ Adua as the next President of
Nigeria. Today, four political parties, and even NADECO, are
asking for the annulment of the recently-concluded legislative
elections. There are other election results that have been
annulled by sudden death, while, it is often argued, every coup
against a democratically elected government is an annulment
of sorts, of a people’s mandate. The last point puts all persons
elected under the umbrella of the defunct NRC and SDP, and
even former President Shehu Shagari, back into contention. No
wonder, therefore, that certain civilian Governors had
threatened secession when the idea of the re-validation of
June 12 was first mooted in July 1993.
The revalidation of June 12 can, therefore, properly, only be
based on a re-evaluation of the information that led to the
annulment decision, in the first place, and a credible
government renunciation of the earlier government action,
followed by a resurrection of the whole democratic gamut as it
was in June 1993. For just as a head without a body is
useless, so would the revalidation of June 12 be useless
without the restoration of the parties and systems that gave it
being.
The next matter of principle is that of the enfranchisement of
five age groups since 1993, who cannot be denied the
democratic right to choose who rules them. Five years ago,
they were too young to take part in the electoral process that
culminated in June 12. Now that they have come of age, their
fundamental right to vote and be voted for must be put into
consideration. In fact, with a little constitutional adjustment
(that is, before the adoption of the awaited new constitution)
this group of persons could produce the very next President. All
they need to do is recognize that the older generations have
failed their nation (through shameless selfishness and a
palpable lack of direction) band together with other young age
groups and provide us with the much-needed corrective
government. For in the final analysis, it is not the mere
reversion to democracy that ensures national salvation but the
inception of true nationalism and altruism by a youth’s army
with new blood and fresh ideas.
