Follow Us on Google
The search for a suitable political system or model for our socio-economic situation seems to be a continuous one. Last week, a member of the House of Representatives, John Dyegh, All Progressives Congress (APC) member from Benue State, had introduced a bill to amend the 1999 Constitution to enable the president and governors serve a single term of six years, instead of the two terms of four years each. The bill was also to enable the members of the National Assembly and the state assemblies serve six-year terms.
It came up for a second reading on Tuesday but soon went down in an almost sudden, unanimous defeat, drawing comments from Nigerians from outside the legislature, including the defeated presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who expressed misgivings over the rejection of the bill by the House, a decision he likened to throwing away the baby with the bath water.
In a statement issued through his Media Adviser, Paul Ibe, Atiku noted that members of the House were too quick to dismiss the bill with very scant attention paid to its intrinsic merits. The bill was not helped by the atmosphere of suspicion in which not a few members saw the bill as part of a complex ‘third term’ agenda, the discredited rumour that President Muhammadu Buhari was being persuaded to run for a third tenure of office.
The current tenure of two four-year terms has often been considered problematic and riddled with distractions when compared to the single six-year tenure, which has the ring of a straight shot. Observers of political behaviour seem to agree that the first two years, the so-called ‘apprenticeship years,’ is spent learning the ropes, getting acquainted with the office, getting to know advisers and cabinet, testing the waters, and trying to seize the party machinery. The second two years is generally spent oiling the campaign machine, preparing and executing re-election.
On winning a second term, the incumbent spends the first two years returning favours, putting down the so-called roots, consolidating controls of both party and government. The last two years is spent thinking about legacies, trying to do good, and casting an eye for a ‘safe’ successor and, sometimes, securing the legacy by anointing a successor who, presumably, would be willing to overlook past misdeeds and permit the incumbent a post-tenure influence. This formula approximates general executive behaviour; it did not always work.
Reactions to the bill in the House were barely encouraging. The House Leader, Peter Akpatason, tried to dismiss the ‘third term’ fear, explaining that the President had told the nation he was not angling for a third term and his wishes should be respected and believed. It was not clear if every member accepted the explanation. Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau) said the mood of the nation should be taken into account before making such a fundamental change as six-year tenure. Haruna Isa Dederi (APC, Kano) also spoke against the bill because every four years the electorate are afforded the opportunity to review the performance of elected officials. To him, that’s good enough.
Atiku, on the other hand, seems to be wholly sold on the proposal. A six-year term would end the culture of rigging that subverts the will of the people. It would free incumbents from the burden of funding, fighting and obsessing with re-election. The second term project tends to consume both energy and resources of the incumbent, diverting so much away from the people’s welfare, thereby undermining and reducing democracy dividends and, worse, jeopardising electoral integrity if election is rigged. It is believed that a six-year tenure will extinguish the desperation often noticed in the conduct of incumbents, especially when they are scared of defeat. The eight-year tenure tends to reward incumbents sometimes unjustly, even when their performance had been shaky.
An inherently incompetent official will perform below average even if he or she is given 20 years in office and $20 billion in cash. It is not how long a man is in office and how much he has that matter but how well is he prepared and committed. A second term allows failed incumbents to be re-elected and denies political parties the opportunity of replacing a poorly performing candidate with a better one, all in the name of the right of first refusal.
We are sure the last has not been heard of constitution changes to length of tenure of political office holders. The cost of governance, the performance of officials, the dynamics of democratic governance and changing times would ensure that the pressure for change is perpetual. The six-year tenure is not without criticisms. What happens if an unsuitable candidate is enthroned? Obviously, six years is too long to wait out a bad fit, and impeachment is most times messy.
