Rotational Presidency: A ‘Bigoted’ Move to End Bigotry
Nigerian politics are smeared with different layers of tribalism and religious bigotry that are, however, intentionally swept under the carpet for political correctness.
Even before the end of the First Republic by the ‘Igbo Coup’ in 1966, at a time when Nigerian politics was largely a regional affair with various regions having their own political parties, the leaders of those regional parties are still regarded as some of the country’s finest nationalists.
In 1963, when Nigeria became a Republic, and although the country was split into three main geopolitical regions – Western Region, Eastern Region, and Northern Region – with parties in each zone taking unique ideologies peculiar to their people, a sense of nationalistic interest was somewhat conveyed, at least in retrospect, by the regional leaders.
To drive down history lane, the Igbo-centric National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) was, at the time, led by the likes of Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first indigenous President, and Michael Okpara, who was the Premier of Eastern Nigeria until the military took over.
The Northern People’s Congress (NPC), which represented the interests of the predominantly Hausa/Fulani people in Northern Nigeria, was led by Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto, and Premier of the Northern Region, and Sir Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the country’s Prime Minister.
In the Western Region, the predominant party was the Action Group (AG), which was led by Obafemi Awolowo, its founder, and Anthony Enahoro, the first person to move a motion for the independence of Nigeria.
Although these men, to a large extent, fostered the interest of their regions, their roles in building Nigeria into an independent nation are deemed remarkable and are historically ascribed the noble status of nationalists.
However, Azikiwe, who initially supported the breakaway country, Biafra, and Okpara, who gave up his residence in Umuahia for Chukwuemeka Ojukwu to establish his headquarters when Biafra’s capital was relocated there, are both considered nationalists. This not only reflects Nigeria’s fragmented nature but also shows that bonds within ethnic groups are stronger than Nigerian politicians currently present.
Other nationalists echoed sentiments that appeared so ‘un-Nigerian’ that, if uttered today by any presidential hopeful, the candidate would lose the election even before the polls started.
Take, for instance, the words often attributed to Balewa:
“Since 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs, and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite. Nigerian unity is only a British invention” (Balewa, 1948).
And another one by Awolowo:
“Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English,’ ‘Welsh,’ or ‘French.’ The word ‘Nigeria’ is a mere distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not” (Awolowo, 1947).
Despite their candid assessments, both Balewa and Awolowo are revered as nationalist leaders and founders of modern Nigeria. It would be unfair to history and dishonor the sacrifice of these men to suggest that, because they echoed these sentiments, they were not patriotic or nationalists.
Instead, Balewa and Awolowo’s words highlight the country’s enduring challenge: reconciling its diverse heritage and regional identities into a cohesive whole. It appears, at least in retrospect, that Nigerian founding fathers understood that Nigeria was a country of many nations and hence proposed a system of governance that allowed the regions to govern themselves, which invariably fostered a sense of belonging.
Recently, 35 lawmakers in Nigeria’s House of Representatives are canvassing for a bill that will change the country’s governance system. The bill, co-sponsored by Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, a member representing the Ideato federal constituency in Imo State, seeks, along with a six-year term for the President and Governors, also proposed for the office of the President to be rotated among the six geopolitical zones.
According to the lawmakers, rotating the office “will ensure equal representation, national stability, and inclusion of all regions in the country.”
First, it could easily be considered a bigot move knowing that Ugochinyere, who is at the forefront of the lawmakers pushing the bill, is unapologetically Igbo and has repeatedly called for the release of separatist leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
But Ugochinyere’s proposition could be a ‘bigot’ move that’ll end all bigotry.
For far too long, the country has run with a rather damaging sense of tribal blindness, that is to say that who rules the country is not hinged on what the person speaks, or the God he believes in, or his cultural heritage. As refined as these premises are, that anyone with the finest ideas should rule Africa’s most populous nation, it fails flat in the face of reality.
The last Presidential election in 2023, if it unveils nothing else worthy of study, shows how divided Nigeria has become as a country. For the first time since the country returned to democracy in 1999, the presidential election was a three-horse race between candidates from the three main tribes: Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo.
Peter Obi was the undisputed choice for the South East, perhaps since he’s from the region. Not surprisingly, Bola Tinubu clinched his geopolitical zone with nearly 60 percent of the cast votes, while Atiku Abubakar won his zone, the North East, although he lost the North West to Tinubu.
The hatred and antagonism exhibited by one tribe against another during the election illustrate that Nigerians, despite how refined their political ideas are or their level of education, have a psychological attachment to their ethnic groups, and perhaps put its interests over the country’s.
As has been observed, even among nationalists, the binding force of ethnic identity cannot be easily expunged from the beings of leaders.
In 2019, Kazeem B. Ajide, from the Department of Economics, University of Lagos, Olorunfemi Y. Alimi, also from the same school and department, and Simplice A. Asongu from the Development Finance Centre, University of Cape Town, observed in their research paper ‘Ethnic Diversity and Inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa’ that “ethnic diversity is capable of influencing the distribution of income among the various competitors, who are, oftentimes, divided along racial, ethnic, language, and religious dimensions.”
The trio appears to put to rest the question of how resources are shared in an ethnically diverse country when they wrote that “who gets what or how the pie is being shared and distributed appears to be largely moderated by the institutional framework in existence.”
Hence, back to Ugochinyere’s proposal, a rotational presidency among the six geopolitical zones could be that institutional framework capable of providing a lasting solution to ending the sense of marginalisation that ethnic groups feel when it comes to having to rule Nigeria.
On the surface, rotating the office appears to yield to the sense of tribal belonging and shun the expected sense of nationalism; one Nigeria. However, ignoring the continuous call for separatism, particularly by Biafra agitators, which primarily arises from a feeling that, despite being part of the country, their chance of getting one of their own to rule is getting slimmer as the years pass, is turning away from a possible solution to lasting peace. Since there is no zone in the country where meritocracy cannot be found, having a region produce all the candidates in a Presidential election while the entire country chooses from that pool gives the feeling of oneness.
Rotating what is arguably Africa’s most contested seat might not solve Nigeria’s economic woes or its insecurity issues. However, it might be a recipe for peaceful cohesion. And since peace is the foundation of prosperity, perhaps rotating the presidency just for peace might be the seed that will engender Nigeria’s progress.
