The much talked about
Presidential Debate scheduled to hold on Saturday, January 19, 2019, at the
Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja, has come and gone but not without its dramas
that have kept Nigerians wondering and talking about so many things including
why the incumbent, President Muhammadu Buhari, shunned the debate, and why his
closest challenger, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, excused himself from it after
realizing that the incumbent was not going to be in attendance.
The debate was supposed to be a Presidential
Debate. Such debates world over lose their essence and savour once the
incumbent is not present, and it is unthinkable that the incumbent in the US,
for example, would miss out on such a debate since the debate is designed to
scrutinize the performance of the incumbent/his party and extract commitments
from the contenders.
It is therefore sad and unfortunate that
President Muhammadu Buhari did not see it fit to seize this all important
opportunity to engage his challengers in particular and Nigerians in general
through the debate. His absence totally vitiates the importance of the debate
and obliterates its essence just like a well advertised world heavyweight
boxing match is scuttled by the absence of the reigning champion. No matter how
well publicized the match is, it does not even matter if the tickets were sold
out and the arena packed to the rafters, the excitement, the anticipation and
expectations of those following developments both at the venue and other places
dissipates at the speed of light once the reigning champion chooses to stay
away from the match for whatever reason. Such a disappointment cannot even be
assuaged or compensated for by the challenger no matter how much he tries to
entertain the crowd with shadow boxing and showboating which is what a
Presidential Debate without the incumbent is. *Atiku and Buhari |
In fact, in developed democracies, presidential debates are usually organized
for only the top contenders, and in the case of the US, between just two, the
Democrats and the Republicans. While there are usually dozens of other
political parties fielding candidates for the presidential elections in the
United States, only candidates of the two major contending parties feature in
Presidential Debates after the parties’ primaries.
Although candidates of the other parties have
always been in the contest, their chances of victory are very slim and
insignificant to the extent that the debate feature only the top two
contenders. If it was in the US, the Presidential Debate would have been
strictly between the top two contenders, in this case, President Muhammadu
Buhari and his closest challenger, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The verdict, based on
what happened yesterday, would have been that the Debate would not hold since
Atiku turned up but Buhari was nowhere to be found near the venue. In fact, he
was in far away Plateau State, showing total disregard for the debate, as
always.
Just like in Nigeria, apart from the major
political parties, there are also such parties with considerable influence in
the American political system but who are not invited for Presidential Debates.
The wisdom in this is that it allows the contenders with the realistic chances
of having ample time to scrutinize one another. For example, former New Mexico
governor, Gary Johnson, was the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party
(LP) at the 2012 US general elections. Johnson had votes in every state in
America except only for Michigan and Oklahoma. His total votes in the election
were over one million.
Again in 2016, the LP fielded Gary Johnson,
and this time round, he received over four million votes in the presidential
election.Another party with similar strengths as the Libertarian Party in the
US is the Constitution Party. The strength of this party can be measured by the
fact that its gubernatorial candidate at the Colorado election in 2010 actually
came second with 36.4% of total valid votes cast, beating the candidate of the
Republican party to third position.
It is noteworthy that despite their strengths,
only candidates of The Republicans and The Democrats tango in the US’
Presidential Debates. If the debate was to be in America, the debate would have
been strictly between Buhari and Atiku, and the natural and correct thing to do
when the incumbent is not present is for the organizers to call it off and or
for the top contender to excuse himself as he cannot debate against himself.
One is not saying that the other contenders are not important, it is just that
having narrowed the contest to two major contenders with the most realistic
chances of winning, they need time to scrutinize each other and marshal out
their points.
Atiku was absolutely right in excusing himself
from that Presidential Debate after seeing that the other major contender,
Buhari, was absent. Debates are not just addresses or rallies, they are
ultimately a stage where “opposing arguments are put forward” by the debaters.
In fact, another dictionary described it as to “argue about (a subject),
especially in a formal manner”. One of the synonyms for debate is to “dispute”
on an issue. At this stage of our national life, we can no longer be taking
certain things for granted. If it was a debate on critical national matters,
who would Atiku be debating or disputing with on this matters?
Does Kingsley Moghalu know why our soldiers
are being killed on a regular basis by a ragtag Boko Haram despite trillions of
naira budgeted and spent on the military in Buhari’s almost four years tenure?
Can Oby Ezekwesili provide answers to why the Buhari presidency keeps making
excuses for those who murder our fathers, rape our mothers, wickedly rip out
the unborn from their wombs, maim our children, sack communities and forcefully
take over other people’s lands without any repercussion or even as much as a
challenge from our security forces under Buhari as Commander-in-Chief? Could
Fela Durotoye have been able to provide answers to why Nigeria became the
poverty capital of the world under the Buhari administration with all its known
inefficiencies, gross incompetence and blatant ineptitude? Who among them could
have explained why the fight against corruption under this administration has
been turned to a fight against opposition? Who among them would have been able
to provide answers on why appointments are lopsided and why Nigerians have been
so bitterly divided along parochial lines under the Buhari presidency based on
the words and actions of the president and his officials?
Critical issues and questions of national
importance would have come up at the debate to which only the incumbent would
have answers to. But what is the essence of a debate of presidential candidates
when the one to give answers to those issues plaguing us as a nation is not
there to either defend himself and his administration or give explanations as
to why certain things happen under him which have left Nigerians bewildered.
Such disputing on the podium would then give
all the candidates including the incumbent chance to put forward what they
would do differently going forward. This is why a debate is between the forces
for and those against. It is not a narrative exercise, it is an argumentative
one, and when one critical party to the salient points to be raised at the
debate deliberately makes himself unavailable, it rubbishes the very essence of
the debate.
This is the reason why the other contenders should have also insisted that they
would not participate in the debate if Buhari was not going to be there. What
was the essence of all they said about the precarious situation of the country
when the man at the helm of affairs was not there? Who were they disputing
with? Or, rather, who were they debating with? The truth is that all the other
candidates who chose to go ahead with the debate did not do so because they are
comfortable with the fact that Buhari was not present or that they love Nigeria
and Nigerians more than Atiku, but only seized the opportunity of rare free
live television coverage provided by the occasion to speak of their ambition
and have their faces on camera. That is the hallmark of desperate politicians
who would compromise standards and rightness just to further their own personal
interests which they masquerade as national interest.
But Atiku is not a desperate leader. His
ambition is obviously about Nigeria and not about his person. He shows this by
insisting that the right things have to be done by all irrespective of status.
He has willingly engaged Nigerians at different forums where he was subjected
to grueling questions agitating the minds of the people. He was fully prepared
for the debate despite his long trip and the hectic schedules arising from it,
yet, he moved straight from the US to the debate venue, but alas, the
president, the most pivotal factor of such an exercise chose to stay away.
Buhari’s absence is surely not unconnected to
the mindset of his presidency as stated by one of his acolytes, Prof Itse
Sagay, that the presidential debate was designed for “political dwarfs”. Until
Buhari comes out of his shell of “political dwarfism” even as the President and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
those who go to presidential debates without him there as president have only
succeeded in cutting their own average heights just to fit into “political
dwarfism”. As for Atiku, it is obvious he is not ready to reduce his towering
heights in order to satisfy the conditions for being a “political dwarf”.
Certainly, it is time for political giants in the mould of Buhari and Atiku to
square up in a debate. This is the real deal and when could this be?
No comments:
Post a Comment