Point Blank

By Chukwudi George Ozalla

“The greatest danger to democracy is not always the absence of elections, but the manipulation of the process through which choices are made.” -Ozalla CG

It is often a costly political mistake and a serious development in our body polity to undermine free, transparent and fair party primaries in the choice of successors to elected governors.

In my state of Anambra, for instance, Obiano was, in my view, literally dragged into the governorship of Anambra State, largely unprepared for the political demands of the office. But he also learnt from the manner in which he was brought into power. He saw how succession politics could be handled through imposition and later participated in the same pattern when he was instrumental in the emergence of Professor Chukwuma Soludo as his preferred successor, against all odds.

The question now is: who will Soludo impose on Anambra State, and what will become of the state if the same pattern continues?

This has become a retrogressive practice in our body polity generally. It is not peculiar to Anambra State. Across Nigeria, outgoing governors have often sought to determine, sometimes defiantly, who succeeds them instead of allowing members of their parties to freely choose their candidates through competitive, transparent and credible primaries.

It has become such a familiar pattern that it is only in very rare cases, or what can be described as a narrow escape, that an incumbent or outgoing governor loses out in the political game of determining who succeeds him. In most cases, the person the governor wants eventually gets the party’s ticket, sometimes by every means available to the political machinery behind him.

That, to me, was one key regrettable political mistake Peter Obi made in this regard. He joined the bandwagon of succession politics based on an outgoing governor’s preferred candidate rather than allowing a genuinely transparent contest within the party.

I have no problem with an outgoing governor having someone in mind. Politicians naturally have political preferences. The problem begins when that preference is publicly declared or backed with the enormous influence, power and resources of the office while other aspirants are still competing for the party’s ticket.

The moment an outgoing governor openly identifies the person he wants to succeed him, that aspirant has been given an advantage over the others before the contest even begins.

If a governor has someone in mind, it should remain a private political preference while the contest is open. He does not need to announce it or deploy the machinery and influence of his office to give that aspirant an advantage over the other contestants. His support should reasonably come after the primary, when the party has produced its candidate through a process he neither influenced nor manipulated. At that point, he can legitimately throw his political weight behind the candidate and work for the party’s victory.

The problem is that what is often called a primary in our political system can become a mere formality when the preferred candidate of the incumbent or outgoing governor has already been positioned to win. The other aspirants may participate, delegates may vote and the result may be announced, but the real political advantage has already been created before the exercise. That shortchanges the contestants and, more importantly, denies party members the opportunity to make a genuinely free choice.

The irony of political imposition is that the person an outgoing governor helps to install may eventually become the very person with whom he develops a strained or frosty relationship.

Oh yes, once the successor assumes office, he develops his own political interests, networks and ambitions. He may even abandon whatever agreement brought the two men together. He is no longer simply the person who benefited from the support of his predecessor. He becomes the governor and, in his own right, the emperor! He begins to operate according to his own political calculations.

The political alliance that produced him can therefore become the source of future disagreement.

This is why political succession should not be treated as a personal inheritance from one governor to another. No governor owns the office he is leaving, and no governor should determine who automatically takes over from him.

His responsibility, as the leader of the government and a major figure in his party, should be to allow the party’s members to choose their candidate freely. He can then support the eventual candidate with all the political strength at his disposal, but that support should not be used to predetermine who emerges.

The Nigerian political system needs to break away from this culture. Governors should be able to leave office without attempting to install their successors. Many may argue that they want their successors to uphold their legacy, but that is not always the real reason. Some simply want successors who will protect them or those they believe they can control.

That is where the danger lies for the political party and, ultimately, for the people.

Political parties should be strong enough to conduct primaries in which aspirants compete on their records, programmes, organisation and support among party members. A governor may have a personal preference, but that preference should not become the party’s decision before the party has voted.

Anambra should therefore not continue down the path of political succession by imposition simply because it has become a familiar feature of Nigerian politics. The state deserves a system in which an outgoing governor does not use the machinery and influence of his office to tilt the party’s primary in favour of one aspirant.

The same principle should apply across Nigeria because the problem is much bigger than Anambra State.

Whoever eventually emerges should have the confidence that he or she won the support of the party rather than the perception that the office was handed over by the person leaving it. The outgoing governor can then throw his weight behind the candidate without compromising the primary that produced him.

That, to me, is the healthier way for party primaries to function and for political succession to remain a democratic choice rather than an extension of the personal influence of the person leaving office.