President Thabo Mbeki may have to work the phones if the struggle for the Nigerian presidency degenerates, as many fear it will, into a nation-threatening crisis.
For many well-placed Nigerians, the crucial intervention of Mbeki and the patriarch, Nelson Mandela, in Nigeria’s crises over the past decade has been a form of repayment for the country’s long commitment to ending apartheid, which made it a “frontline state” in political, if not geographic, terms.
From the crisis thrown up by the criminal annulment of the 1993 presidential election, presumably won by Chief Moshood Abiola; through the judicial murder of the writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and eight other Ogoni activists in 1995 by the late tyrant General Sani Abacha; to the incessant clashes between the former military heads of state and President Olusegun Obasanjo — Mandela and Mbeki have become the “frontline interveners” in Nigeria.
They are not always welcome, but they are always crucial.
Mbeki is, therefore, no stranger to the complexities of the relationships among Nigeria’s power players, virtually all of whom are interested in taking over when Obasanjo makes his exit.
Nigerians are used to nation-threatening power struggles among the discredited elite. Such struggles once degenerated into a civil war (1967 to 1970) during which the eastern part of the country declared a short-lived independent Republic of Biafra. Since then, all attempts at national accommodation, both sublime and banal, have failed to ensure the declared national goals of “peace and progress”.
The military seized power in 1966 — just six years after independence — led the country into a civil war, triumphed and later handed power back to civilians after 13 years, in 1979. After a mere four years the generals struck again, only to relinquish power in 1999.
Now, after seven years of democratic rule, many critics insist that the Obasanjo government has not delivered “democratic dividends”. Nigeria has earned $280-billion from oil over the past 30 years, but much of it has been squandered by the rapacious ruling elite or drained away through corruption. The World Bank estimates that 66% of the population lives on less than a dollar a day, making Nigeria one of the world’s 20 poorest nations, with an average life expectancy of 47 years.
Next year Obasanjo will have completed his constitutionally stipulated limit of two terms. A presidential election will take place in April. While the frontrunners in the succession race emerge from the country’s unedifying past, they are among the most likely to succeed Obasanjo, given their financial muscle and political networks.
The principal contestants are Vice- President Atiku Abubakar, and former heads of state General Muhammadu Buhari (1983 to 1985) and General Ibrahim Babangida (1985 to 1993).
The only snag is that Obasanjo is likely to do everything in his power to prevent the succession of any of these figures, given their opposition to his recently defeated third-term bid.
Mbeki was widely reported to have advised Obasanjo against the third-term effort, given the war drums that were sounding all over the nation. But in the murky waters of Nigerian politics no one can boast of having the last word.
Abubakar has said as much publicly. He and his boss have fought a running battle over the past year or so, ever since Obasanjo began mobilising for an extension of his rule. The battle came to a head when the president accused his vice- president of lying, and then ordered a company in which Abubakar owns substantial interest, Intels, shut down. Abubakar returned the salvo by publicly taunting Obasanjo after the collapse of the third-term bid.
Obasanjo’s aides and party chiefs asked Abubakar to resign from office and the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The vice- president ignored these demands, and remains in the PDP, but he has also founded a new political party — the Advance Congress of Democrats — made up mostly of politicians who fell from grace under Obasanjo.
Abubakar’s strength is his political machine, which is perhaps the most efficient in Nigeria. At one point he had no less than 21 of the 36 state governors at his beck and call. He also has a massive financial war chest, which many see as an albatross. Where did it come from?
Obasanjo has worked hard to present Abubakar, a businessman, as unclean. The current investigation of United States Congressman William Jefferson, who accused Abubakar of demanding bribes for a planned US business venture in Nigeria, has been used to maximum effect by the anti-Abubakar forces.
Babangida has also thrown his hat into the ring. There is no doubt that IBB, as he is fondly known among supporters, is interested in the presidency. He has a large network of retired military chiefs — many of whom profited from the nation’s resources — supporting his ambition.
But the politically nimble former head of state is wary of the legendary anger that the sitting president unleashes against his enemies — and Obasanjo is likely to have plenty of dirt on Babangida. Many analysts suspect that the latter’s candidacy will not last for long.
Buhari ran against Obasanjo in 2003 under the banner of the All Nigeria’s People’s Party and won 31% of the votes. He challenged the election result in court, but lost. Buhari nurses an ambition based on his popularity in the largely Muslim north. But unlike the other leading contenders, the spartan former head of state is a man of modest means.
This is a serious limitation in a country where billions of naira are needed to run for president.
Last time, Buhari’s candidacy was encouraged by conservative factions in the northern power elite needing a candidate who would confront Obasanjo on what they assumed would be his anti-northern policies. This time, it is controversially assumed that it is the turn of the north to produce the president of the regionally split, multi-ethnic and multi-faith nation that is Africa’s biggest democracy. This means that Buhari will not be able to carry the mantle of the north exclusively, denying him of the needed funds.
There are several other presidential hopefuls from the south who argue that it is the turn of their sections of the country. Most of these demands and candidacies are based on exclusionary claims.
Nigeria must confront the fact that a great many past and present high-ranking military officers hold a deep-seated contempt for democratic, civilian rule. Retired general and serving senator, David Mark, recently betrayed this prejudice when he declared that only retired soldiers have the necessary qualities to be the president of the country. The same Mark had allegedly threatened to personally shoot Abiola if Babangida handed over power to him in 1993.
Some, including Wole Soyinka, believe that Obasanjo, who has reportedly promised a few of the state governors that he will hand over to them, is scheming to foment trouble, perhaps a civil uprising, so as to sit tight in office. The Nobel laureate surmises in his latest work, You Must Set Forth at Dawn: A Memoir, that Nigeria is “a society where power and control remain the playthings of imbeciles, psychopaths and predators”.
It used to be said that wherever goes Nigeria goes the rest of the continent. With South Africa’s freedom in the early 1990s, Nigerians are loath to think that this maxim may no longer be true. Many would argue that this nation’s stupendous human and material resources would eventually predispose Nigeria to achieve its manifest destiny — an unmatchable place in the global sun.
The outcome of the tussle for the presidency may determine whether that is true or not.
Wale Adebanwi, a contributing editor at The News magazine in Lagos, is a Bill and Melinda Gates Scholar at Cambridge University and is currently on year-long fieldwork in Nigeria