Tajudeen Abdul Raheem writes on the recent elections and presidential transition in Nigeria, and concurrent popular protests. He notes that it cannot be good for accountability that the resident president is not held accountable, because people are too obsessed with a former president. Instead, he argues that a new alliance and broad coalition for change needs to be built, to exert democratic pressures on the political system.

I was in Nigeria all of last week. It was my first time in the country since the innauguration of President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua, following an election that is universally believed to have been flawed in practically all senses. There were threats by very angry politicians and aggrieved activists that 'Yar Adua will not be sworn in', come 29 May.

The first test of that threat was on 1 May, when the Nigeria Labor Congress (NLC) called for mass protests during its traditional May Day activities. I happened to be in Abuja at the time. Many of the activists thought the May Day events could become a wider protest about the elections, that would make the country ungovernable. It came to pass without the kind of mass support that was expected. However, a more popular protest called by the NLC after Yar Adua had been sworn in was more successful, because it was based on issues (yet another hike in the domestic oil price) that most Nigerians can easily relate to.

Anybody with a less partisan take on the dynamics of the power play should have realised that flawed as the elections were, it was highly unlikely that the new president would not have been sworn in. Even with the electoral challenges in the courts from the candidates of opposition parties, there was no way the state would have allowed a legal lacuna and political vacuum. But I was speaking to an unwilling audience of friends and compatriots. I warned them against making threats that cannot be enforced. Moses had more luck in his exile on the mountains. Part of the problem with the protests had to do with the anomalous situation of there being no credible leader to rally the population and transform their anger into political force that cannot be ignored. The truth is, that all the parties rigged where they could. But the PDP, being the ruling party at the centre, had more powers and better opportunities for robbing people of their mandate, essentially through control of the results declaration by an openly partisan electoral commission. The process by which the leading presidential challengers in other parties, governorship and other candidates emerged in the various parties was mostly imposed by powerful cliques.

In spite of the vast powers of the ruling PDP, in areas that are very strong opposition turfs like Lagos, Kano, Zamfara or Abia states, the incumbent governors used their popularity and advantages of incumbency to successfully checkmate the PDP machinery and retain power. Therefore, when it comes to rigging, most of the politicians, especially those in the three leading parties (PDP, ANPP and AC), cannot thump their chest about who is cleaner. Yes, Nigerians were robbed of their votes. But one does not intimate that the sense of loss at the national level is in terms of whether candidate A or B had been robbed. The fact that the politicians were not calling for the results to be cancelled in the areas where they had won presented other challenges.

How can the election be flawed only where the ruling party had won? Sections of civil society were calling for cancellation of the whole election, and a re-run. But the politicians who had 'won' were certainly not in favour of that, regardless of their parties. There were also those who had called for an interim government, which was also not a realistic option, because of the political interests at stake.

Nigerians may be aggrieved and remain extremely bitter. But not many are willing to die for any politician anymore, since there are no fundamental differences between them, apart from the ‘I want to chop too’, or ‘I want to be this or that’ - without any bother about policies or alternative programmes for the emancipation of the populace from poverty and want amidst plenty.

The situation is further complicated by two important factors. First, there is resignation that Yar’ Adua would probably have defeated the closest two of his many rivals. Second, the personality of Yar Adua himself - as non-confrontational, being unknown and therefore greatly underestimated - focused more attention on Obasanjo who had orchestrated his nomination and presided over his anointment. There was and still is great anger at the former president.

When I returned to the country early in July, I was hoping that by then the dust was settling, and that there would be a more sober atmosphere in the country. How wrong was I?

There are still many grieving democrats who are refusing to accept that Yar Adua, barring an unlikely decision in the tribunal to nullify the election, will be president for the next four years.

Talking to the usual chattering classes of media pundits, NGO activists and opposition-sympathising politicos, one could make the mistake of believing that General Olushegun Obasanjo is still the tenant in Aso Rock. Every decision or non-decision of Yar Adua is analysed through the lenses of Obasanjo still driving from the back seat from his country home in Ota farm.

In part, Yar Adua’s style of stoic silence in the face of public pressure makes him vulnerable to accusations of being a puppet of the former president. Nigerians are so used to militarised leadership, where things are done ‘with immediate effect’, by executive fiat, that they think Yar Adua is indecisive for taking time before nominating his cabinet, and making senior appointments in dribs and drabs.

If we rewind back to 1999, it took Obasanjo quite some time to exert control over his government. In fact, until his second term, he did not have full control of his administration. Unfortunately for Yar Adua, he does not have four years to wait. However, he will not act in the ways critics of Obasanjo would like. They want him to go after Obasanjo openly, which will not be wise, given the current power balance within the ruling PDP. A president who does not know where the cutlery is cannot start inviting people to dinner!

But as happened between Obasanjo and those vested interests that brought him to power: what goes around comes around. Yar Adua will sooner than later enforce his footprints on his administration and the party that brought him to power. The first cabinet will not be his personal 'A' List. The list of special advisers and key para-statal appointments may be more indicative of his policy thrust and political direction. Obasanjo's so-called 'dream team' did not come into cabinet until his second term, but most of them were key advisers or heads of para-statals.

Obasanjo should know better; that government by proxy does not work in Nigeria. However, the elixir of power is difficult to shake off. It is most deadly in its hangover effect on ex-presidents.

It is not just the pathological anti-Obasanjo elements in Nigeria that believe he is the power behind the throne, and look for him under every executive bed. From all available evidence, Obasanjo, too, is suffering from this grand delusion. I call it Executive withdrawal syndrome.

For now, Yar Adua can enjoy the unusual convergence between the two. This will mean that all his bad decisions, failure or inability to make any decision can be blamed on Obasanjo’s pressures. The good ones will be interpreted as evidence of his becoming his own man! I even read paid adverts and news reports in Nigerian newspapers warning Obasanjo to 'leave Yar Adua alone' - as if he had complained to anybody! It is quite unrealistic to expect that the PDP and the former president from the same party will not attempt to influence the president. That's what politics is all about. But to assume that a president is nothing but a creation of his sponsors removes human agency and turn politics into a game of zombies.

If Obasanjo is the only one putting pressure on Yar Adua, that is the only pressure he will respond to. However, if the grieving democrats can come back to earth, exert their own pressure and engage on their own issues, they may be suprised at the kind of potential influence they could wield. Issues around reform of the electoral process, constitutional reform, freedom of information, transparency and accountability, and independence of the judiciary could be important entry points. The pressure for reform cannot be driven by the political class. Most of them have lost all moral and political credibility. A new alliance and broad coalition for change needs to be built, to exert democratic pressures on the political system. It needs CSOs, NGOs, mass labour, youth, student and women's movements, and other popular forces in strategic partnership with democratically minded elements in the system.

My fear is that people are too obsessed with Obasanjo, baying for his blood and daring Yar Adua to wield the sword. This may actually make Yar Adua take it as his mantra that it is good for him to be permanently underestimated by his opponents. As long as they continue to blame Obasanjo, he may have more room to do what he really wants to do. It cannot be good for our accountability that the resident president is not held accountable for his action or inaction, because people are too obsessed with a former president!

Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org