Sometimes
there are no good options. Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th
to elect the next president, who will face problems so large—from
rampant corruption to a jihadist insurgency—that they could break the
country apart, with dire consequences for Nigerians and the world.
And yet, as Africa’s biggest economy stages its most important
election since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999, and perhaps
since the civil war four decades ago, Nigerians must pick between the
incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the
opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with
blood on his hands. The candidates stand as symbols of a
broken political system that makes all Nigeria’s problems even more
intractable.
Start with Mr Jonathan, whose People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has run
the country since 1999 and who stumbled into the presidency on the
death of his predecessor in 2010. The PDP’s reign has been a sorry one.
Mr Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption.
When the governor of the central bank reported that $20 billion had been
stolen, his reward was to be sacked.
Worse, on Mr Jonathan’s watch much of the north of the country has
been in flames. About 18,000 people have died in political violence in
recent years, thousands of them in January in several brutal attacks by
Boko Haram, a jihadist group that claims to have established its
“caliphate” in territory as large as Belgium. Another 1.5m people have
fled their homes. The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan’s southern
political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the
opposition. He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling it, and even
less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after the attack
on Charlie Hedbo, Mr Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking up
about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
his compatriots.
The single bright spot of his rule has been Nigeria’s economy, one of the world’s fastest-growing. Yet that is largely despite the government rather than because of it, and falling oil prices will temper the boom. The prosperity has not been broadly shared: under Mr Jonathan poverty has increased. Nigerians typically die eight years younger than their poorer neighbours in nearby Ghana.
Goodbye Jonathan
Voters have ample cause to send Mr Jonathan packing. In a country where power has often changed through the barrel of a gun, the opposition All Progressives Congress has a real chance of winning through the ballot box. Yet its candidate, Mr Buhari, is an ex-general who, three decades ago, came to power in a coup. His rule was nasty, brutish and mercifully short. Declaring a “war against indiscipline”, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to ensure that Nigerians formed orderly queues. His economics, known as Buharism, was destructive. Instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit, he tried to fix prices and ban “unnecessary” imports. He expelled 700,000 migrants in the delusion that this would create jobs for Nigerians. He banned political meetings and free speech. He detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offences.
Voters have ample cause to send Mr Jonathan packing. In a country where power has often changed through the barrel of a gun, the opposition All Progressives Congress has a real chance of winning through the ballot box. Yet its candidate, Mr Buhari, is an ex-general who, three decades ago, came to power in a coup. His rule was nasty, brutish and mercifully short. Declaring a “war against indiscipline”, he ordered whip-wielding soldiers to ensure that Nigerians formed orderly queues. His economics, known as Buharism, was destructive. Instead of letting the currency depreciate in the face of a trade deficit, he tried to fix prices and ban “unnecessary” imports. He expelled 700,000 migrants in the delusion that this would create jobs for Nigerians. He banned political meetings and free speech. He detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offences.
Should a former dictator with such a record be offered another
chance? Surprisingly, many Nigerians think he should. One reason is
that, in a country where ministers routinely wear wristwatches worth
many times their annual salary, Mr Buhari is a sandal-wearing ascetic
with a record of fighting corruption. Few nowadays question his
commitment to democracy or expect him to turn autocratic: he has
repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost. He
would probably do a better job of running the country, and in particular
of tackling Boko Haram. As a northerner and Muslim, he will have
greater legitimacy among villagers whose help he will need to isolate
the insurgents. As a military man, he is more likely to win the respect
of a demoralised army.
We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we
offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari.
Mr Jonathan
risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Mr Buhari can
save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him.
- This piece was culled from The Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment