With the latest proposition by the upper legislative chamber, fresh views and counter-views have, expectedly, emerged. The indisputable fact in all the opinions expressed so far is that there is no concrete justification for the adoption of this option. It cannot serve the interest of the people. If anything, it will only consolidate recklessness and indifference to public feelings by the nation’s political leadership.
The problem with this proposal is not whether it will start in 2015 or 2019, as is being debated in some quarters. The issue is that its merits are not clear and they have not been sufficiently canvassed to justify a change from the current two terms of four years each. Its adoption could also be problematic because the constitution will have to be amended as it affects the tenure of office of political office holders. It is necessary for Nigerians to agree that there is a cogent need for this idea before we begin to contemplate the take-off date. At this point, it is preposterous and indecorous to be discussing the commencement date for a controversial proposal that may never see the light of the day. Nigeria’s leaders cannot put the cart before the horse – there are hallowed procedures for the management of this kind of matter.
The impression that is being created, rather inadvertently, is that the proposal is targeted at the president and first-time governors. In a dispassionate environment, this ought not to be so. The way it stands now, this proposition appears self-seeking, anti-democratic and not in the overall interest of the polity. It should be discarded immediately because of its retrogressive potentialities. Our democracy should be given a chance to mature, instead of the persistent efforts to experiment with it through needless changes.
If the committee members were sensitive from the outset, they should have known that the proposal died on conception as there is no fresh argument to back the current agitation for a single term of six years for the public office holders involved. The emphasis, really, should be on performance and not duration. If an elected or appointed public servant cannot deliver the dividends of democracy within four years, there is no guarantee that he will do it in the additional two years being canvassed for now.
The point must be made that it is not how long someone occupies an office that determines the level of productivity. Even within a year, a serious-minded official who is committed and conscious of the people’s expectations can turn things around such that by the end of the first tenure, voters on their own will clamour for his second term in office. That, for us, is the ideal thing and a true demonstration of the beauty of civil governance. Let politicians’ works speak for them and earn a revalidation for those who distinguished themselves in service to their fatherland.
Let the Senate drop this whimsical single term idea. That is not what the country needs at this point in its developmental struggle. It will only embolden office holders who will now have six full years in office, whether they meet the people’s expectations or not. Apart from the impeachment option, which is rarely successful, it means a bad governor or president will stay in office for six years unscathed! It is clearly better that we continue to grapple with the current four-year regime as a stop-gap measure until we establish other strategies and sanctions for non-performance in office.
Let’s throw the single-term proposal in the trashcan
