“Public opinion” could sometimes be misleading. In its ordinary interpretation, the concept of public opinion is taken to be the popular opinion of the majority. However, in the realm of political science, public opinion is the aggregate opinion of those who care to express their opinion on an issue. What counts for public opinion may quite often not be informed.
Informed opinion, as opposed to sentiments expressed by a so-called majority, is an opinion based on possession of information. Sadly, most of the people who express their opinion on pertinent issues may not have sufficient information to support the views they strongly support or reject. There could therefore be danger in subjecting every key decision of government to the dictates of so-called public opinion.
For instance, should the structure of political governance be decided on collated reports from some beer parlour or be subjected to rigorous analysis by knowledgeable individuals in the subject area? Should the issue of whether or not we adopt a rotational presidency be based on disjointed “yes” or “no” votes?
I bring in the issue of “rotational presidency”, said to have been rejected by Nigerians, because there seems to be nothing in our contemporary history to suggest proponents have not been right all along. The National Assembly misguidedly dismissed the idea based on so-called majority opinion, but the current outburst in our society indicates they got it wrong. Every major crises in our nation since independence in 1960 have emanated from disputations over leadership position, the civil war of 1967-70 inclusive. We are being warned of an impending crisis and the pointer again is on our recurring historical nemesis.
Were ours to have been a more serious society, a patriotic and honest leader would have since sought a solution to a quite evident problem. When an American president, in his wisdom, thought there was a need to limit the tenure of presidents, the issue was not thrown to the streets for a decision. He competently instituted a commission made up of experienced and knowledgeable individuals who made recommendations that were later considered by Congress and State assemblies.
The purest form of democracy is anarchy. However, we all know that anarchy is not good and hence democracy itself is regulated. There may be instances when a people need to be educated about what is good for them and their society based on superior knowledge. The same Nigerians who were reportedly said to have rejected rotational presidency—-the Boko Haramites, the kidnappers, and the bandits inclusive-, would be right there killing and maiming should the presidency elude their preferred candidate.
Where are the issues and the understanding of those that decide on them? Should we be basing our permutations of who wins and does not win an election based on projected outcomes in intra-communal disagreements or even estrangements between husbands and wives? There was a recent report in some newspapers about a meeting of the traditional rulers of some geo-political zones regarding the election of their “son” as president in 2015; did they ever discuss issues of employment in the meeting? The bitter truth of our politics is that issues will always take a back seat until we have found a way of cross-cutting our cleavages of religion and ethnicity. Ironically, we may not be able to do this without zoning the presidency.
Even when there may be a few Nigerians who honestly hold ideological views, ideology itself hardly polarises our nation. Even when it is welcoming to know that self-styled progressives are coalescing into an alternative political party, it is still doubtful if they will be able to hold together without borrowing from the PDP’s idea of zoning. Zoning is one inevitability that derives its legitimacy from the ethnological realities of our nation.
I have read a few reports in which our inept politicians dismiss otherwise innovative ideas because, in their eyes, they did not conform to the American approach. The question one would have loved to ask them would have been whether the founding fathers of America had Nigeria in mind when they fashioned their constitution in 1787. Maybe some of our legislators need to be reminded that Nigeria came into being in 1914! Switzerland was the first nation to borrow from the American Constitution, why did they not photocopy every aspect of it rather than adapting it to their own realities—something Nigeria should have done?
One had thought our elected politicians would by now be able to improve on the constitution with minimal intervention from outside. From the look of things, they require external intervention and possibly surrender of their sovereignty in constitution-making. Quite a number of useful ideas are dismissed out of hand; when it is not because an incumbent president is not favoured by such ideas it would be because of governors who are hoping to be elected for a second term! It is all about their selfish ambitions and not because of all of us and our collective nation.
*Akinola’s new book, Democracy in Nigeria-Thoughts and Selected Commentaries, is available online
