Reps seek six-year tenure for president, rotation among zones
In a surprising move, a group of lawmakers in Nigeria’s House of Representatives has proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution that would extend presidential and gubernatorial terms to a single six-year tenure and mandate the rotation of the presidency among the six geo-political zones. While these proposals may seem appealing on the surface, they are short-sighted solutions that fail to address the root causes of Nigeria’s political and economic challenges.
First, let’s consider the proposal for a single Six-year Tenure. The lawmakers argue that this would reduce government spending, increase efficiency, and promote national stability. However, this argument is flawed. Extending terms doesn’t inherently cut costs or improve governance. In fact, it could have the opposite effect. With a longer, non-renewable term, presidents and governors might feel less accountable to the electorate, leading to increased corruption and mismanagement. The threat of re-election often serves as a check on power, motivating leaders to deliver results to secure another term.
Moreover, a single term could exacerbate the “lame duck” phenomenon. Leaders in their final years of office, with no re-election to worry about, might prioritize personal interests over national ones. They could make unpopular decisions or engage in reckless spending, knowing they won’t face electoral consequences.
The proposal for rotating the presidency among the six geo-political zones is equally problematic. While it aims to address Nigeria’s complex ethnic and regional dynamics, it oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Rotational presidency doesn’t guarantee competent leadership or equitable development. It could lead to a situation where a less qualified candidate is chosen simply because it’s their zone’s “turn,” undermining meritocracy and potentially hampering national progress.
Furthermore, this proposal could heighten regional tensions rather than alleviate them. It might foster a sense of entitlement among zones waiting for their turn, leading to resentment if their tenure doesn’t yield the expected results. It could also exacerbate the winner-takes-all mentality in Nigerian politics, with each zone viewing their turn as their only chance to access national resources.
These proposals distract from the real issues plaguing Nigeria: systemic corruption, weak institutions, economic inequality, and a lack of inclusivity in governance. Instead of tinkering with term limits and zonal rotations, lawmakers should focus on strengthening democratic institutions, promoting transparency, and creating policies that foster inclusive growth.
Nigeria needs electoral reforms that ensure free, fair, and credible elections. It needs an independent judiciary that can effectively check executive power. It needs policies that promote economic diversification, invest in education and healthcare, and create opportunities for all Nigerians, regardless of their zone.
In conclusion, the intentions behind these Six-year Tenure proposals are not noble, they are misguided. Extending terms and mandating zonal rotation are superficial fixes that don’t address Nigeria’s deep-rooted challenges. True progress will come from building strong institutions, fostering a culture of accountability, and prioritizing policies that benefit all Nigerians. It’s time for Nigeria’s lawmakers to focus on substantive reforms, not constitutional band-aids.
Reference
Reps seek six-year tenure for president, rotation among zones published in Punch