Dr. Smart Uhakheme is a political scientist, professor, scholar and commentator on world issues. He was Associate Professor of Political Science and Surrogate Dean of School of Social Sciences at Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, Florida. He teaches courses in African Politics, Comparative Politics, International Politics, and U.S Foreign Policy.
Uhakheme earned his PhD in political science from Atlanta University (now Clark Atlanta University) Atlanta, Georgia. He is the author of Nigeria-United States Relations – Perspectives on Political Changes in Africa. Currently, he is researching and completing work on his next book titled Nigeria’s Search for Democracy. He has also written numerous articles and presented papers at many academic conferences.
Uhakheme lives with his wife and children in Daytona Beach, Florida. He is currently on sabbatical leave and recently returned from Nigeria where he had spent an extended period of time researching his next book due soon and titled Nigeria’s Search for Democracy. I recently caught up with him at his Daytona Beach, Florida home for a debriefing on Nigeria, Nigeria’s ruling party (PDP), and President Goodluck Jonathan. The interview was as good as it gets. Enjoy.
Question: What is your opinion on the present political climate in Nigeria?
Uhakheme:
The political temperature in Nigeria has lowered. By that I mean it has stabilized. The major issue was late president Yar’Adua’s sluggish or none performance of critical issues affecting the country’s political and economic survival. However, now that there’s has been a change in Aso Rock people seem to be optimistic that we have turned the corner; that Nigeria got to the brink but didn’t flip over; that we have arrested the situation. With the type of actors on the scene right now, beginning with President Goodluck Jonathan and the people around him, there is hope that we’ve saved the country and that we are ready to move forward. From here on until 2011 when the next presidential election comes around, if all the things that are on the ground now are faithfully implemented as indicated by the actors then we will know that 2011 will really be a turning point in Nigeria’s match toward democracy.
Question:
If I heard you correctly you insinuated that late president Yar’Adua’s administration didn’t get a lot done. Clearly, based on your previous answer, you did not have faith in Yar’Adua’s policies. Did you mean that his ineptitude was throughout the duration of his administration or you meant after he took ill?
Uhakheme:
Yeah, Yar’Adua was a weak leader and he also surrounded himself with cronies who were not necessarily competent in the positions that they were given. The mark of a good leader is the ability to have people around you that are competent and capable of getting the job done. You may be a weak leader but if you have competent people around you, you can still have things done. Yar’Adua was a good man, he was not corrupt but he was not competent; he didn’t get anything done. He was called Mr. Go slow or Baba Go Slow, and that was because he was always hesitant, could not take decisive action on anything. He promised to declare a state of emergency on the electric power situation in the country but he never delivered on it and the situation got worse. So, throughout his term, meaning before he got sick and during his sickness nothing moved, nothing changed, nothing meaningful was accomplished. It was a wasted opportunity with lots of money down the drain.
Question: What is your opinion on Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria’s current president?
Uhakheme:
I think, having been on the ground in Nigeria while all the things I just talked about were going on I was able to analyze him and the situation he was in. While Yar’Adua was alive he was unable to influence the situation because of the position he was given as Vice President. He was not given any power to do anything. He fully understood the problems of Nigeria before the opportunity came for him to do something about it. He is not learning on the job, unlike Yar’Adua. He had understood the job before he got there. He knew what the problems were so, as soon as the opportunity came for him to do something about the situation, he indicated to us that he is competent and that he is going to deal with the issues. He has also surrounded himself with very competent actors in his cabinet and all that suggest that he understands what Nigeria’s problem is and that he is prepared to deal with it. I am sure that in the next six to nine months Nigerians will start to see the effect of this decisive leadership that we have seen in Goodluck Jonathan.
Question:
It seems to me that you are satisfied with Jonathan’s work so far. So, what grade will you give him since he took over power, including his days in office as Acting President?
Uhakheme:
Well, I will give him a passing grade. He is a competent man, he understands the problems and he is doing all he needs to do to get these problem solved. The only problem we need to look out for now is implementation and am sure he understands that; that’s why he is not leaving these problems in the hands of his subordinates. He is active, he is hands-on type of leadership and that’s what Nigeria needs. A follow-through type of leadership that will say OK Mr. Lagbaja you do this and I am coming back tomorrow to see if you did it. That’s the type of leader that Nigeria needs and he is doing that, so I really have high hopes that he is the answer.
Question: I know that you gave him a passing grade. What grade are we talking about, an “A” or a “B”?
Uhakheme: Ahmm…, I will say a “B+”
Question:
What is the one thing or things that you think he did not handle very well? On the flip side, what is the one thing or things that you are satisfied with the way he tackled the issue(s)?
Uhakheme:
The President’s political party is the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). One thing that I will like him to do is to demonstrate his independence from PDP’s political machine. Regarding what he has done that I like, I like his attempt to reach out to the various stakeholders in the country regarding his forming of committees that are designed to help him tackle some of these issues. I think that is a mark of good leadership; when you know you don’t have all the answers but you also recognize that there are individuals within the community or within the country that can help you deal with these issues; put all of them together and let them come up with the remedy for some of these problems for you. He has done very well in that area and almost everybody in these committees is very competent in his/her own right, so I expect good things to come out of his administration.
Question:
But in the spirit of fairness to the President, that is the political party that he belongs to. He needs his party, PDP, and PDP needs him too. He can not wake up one day and decide not to listen to his party anymore because he is President. Don’t you think that will be reckless, on his part, if he did that? So far, since he became President, and the leader of his party, he has started a gradual reconstruction process for PDP. For example, the former party chairman, Vincent Ogbulafor is out and in his place is another party chairman. How do you respond?
Uhakheme:
Well, you have a point there. He does not talk too much, but goes about doing what he needs to do without too much noise about it. He lets others to do the talking and hollering while he quietly goes about implementing what he thinks needs to be done. I like that.
Question: What should President Jonathan do/not do in order to leave a good legacy?
Uhakheme:
Actually, there are some key things he must do. One of them he has already shown an indication or willingness to tackle. He must insure that this political reform that he has talked about will be an effective one, and exactly what Nigeria needs now is true political reforms. He must not allow any of these sycophants to hijack the agenda of political reform. We want true political reform, electoral reform in particular, so that no party can rig elections and frustrate the aspirations of Nigerians who actually go out to vote. The electorates want to elect someone into office and that desire needs to be fulfilled so that when people are truly elected into office they can be held accountable by the electorate such that that the electorate can say “we elected him/her and we expect him/her to do great things for the country”. And if the elected official doesn’t perform, the electorate also has a right to throw the official out in the next election. That’s why an electoral reform is number one for Goodluck Jonathan.
The other thing that he must do to leave a good legacy for himself is the electric power situation in the country. This must be rectified. He must also deal with bad roads, bad communication and bad educational systems. If can do these two things then he would have provided an enabling environment for Nigerians to do whatever they need to do in order to improve the country’s economic situation. Once he does these things Nigerians can take care of themselves.
Question:
I want to task you a little more on electoral reform. The term electoral reform is broad. So, my question to you is: What specific areas in electoral reform should President Jonathan zero in on in order to make sure that Nigeria gets it right next time around?
Uhakheme:
The biggest problem to solve in the electoral reform is elections. How do we conduct fair and free elections? You start off by having a credible Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). An INEC that will not be partisan, that will not be in the pocket of any godfather or politician. That means that it must be an objective organization that will seek to promote good, free and fair elections. Once that is done Nigerians will come out and vote for the candidate of their choice and whoever wins an election must be acknowledged and recognized as the winner. Not a situation where a political party throws up candidates that did not even contest elections and suddenly, from nowhere, they come out as the winner although they did not even campaign. Once that trend is rubbished then we are on our way to a solid democracy.
Question:
Should President Jonathan run for a second term? What is your argument for or against the debate whether he should contest the 2011 presidential election?
Uhakheme:
Well, the context under which that has been discussed is the unconstitutional zoning policy of PDP. He has the right to run for office a second term, if you call that a second term, because what he has now is not really a full term. Actually, what he is doing now is completing Yar’Adua’s first term. So, 2011 will be his first term; therefore, he still has the right to run again after completing the 2011 term. Remember if he wins the 2011 presidential election, that will be his first term, and he can run again after that term. Do the math: 1 year (2010) + 4 years (first term, 2011 – 2014) + another 4 years (second term, 2015 -2018) = 9 years. So, we should expect nine years of Jonathan as president, all things being equal.
Question:
What about the PDP’s much publicized zoning philosophy? You touched on it a little bit in your previous answer, but could you elaborate on it?
Uhakheme:
PDP’s rationale for that is to spread political office because of the multi-culture or multi-ethnic society which we are. The idea is that if we rotate this position then maybe all ethnic groups will have the opportunity to participate in the political process. But what they don’t understand is that leadership has nothing to do with ethnicity, a good leader can come from anywhere. A good leader will serve all Nigerians irrespective of ethnic group, so it is really an indication that the PDP is still stuck in an ethnic politics mentality when it should be looking for capable leaders irrespective of where they come from in Nigeria. As long as a leader does the right thing nobody is going to care what ethnic group he or she comes from. Having said that, it is also unconstitutional to rotate the presidency. It may be an internal arrangement in the party but suppose PDP’s candidate does not win does it mean that PDP will not recognize the candidate that won from another party because he/she does not satisfy PDP’s rotational philosophy? It is unconstitutional and I don’t think PDP will even go to court to argue it.
Question: If PDP does not abandon its zoning doctrine, what should President Jonathan do?
Uhakheme:
Well, he is a competent man, and well educated; so I don’t need to tell him what to do. He has people that are paid on his staff that gives him political advice. If I were in his shoes I will do what is right for Smart and not what is right for PDP.
Question:
Let me rephrase the question. If you were Dr. Jonathan and your party refuses to abandon an unpopular doctrine, what would you do?
Uhakheme:
I will do what is in my best interest and what is in the best interest of the nation. If hanging with my party is going to lead to a repeat of the old political experience that PDP has shown over the past twelve years then I would reconsider my situation with PDP and contest the election through a new party that has the best interest of the country at heart not individual self interest like PDP seem to have now.
Question: Nigeria will be 50 years in October. So far, so what? How has the nation fared?
Uhakheme:
Actually, in the literature there are some observers who contend that 50 years in the life of a nation is nothing; that Nigeria is attempting to do in 50 years what it took other countries two or three hundred years to do. Even in America today they are still trying to fashion out the ideal form of democracy. But it needs to be pointed out that Nigeria has missed too many opportunities at getting this thing right. The situation up to date is not where Nigeria ought to be by now. By now Nigeria should have been well past what it is trying to do now. And, of course, we know the reason for that is this PDP type of politics of zoning and putting incompetent people in office, people that have no idea what it means to govern the country. Until we start to recruit competent people in positions of authority in government, we will not be able to get some of these problems resolved. But I think with Goodluck in there now, we may have turned the corner on this problem of electing or selecting incompetent persons who were not voted for; they were just rigged into office. And they behave that way too once they get into office because they say “well, I bought my way, you didn’t vote for me so, why should I be accountable to you”.
Also, the court system has not worked to check the bad behaviors of some these leaders. They steal public money and get away with it; they commit crime and get away with it so, under these circumstances, we really have done very poorly in 50 years of independence especially considering the kind of resources that the country has like money and manpower. There are Nigerian professionals all over the world. If you gather all Nigerians abroad to form a country, that country would be running neck to neck with Uncle Sam’s God’s own country. (Prolonged big laughter).
Question:
Nigeria started out with a parliamentary system of government in the First Republic but switched to a presidential system in the Second Republic. Looking back do you think that switch was a good move?
Uhakheme:
I have to back track on this question. I have to start with the independence. When the leaders of a country negotiate independence such countries usually don’t do well. Historically, countries that fought for their independence are the ones that usually do well. By just negotiating independence with the British and getting a form of government that we didn’t even plan for, or had anything to do with, did not help matters at all. You can see that we didn’t handle it well. First of all, the British picked our first leaders for us at independence. There were other progressive leaders that were not given opportunity to do anything but were rather marginalized. Instead, the British gave leadership to conservative elements within the Nigerian political setup. These conservatives were just happy to be there, they had no concept of what governance is, instead they were looking up to the British government for direction. But if they had fought a war of independence with the British government then we would have not even accepted the parliamentary system. So, it was no surprise that the ensuing government was decidedly pro-British and had not promoted Nigerian interest. So, everything our first leaders did was British interest first, Nigerian interest second. So, it wasn’t a good idea to have a parliamentary system. It was an indirect continuation of the British rule.
Question:
How about the argument that the first leaders did their best viz-a-viz the circumstance they found themselves in? That it was impossible for the British who were Nigeria’s colonial masters not to have a say or two in the affairs of the government then. How do you respond?
Uhakheme:
Having a say is different from dominating the conversation. What happened was that the British government was actually in charge. The leadership in Nigeria was taking directives from them. Even some of the key positions in Nigeria then were still held by Britons. So, it wasn’t a change of government, it was just a change of personnel.
Abili: Thank you for your time.
Uhakheme: Thank you for having me.
