April polls: Presidential debate fever catches on

Before now, the world famous quotation from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet,“To be, or not to be, that is the question”, aptly describes the mindset of millions of Nigerian registered voters regarding the 2011 presidential debate.

With just 20 days to April 9, the date fixed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for this year’s presidential election, and 15 days to the first election, there has been a heightened fever about the possibility of at least 60 percent of the total 73 million registered voters seeing and hearing those jostling to be their president engage one another in a lively presidential debate to be broadcast across the country live.

One of such debates, as at the time of writing this report on Thursday, had been scheduled to take place yesterday(Friday) in Abuja organised by NN24, a cable TV. Ordinarily, such an event represents the single biggest opportunity for any presidential candidate to showcase the stuff he is made of individually. It is usually different from the razzmatazz and generally rowdy atmosphere which often characterize open campaigns.

Interestingly, while some of the candidates are itching and yearning for such opportunity, others have visibly developed cold feet towards it. Even as far back as September last year, a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential aspirant and former vice-president, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, had called for a debate on the economy among all the presidential aspirants.

Atiku made the call after submitting his nomination form at the PDP national secretariat in Abuja. The Adamawa State- born politician had claimed then that the economy should be the main issue in the 2011 election campaigns. In his words: “The issue of economic recovery for Nigeria cannot be a matter of wishful thinking nor of rhetoric. It is a subject for rigorous analyses and provision of well-thought, viable, practicable and sustainable strategy”.

He had insisted that all aspirants must be able to tell Nigerians how they intend to confront the challenges of the economy and reposition it for the benefit of all at the shortest possible time. He had said: “Of all the aspirants that have declared interest in the presidential election, I consider myself the most qualified to address the daunting economic challenges facing the country. I am the only one who has successfully managed a business and you need extensive knowledge of the private sector to combine its potential with the authority of the public sector to address this challenge.

“We are faced with a job crisis of monumental proportions. Unless we evolve strategies for dealing with the teeming population of young people churned out almost on a daily basis, we may risk the destruction of the next generation. If we fail to channel the energies of this huge population, they could be a potent force for instability and social unrest.”

But some felt he had beaten the gun by proposing the debate. They reasoned that it would be more meaningful after the candidates had emerged from their primaries. Not deterred by such talks, Atiku kept pressing for the opportunity to have the debate before the primaries that took place at the Eagles Square in Abuja. He argued that intra-party debates are key for the emergence of the party flag bearer.

“In the campaign for nomination under the presidential system, including the parliamentary systems in open societies, candidates from the same party hold intra-party debates as a way of easing the selection process for party members. The President must not confuse inter-party debates, which in the case of the United States are hosted by a Presidential Commission after the primaries, and the intra-party debates which are intended to afford party members the best candidate from their own ranks.

“The delegates need to know who is ready for the job. The gargantuan problems facing the country today can only be solved by someone adequately prepared for the job, not someone promising he will bring ‘good luck’ to them. No nation relies on ‘good luck’ to make viable policies,” the Atiku Campaign Organisation had said in a statement.

But the dilly-dally trend had continued all along. Now, almost everyone is asking for a presidential debate. During the week, the Pastor of Household of God and presidential candidate of Fresh Democratic Party (FRP), Rev. Chris Okotie, challenged Jonathan to a public debate.

Speaking at the party headquarters in Lagos to formally flag off his presidential campaign, Okotie said he was challenging President Goodluck Jonathan to a debate to tell Nigerians and the world what he intends to do when he becomes president and why Nigerians should give him their mandate.

According to him, “If not for the involvement of former President Olusegun Obasanjo in his (Jonathan’s) emergence as the presidential candidate, how could he have emerged when the odd was even against him within the party? I and President Jonathan are from the same South-South zone but I see him as a candidate trying to hide behind the PDP. If he is so confident as he claims, let him face me in a public debate and let us advise Nigerians on what direction they should go at the forthcoming elections”, he stated.

But The Presidency, in accepting to partake in any debate, emphasised that it would only take part in the one organised by the Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON). Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Ima Niboro, who disclosed this, said: “The Presidency has not accepted any of the invitations to debate which have come so far from a plethora of groups and associations because we believe that this multiplicity of competing platforms detracts from the seriousness, gravity and unified national focus that should normally be associated with presidential debates.

“The Presidency is also aware that there is a traditional platform for staging presidential debates in Nigeria under the recognised auspices of the BON and that arrangement is underway for a presidential debate on this platform before this year’s election. President Jonathan and his vice are more than ready to debate on this national platform, which has well-established procedures and rules of engagement and look forward to receiving an invitation from the organisers”.

He described as preposterous the insinuation that Jonathan and Sambo were afraid of debates. “It is preposterous to insinuate that the duo are reluctant or afraid of a debate with other presidential candidates as it ought to be obvious that they have no reason to be hesitant about debating (with) any of the candidates being presented by other political parties.

“By reason of incumbency, qualifications and long continuous experience in governance at state and national levels, Jonathan and Sambo have a far better grasp and understanding of the nation’s challenges than any of their opponents and are better placed than them to proffer workable solutions to the country’s problems.”

But the presidential candidate of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, quickly faulted The Presidency’s stance. He interpreted it to mean lack of something “concrete to sell to Nigerians or ( they) are afraid they cannot defend their actions in office for the past ten months.”

In a statement by his campaign orgainsation, Ribadu said: “Most of the presidential/vice presidential debates are organised by reputable bodies that are well qualified to organise them, and none of the other candidates has requested for any leverage except the candidates of the PDP, why is that so? It simply shows that either the duo have nothing concrete to sell to Nigerians or are afraid they cannot defend their actions in office for the past ten months.”

Penultimate week, the Presidential Campaign Council (PCC) of the PDP said it was still weighing the option of its candidate, President Jonathan, participating in a presidential debate. The Director of Media and Publicity of the PCC, Abba Dabo, told newsmen in Abuja that the body had not made up its mind because of several requests by the sponsors, some of which, he said, are not vibrant.

He said over five different organisations had approached the council for debate and that some of them merely want only four presidential candidates to participate. He listed some of those that have approached the council to include NN24, Channels TV and Nigerian Presidential Debate Council (in collaboration with the Nigeria Union of Journalists).

“Some of them said only four candidates and we say why? What criteria are you using? Why not all the candidates? Why do you think this one is important and not the other one? Again, some of them don’t have the reach. But we are still looking at the format the debate will take,” Dabo said.

Penultimate Friday, vice presidential candidates were lined up in a debate organised by the NN24. However, PDP’s Namadi Sambo was conspicuously absent, apparently because of what Niboro later explained as avowal to honouring only the one organised by BON.

The debate was scheduled to hold between Sambo of the PDP, Pastor Tunde Bakare of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC); Chief John Odigie-Oyegun of the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Mr. Fola Adeola of the ACN.

Bakare described Sambo’s absence as “arrogance of impunity”. He added that Nigerians will no longer tolerate “those with arrogance of incumbency and culture of impunity.”

Lessons from abroad

In the United States of America, it would be unheard of that a presidential election is to take place without a public debate by the candidates. The last presidential election in the US witnessed three different presidential debates between then Senator Barack Obama of the Democrats and Senator John McCain of the Republicans. The first debate took place in late September, 2008.

For many Americans, they had feared that John McCain would not be in attendance at the first presidential debate which took place in Mississippi. But McCain proved them wrong. He went there and proved to be the more advanced, sophisticated and had better grasp on the Middle East and foreign policy than his rival, Obama.

Yet, Americans felt that for all of McCain’s foreign policy and “maverick” bravado, he fell short in the area of good natured diplomacy toward his more congenial opponent, Obama.

Americans were impressed by the way Obama approached the debate. In a bit of foreshadowing the future, Obama greeted McCain at the start of the debate with eye contact and a warm smile, while McCain kept it chilly and distant from the start. In fact, he refused eye contact with his opponent throughout much of the debate.

Obama repeatedly attempted to reach across partisan aisles with acknowledgements of McCain’s qualifications and, on occasion, by looking directly toward McCain while addressing him. To the contrary, McCain refused to make eye contact with Obama while expressing his answers and rebuttals. His insistence on a more distant exchange did appear to wear on Obama whose high road approach received a poor reception from the right, but an overwhelmingly warm reception from his supporters. The larger American audience at home, across the length and breath of the sprawling nation, watching the live telecast, noted all that was happening and formed their opinion.

As a ploy, or call it political strategy, Obama continually made reference to McCain’s past allegiance to George W. Bush, so as to point out the fact that in a way, McCain can not absolve himself from such failed policies in Iraq and in economic issues. As a defence, McCain, more than one occasion, accused Obama of failing to “make the connection” between success in Iraq and stability in Iran and Afghanistan. He accused Obama of not understanding the difference between “tactic and strategy” and of touting foreign policies that are “naïve” and even “dangerous”. McCain equally took aim at Obama’s allegiance to and ability to defend and indemnify the state of Israel. He actually positioned himself as the candidate who will protect Israel most effectively. In doing that, he was simply targeting the Jewish votes.

Obama shot back by insisting that his judgment (he voted against the war in Iraq) would have kept Americans, and the state of Israel, safe from the Taliban as well as North Korea and Iran. Obama asserted that cutting our losses in Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan and peace talks with Iran would help to stabilise the region, and, in effect, provide a more secure future for Israel and for US.

The debate was full of drama. For instance, McCain repeatedly reprimanded Obama for his willingness to sit down with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without pre-existing conditions, insinuating that Obama would be too soft on terrorists for his willingness to negotiate with a man who called Israel a “corpse” and promised to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

Obama rejected the allegation, insisting that he would not agree to meet with Ahmadinejad without what he called significant “preparation.” At one point during the debate, the two candidates engaged in a heated argument about whether former Republican Secretary of State and one of McCain’s advisers, Henry Kissinger, supported Obama’s view or McCain’s view on this key national security and foreign affairs issue, a point McCain took very personally.

And while Obama remained steadfast in matters of the economy and his promise to rescue the middle class and working class from continued corporate corruption, tax breaks for the wealthy and lack of affordable healthcare, McCain displayed a pattern of deflecting the issues, bringing the attention back to Wall Street and the importance of financially wealthy corporations.

But Obama illustrated the destructive pattern of the Republicans’ well-known “trickle down theory” which was applied during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, through George H. W. Bush’s regime and most notoriously throughout George W. Bush’s.

Obama pointed out what Democrats and much of the middle and working class already knew – providing financial advantages to the wealthy with the notion that the wealth would trickle down to the middle class is simply not effective.

And whereas the fundamental economic principles of McCain were to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of the country and to provide tax breaks for business owners and large corporations in hopes that this would help to create more jobs and more salary raises in the workplace, Obama, in contrast, stated that to rescue the economy and to provide much needed relief to middle class and working class down.

Both Obama and McCain each shone in their areas of expertise: Obama on matters of social reform and the economy, and John McCain on national security and foreign policy. Where they each fell short was in successfully knocking the other off of their respective platforms.

On the hilarious side, it was discovered to the chagrin of the Republicans that McCain had no proven computer knowledge. In fact, it became the butt of cruel jokes in the US that a would-be president of the most powerful country in the world could not handle as little as a cell phone. His wife had been assisting him with all that was necessary in that regard.

But for Obama, how to get him to hand over his Blackberry smartphone was one big problem his aides had to contend with. He was visibly seen as a dashing, youthful, IT-compliant and 21 century leader. The debate helped the Americans in no small way in deciding who to vote for. Had the debate not taken place, Obama would probably not have emerged the president of the US. But he made history as the first Black man to be the US president.

Voting in the dark

Without the presidential debate, whatever Nigerians do on April 9 would be like gambling, just closing one’s eyes and thumbing any space that ‘fate’ pushes the hand into; it will be like voting in the dark without seeing the emblems or symbols of the different parties. This was the submission of Lagos lawyer and human rights activist, Bamidele Aturu.

He told The Nationon Thursday in Lagos that he was not surprised that no debate has taken place because no concrete idea or plan to turn things around is being canvassed by those who are expected to tell Nigerians so.

“I am not surprised because there are no issues or ideas to talk about. What you hear are talks about ethnicity, region and other primordial issues. Our electoral system ought to be steeped in issues and ideas with progressive slant on how to turn the economy around, provide employment, what would be the foreign policy thrust of the administration, how an individual will motivate and galvanise the whole population to move on to the fast lane of development and economic breakthrough.

“But here, the opposite is the case. I tell you what, it will be a disaster for the presidential election to take place without, at least, a two-legged debate by the candidates”, he stated.

As the election day closes in, the issue of a presidential debate would not be like the inexplicable character in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.Godot, one of the three characters in the book has the knack of keeping his other two friends perpetually in anticipation of his imminent arrival. But sadly, he never shows up.

Nigerians would want to know how each and every one presidential candidate will tackle the issues: energy shortage, unemployment, industrialisation, science and technological development, reduction in poverty, and fostering unity in a country that is increasingly manifesting signs of disunity and discord and the guarantee of a secure future for Nigerians.