PAUL ARHEWE (Published 30/06/2011)
The phrase ‘millionaire club of voters’ may not be a familiar term to some observers of happenings in our local politics. Apparently, it is one of the latest inputs in Nigerian political lexicon, as its emergence is linked to the last April general elections. What interpretation would you give to the above phrase? Probably, some people may decipher it as a club of rich electorate congregating to appoint politicians of their choice.
Those who followed this answer path will be astonished they are far from its connotation. When Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State visited President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja recently, he went there to remind the Nigerian leader that his state is among those that gave him at least a million votes; wanting an assurance that Plateau would get its share of the national cake. Last week he brought back the good tidings to his subjects in Pankshin, using it to assuage and boost their optimism for fair treatment from the present administration. In his words, “I was with the president at the Villa and I told him that this time around, Plateau must get its own share of the national cake because we joined the millionaire club of voters.”
Curiously pondering on the above statement, one wonders since when is a slice from the country’s national cake pegged on the ability to provide the president with a million votes? Does it denote that only few states with at least a million votes for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) during last presidential polls would receive more Federal Government projects and attention? Maybe Jang is saying there was an agreement reached behind the scene, which I doubt. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in chapter six provides for fair treatments to all persons without recourse to discrimination. I believe this would also apply to all states in the federation; where their needs and statutory allocations to each of them are explicitly divided according to the existing derivative formula.
The results from April’s presidential election show that only nine (Abia, Akwa- Ibom, Anambra, Delta, Imo, Kaduna, Lagos, Plateau and Rivers) out of the country’s 36 states meet the qualification to be in this club. What the scenario above implies is that the remaining 27 states should be considered as second class category when allocating dividends of democracy because they didn’t reach the criteria for belonging in Jang’s millionaire voters’ club? I don’t think any state should get more favour than others as a result of the amount of votes garnered for the president. Democracy is all about choice; the beauty of this system of government lies in the freedom by electorate to express the right to choose. In advance democracies, the electorate usually don’t feel any disparity when their choice is not elected; the difference usually lies in government’s policy choice, and the ruling party usually prioritise projects that are implemented.
I also think same should apply to Nigeria. For states that didn’t accrue a million votes for the president, that doesn’t mean he is loved less or he has no supporters there. The president won in 24 states and got good percentage of votes in others where PDP did not win. The president is leader to all states and not just to those that gave him million votes. This was buttressed in his campaign trip to Kogi in February. Jonathan had said: “Myself and Vice President Sambo mean well for Nigeria. We are not into politics to make money. We stand for the unity of this country. We have no enemies to fight. We will not discriminate against anybody of any tongue, tribe, or religion.” It is okay for Plateau to seek for fair treatment from the Federal Government, that is, if the state has been unjustly treated in the past. But, the numbers of votes the state garnered for the PDP should not be used as a guarantee or certificate for invoking attention. I foresee the President fulfilling his promise to treat all states equally and fairly.
It is suggested that each of them are given attention on the basis of their specific needs and the urgency attached to same, not on sympathetic or on jolly-fellow recognition.
No comments:
Post a Comment