Politicians Who Never Won Elections Cannot Decide Terms, Modalities And Results

Nobel Laureate, writer and political activist, Professor Wole Soyinka shared summary of his views on the proposed National Conference with citizen journalist, Segun O’Law, who recently met him at an event in Lagos.

In this brief interview, Professor Soyinka indicated to the interviewer that he was not ready to discuss comprehensively on the subject of National Conference yet ; however, he hinted that the conference must not be subjected to the caprices of those in government. The professor said terms of the conference should not only discuss association of the ethnics, but also Nigeria’s form of governance. In determining both, especially the form of governance, the professor said elements currently in government couldn’t be the deciding voices.

 

The brief interview is reproduced below:

You were among the various people advocating for a National conference, although what you demanded was a ‘sovereign’ conference of citizens. Now that there’s one proposed by the federal government, are you happy about this or is there something that still needs be screwed together?

Professor Soyinka: Well, let me just say that one must attempt to be consistent especially [as] what you believe in is still within the grasp of the proponent. I cannot be against a National Conference. The modalities however, and the ultimate validation of the results are the things at issue.

When you have a national conference, are you sending it back to the legislatures, whose very structure you are resolved to destroy?  So, how can the legislators be the ones to decide the modalities, the validity and the results of the deliberations?  It’s not rational.

In principle, am for a National Conference but my time, our time, on it should not be wasted if the results are going to be sent to the National Assembly. What I believe in, about the structure of governance in this country is [it’s] one that eliminates, absolutely destroys the present forms of legislative governance.

So, for me, they should be part, the legislators should be represented in the National Conference, but they cannot be the deciding voice. Otherwise, lets all go home and forget all about it.

Some have expressed suspicion that the president’s sudden interest on the subject of a National conference might be from a strategy to keep himself in office beyond 2015. Does it really matter who is proposing the conference?

Professor Soyinka: When it is time, that’s a different subject. I don’t want to personalize the purpose of a National Conference. I don’t want to personalize any [relating] issue at all, except I’m compelled to do so by the nuisance value of the individual concerned. Otherwise, let’s keep to the principles, etcetera etcetera, and insist that it is about time that the will of the people is actually expressed in a verifiable way such as a National Referendum, not a structure that is filled with people who have never won an election in all their lives. And quite apart from that, the very system, is it Presidential system, do we want a part-time legislature, can we afford a presidential system? In order words, are we about to take a ‘buttered bread’ out of the mouths of those who are profiting by this very system? And then you ask them, [should] they be the final arbiters? It doesn’t make sense.

So, by questioning the National Conference, we are questioning the very terms, not only of association, but also of governance. And so, how can those who are in governance right now be the deciding voices? http://saharareporters.com/interview/national-conference-politicians-who-never-won-elections-cannot-decide-terms-modalities-and