The president’s proposal for a six-year single term for the president and governors has drawn many criticisms and condemnations from Nigerians from all works of life. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) condemned the proposal calling it “self-serving and divisive”, and pointed out that the decision to amend the constitution must come from the people after a robust debate. Others viewed the president’s proposal as deceitful, “patently fraudulent and a terrible misadventure”; an attempt to distract the people’s attention from the demand for good governance. Many of these criticisms are well taken, but the question that comes to mind is why is the president interested in this when he knows the sordid history of term elongation in Nigeria and the outcome of the previous attempts?

It has also been stated that if passed into law, President Jonathan’s tenure will not be affected as the amendment would only take effect from 2015. It is true that 4-year term is too expensive, but 6-year single term may be far more expensive figuratively, by that, I mean the cumulative cost may be terrible for Nigeria. Lets examine the potential pros and cons.

Pros:

(a) 6-year tenure will mean that election will be held every 6 years instead of 4 years which means less money will be spent on elections.

(b) 6- year single term may encourage some presidents or governors to take bold steps with regard to the economic, political or social policies they think will benefit the country in the short and long-run without fear of negative backlash when they seek re-election.

(c) Zoning will be easier to implement across the six geo-political zones in a 6-year single term compared to what we have now.

Cons:

(a) 6-year single term will be more likely to consolidate the culture of impunity that already exist in Nigeria. Politicians will be less responsive to the electorate if they do not have to worry about re-election.

(b) Corruption is likely to increase because they will accumulate all they can without fear of immediate repercussion from the electorate.

(c) 6-year single term gives less incentive to successive presidents or governors to record achievements quickly so they can be rewarded with a second term. This incentive is a critical part of 2-term tenure. A President or governor will be more responsive to the electorate and less likely to govern like an emperor if they know they will face the electorate soon. 4-year or 5-year consecutive term creates inbuilt, self- perpetuating incentive of reward which in turn benefits the entire country. Typical example is the United states where 4 year two consecutive term have been in existence since post Franklin Roosevelt era. It is not perfect, but it has worked so far. .

(d) What happens if the electorate mistakenly elects an incompetent leader, that means Nigerians will be saddled with that person for 6 years. Six years of bad leadership is eternity, it will seem and feel like never ending nightmare. Some leaders are so narcissistic to the point of believing that their policies are correct and should not be questioned and will continue pushing unpopular policies through duration of their tenure. One may say that the Senate, House of Representative and House of Assembles are there to check and balance the executive power. That may not always be the case as you can see from most state House of Assemblies and local government councils where real democracy with checks and balances are yet to manifest.

The negative consequence of this proposal is enormous. Nigerians will be better off shunning this proposal. President Goodluck Jonathan may mean well, but good intention alone is not enough. This type of proposal is especially bad for a developing country like Nigeria where democracy and rule of law is just taking root. Mexico is practicing 6-year single term, and it does not seem to be working well. France have 7- year term but the president can run for re-election. 5-year two consecutive term for presidents and governors and 5-year continuous tenure for national and state legislatures will be a better idea since that will give them enough time to implement their programs and lessen money spent on election, but length of politician tenure should not be a priority for Nigeria at this time.

As I stated before, zoning should be done away with in Nigerian politics. Selection of leaders should be based on merit and capability not ethnicity, religion or geography. A good leader ends up lifting up the entire country. Conducting free and fair election, war on corruption, addressing insecurity and economy should be of utmost priority for Nigeria at this time. Politician elected in a fair and free election is more likely to be responsive to the electorate which will take care of some of the malaise bedeviling Nigeria.

While the tenure elongation project is still developing, Jonathan and his handlers have a lot to learn from the recent experience of Obasanjo, the man who picked him to serve as Yar’Adua’s vice President. Indeed, the tenure elongation project left an indelible stain, sour note and mark of ill-repute on the presidency and legacy of the hard-charging former President Obasanjo. But Goodluck insists he’s well-meaning. His critics argue to the contrary while Nigerians, largely, watch and observe and

A Journalist said that "No matter how strong the argument is, this just shows this is not a serious government. If it was even coming at the third year of the administration it would have been ok, but for goodness sake this is diversionary. "I think it is a big disappointment talking about tenure elongation when people are looking up to him. It is coming at a wrong time when people are looking forward to very serious policies that will snowball this country into greatness."

So Mr President get Back to the drawing board and by using scale of preference you can start giving the people what they truly want from Your Government.