THE Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, zoned the presidency. They agreed that it will rotate between the different geopolitical zones of Nigeria. After eight years of South West presidency, it was the turn of the NorthWest to produce the president.

As the president from the North East, Musa Yar’Adua, died in office, it was alright that his Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan, served out the remaining time of his four-year term.

However, for the election of 2011 election, a Northerner should have been nominated as the PDP presidential candidate to serve out the remaining part of the eight years that the presidency was zoned to the North West. And then, in 2015, presidential power will shift to another geopolitical zone and so on and so forth. That would have ensured the fragile peace of this our unwieldy and politically tempestuous country.

President Goodluck Jonathan was looking for trouble when he breached the PDP zoning agreement and seized for himself the party nomination for the presidency. His actions were wrong, dishonourable and unjust. It was an unconscionable grab for power by a man propped up by the might and resources of the Federal Government, egged on by ruthless political godfathers and cheered on by an assortment of unabashed sycophants and relentless toadies notorious for their serpentine parlance and exasperating sophistry.

Zoning is not an admirable aspect of Nigeria’s democracy. It does not enhance some laudable elements of the Nigerian presidential-style democracy. For example, the nomination of candidates for the president from only one zone is sectional. It undermines the electing of a nationally and across-the- board acceptable individual, and thus, a unifying figure, to the presidency – which is a major goal of the Nigerian Constitution.

Yet, the clamour for zoning in Nigeria is inescapable and understandable.  One Nigeria is a medley of nationalities, cultures and languages roped together purposely to further British colonialism. Lamentably, after more than 50 years of independence, Nigerian leaders failed to redefine the purpose of this colonial imposed union. And to forge a nation out of this diversity of cultures and nationalities or give the different peoples of Nigeria a unified sense of purpose.

So, while we all co-exist in the overarching sovereignty, we still remain deeply attached (sentimentally and emotionally) and loyal to our different ethnic groups. It is these attachment and dedication to our different ethnic groups that explain the demand for zoning power along ethnic and/or geopolitical lines.

The rotation of power between different geo-political zones is an old phenomenon of Nigerian politics. In the Second Republic, the National Party of Nigeria, NPN, agreed to a zoning formula. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu justified the involvement of Igbo leaders in the Sani Abacha- sponsored Constitutional Conference because they wanted to “enshrine” rotational presidency in the new constitution.

For the 2011presidential election, the PDP zoning arrangement should have been honoured, and continued to be honoured until zoning runs its course in the party, and it finally decides to do away with it or the politics of the country outgrows it and renders it obsolete. Only then can it, justifiably, be done away with. To change the rules of the game in the middle of the game was fraudulent and dishonourable.

Just as the people of the South West were gratified by eight years of Yoruba presidency, the North West were delighted by Hausa/Fulani presidency. As the Yoruba resisted every attempt to abridge the eight years of South West presidency, the Hausa/Fulanis resisted attempts to shorten North West presidency.  Dr. Jonathan’s nomination and election as president successfully truncated North West presidency. This aggrieved a cross-section of Northern Nigerians and got some of their leaders blustering. A Northern leader was even quoted as threatening to make the country “ungovernable”.

Boko Haram began in 2002 as a peaceful Islamic splinter group. Then politicians began exploiting it. It was exploited for different (including electoral) purposes. However, since the election of  Dr. Jonathan as president in April 2011, the political exploitation of the Boko Haram took a ghoulish twist. It seems that the catalogue of the political sponsors of the terrorist organisation expanded to include some disaffected Northern politicians. And the ranks of the sect augmented, and its support base enlarged, by the supporters of these estranged northern political leaders. So, in addition to its previous functions, Boko Haram become a tool for murderous expression of political embitterment and for making the country “ungovernable”.

Since then, the Boko Haram terrorist attacks became more frequent, more daring, more sophisticated, better planned and better coordinated. In addition to government institutions, they are increasingly targeting civilian centers and even, as innocuous a place, as the church. They are wantonly killing and maiming the innocent. They are traumatizing the people and causing intense fright and dread amongst the public.

A political rapprochement between the President and the embittered Northern politicians will be wonderful for the country. It will not totally dismantle the Boko Haram sect.  But it will deny it a major source of sponsorship, whittle down its expanding support base and diminish its popular appeal among its would-be volunteers and foot soldiers. These will invariably weaken the sect and curtail it terrorist activities.

It may be psychologically satisfactory for President Jonathan to feign immaculate blamelessness. He can dismiss the Northern Nigerians’ agitation against an obvious political fraud as trouble making, and their leaders as fastidious old guards, who, in their false feeling of importance, believe they have an exclusive right to power. He can even direct the might of the military and other security agencies against these “trouble makers”. But these will not resolve the problem; it will continue to fester. It is a political problem that demands a political solution.

The solution to the problem lies first, in the admission of some basic facts: disregarding the PDP zoning agreement was utterly wrong and the North, especially the North West, has legitimate grievances. And then, in dialogue and in readiness to make amends and accommodate the genuine concerns of the aggrieved parties. Only then can strides be made towards the establishment of peace in this our volatile and, and sometimes, violence-prone country. Peace, unlike war, cannot be declared. It can only be established on mutual consent, and also, trust.

Mr. TOCHUKWU EZUKANMA, a commentator on national issues, wrote from Lagos.