By ochereome Nnanna
I READ with goose pimples breaking all over me a story published in the June 20  issue of ThisDay  newspaper on page 8 entitled: 2011: Jonathan’s Campaign Vehicle Set Ablaze in Kebbi.

The story reported that a vehicle with an inscription: “Jonathan for Presidency 2011” was set ablaze by unknown persons where it was parked overnight in the home of a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship aspirant, Alhaji Hassan Kangiwa in the GRA of Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State.

One is hoping and praying fervently that the perpetrators of this dangerous political terrorism are apprehended.

Let us find out who sponsored them and the motive behind their action to determine whether people have now taken the debate over the President’s perceived political ambition to such a dastardly level.

It is important for those behind this approach to the politics of 2011 to realise that violent politics is a sword that cuts both ways, and any attempt to try and frighten people out of their legitimate ambition will backfire.

If anything, it will only lead to the reawakening of the various ethnic militias such as the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), the Bakassi Boys, the arming of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and of course, Niger Delta militants under the auspices of MEND and others.

We have harped here over and again that nobody has a monopoly of violence. That some people have formed the habit of jumping to violent means of making their points does not necessarily mean they are more efficient in it than others who are peaceable.

The recent gathering of the so-called 150 Northern political leaders in Abuja to insist on the zoning formula of the PDP being used to select a person of Northern origin as the presidential candidate of the party, for me, was a dangerous, unnecessary and ineffectual political sabre-rattling by one section of the country against the rest.

A statement read by Dr Iyorchia Ayu claimed boastfully that “a strong, united and virile North is crucial to the unity and corporate existence of Nigeria and must be pursued with all vigour…”. I beg to disagree with absolute vehemence. We don’t need any united North and I hope we will have nothing of the sort because it will be inimical to the corporate existence of Nigeria.

In the same manner, we do not need a united South because it will also threaten the unity of this country. If the North is able to “unite”, the purpose of their unity will be to deny President Goodluck Jonathan his political rights and the South will feel called upon to also unite solidly behind him. If such a situation occurs, what do you have?

A nation divided right across with an imaginary battle line drawn between them. Whoever emerges as the president of this country under such arrangement will not be a Nigeria leader. He will be a regional leader.

I don’t see how that will ensure the corporate existence of Nigeria. Ayu, the newspaper page “Northerner” must be more sensible than to allow himself to be used to read this unintelligent communiqué.

I also disagree with the notion that a united North will win a presidential election. In a hypothetical but unlikely case of the 19 states of the North uniting behind one candidate and the 17 Southern states unite behind a Southern opponent, no section will be able to produce the 24 states that will give any presidential candidate victory as the constitution requires.

The conveners of the Abuja meeting wasted their time, effort and money because this is new Nigeria. This is not the pre-independence Nigeria where the colonialists ensured that the North will win elections to produce the leader of Nigeria whether the rest of the country votes for their candidate or not. Some people are still suffering from the NPC syndrome, which expired in 1966.

Since 1979, when the military re-laid the political foundation of Nigeria, it is no longer possible for a section to produce the president of Nigerian without the votes of others. Because of this, Shagari emerged twice as president of Nigeria only because in addition to Northern votes he also got votes from Igboland and the Southern minorities, with a handful from Western Nigeria.

In the same vein, Obasanjo only became Nigeria’s two-term president with votes from outside the South West. This trend will not stop, whether we are voting for a president of Northern or Southern extraction. This is what I meant by saying the Abuja meeting was a waste of time and money.

That meeting and others like it cannot determine the future course of our politics because they are akin to the efforts of the so-called “mega-parties” that failed to materialise.

The political interests and ambitions of people like Ibrahim Babangida, Atiku Abubakar and Aliyu Gusau cannot be accommodated under a regional gang-up against the rest of the country.

When the time comes it will be “to your tents O Israel”, and everyone will have to test his ability to mobilise Nigerians (not Northerners or Southerners) to their side. By then only the person with all the popularity – as well as the support of the state – will clinch it.

His tribe and section will not matter. Three months down the line, I will like to see where the names we saw in that meeting will be. They will queue up behind their personal political interests.

And in any case, what do you call the National Security Adviser (NSA), General Aliyu Gusau who attended a meeting that was purported to block the political ambition of his employer? A saboteur? A dangerous man?

An employee with divided loyalty? And what does a person who plays that role do? Resign? Be sacked?