President Bola Tinubu and his deputy, Kashim Shettima
The All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s announcement of his vice presidential candidate has put an end to weeks of speculation about his likely candidate and this means the APC team for the 2023 elections is complete, but his decision to pick former Borno State Governor and current Senator, Kashim Shettima, a Muslim like himself, as running mate has unsettled many.
His decision has been criticised as insensitive to Christians across the country and a disregard for the obvious religious fault lines that exist in the country and some have warned about the dangers this may portend for his political ambition.
The varying opinions on this decision have their merits and demerits. One of the most emphatic is the opinion that a combined Muslim ticket ignores the potential harm to Nigeria’s soft religious underbelly, and may provoke sectional sentiments.
It is fair to point out that there are obvious religious tensions and these have been exacerbated by a thirteen year campaign by fanatical religious organisations like Boko Haram and ISWAP against the government, which has claimed many lives and created fears among Nigerians, both Christian and Muslim alike.
There is also the contentious issue of Sharia perpetuated by several state governors, implying that entrenched religious jurisprudence is a vital part of legitimate state function.
These considerations have raised worries among a large segment of the Christian population that their interests must be protected amidst such religious barrage that seem to undermine their interests.
The question of religious equity in government is one that has to be situated within its true context in a secular state. While The 1999 Constitution did not expressly proclaim Nigeria to be a secular state, it does prohibit both states and the Federal Government from adopting a state religion and guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as well as the right to freedom from discrimination on grounds of religion.
It is significant that the Constitution clearly abstains from making any pronouncements on religious balance in political leadership and limits itself to regional balance. The reason is simple. A secular federal Constitution works within the structural limitations imposed by the principles guiding its establishment, and that is the relationship between federating units (states) and not ethnic or religious considerations.
Though a regional balance in executive leadership is not explicitly stated in the constitution, it is only practical that the principle on which a fundamental federal document was founded be applied.
Also, religion and ethnicity cut across the federating states, and any consideration on the basis of these identities within these units where candidates emerge would be considered discriminatory to particular groups and would negate the principle of fairness.
There have been comparisons made between the Nigerian situation and that of Lebanon, which actively balances its religious diversity in the selection of its political leadership.
While this is a reasonably valid point, simply due to similar multi-religious circumstances in both nations, it is in many ways distinctly different from the Nigerian situation.
In Lebanon political parties are largely explicitly drawn along religious lines. Hizbolla, one of the main political parties in the country, is renowned for its specifically Islamic stance, just as the Kataeb, more popularly know in English as the Phalanges, is a pro-Christian party.
Lebanon’s constitution recognises this religious diversity and the potential dangers that ignoring this balance in a society where religious advocacy defines political allegiance portends for the country, and part of its legitimate function is to balance this out in political leadership.
Religion has never been a consideration in the assessment of qualifications for productive leadership in typical secular societies.
London, a city of over nine million with a 48.8% Christian population and an 8.4% Muslim population, has elected a Muslim mayor for two terms, not considering the balance of political choice with religious preferences. Same has happened in the city of Trappes in France and the city of Hamtramck, Michigan in the United States of America.
Until recently, and largely voiced by a small segment of the population, Nigeria has never prioritised religious considerations in the selection or election of its leaders. That consideration has been largely left to the whims of the candidates.
History shows proof of this. In January, 1966, the military leadership that seized power amidst the chaos that followed the first military coup attempt, considered to have posed the greatest threat to Nigeria’s regional and religious unity, did not seem to consider these fault lines much as it was led by both a Christian Head of State, Major-General Aguiyi Ironsi, and deputy, Brigadier-General Babafemi Ogundipe.
It was the same with the subsequent government that took over in July of the same year presumably inspired by regional agitations as well, presenting Gowon, a christian from the North, and Vice-admiral Adekunle Wey, also a Christian, from the South. It was the same in 1984, when current president Buhari governed with a southern Muslim deputy, Tunde Idiagbon.
The argument that such a ticket is criticised because religious sentiments are at their most explosive in these times is false. The evidence shows that the Ironsi and Gowon governments, led and deputised by Christians, assumed leadership during the period that were arguably the most tense for sectional politics in the country.
In 1993, the results of the June 12 elections, considered one of the freest elections in the nation’s history, was also proof of the irrelevance of religious affiliations in the elections for political office as both the presidential candidate, MKO Abiola, and his vice, Babagana Kingigbe, were Muslims.
The fact is, religious considerations are usually preceded by the need for a congenial relationship between the head and his deputy.
This consideration seems to have influenced the decision to run same faith tickets across several states today, and it has never sparked criticisms. It should be understood that states run on the same principles of equity set out for the federal government by the Constitution.
Plateau state, considered to have a significant Muslim population, has been running same faith tickets that has been exclusively Christian since 1999, even as religious contentions have been alleged as the trigger for several confrontations in the state.
In Kaduna state currently the leadership is same faith, both Muslims, but there have been obvious efforts to appease its geopolitical divide, which is considered the only legitimate obligation and there has been no outrage over this.
Clearly, the absence of a Christian candidate does not imply the absence of competent Christian politicians in the North, but more the absence of political leaders with Christian background that possess the political clout to win massive following in the North currently, and this is a legitimate concern.
Has Tinubu done anything wrong in his selection? The answer is no. His decision cannot be considered insensitive or a denial of the relevance of any other religious group as his functions, or that of his vice, do not include explicit religious responsibilities.
Tinubu’s decision should be seen for exactly what it is; political expediency. It is same expediency that has informed the decision by PDP to field a Northerner after 8 years of a northern president under the APC. The choices of both parties are informed by their strategies for victory at the polls.
These protests against his choice should be taken with a handful, rather than a pinch, of salt as they seem intended to appease self-serving parochial religious sentiments.
Should the floodgates be open to all demands of equity then fairness would demand a reconsideration of gender equity in the selection of executive leadership as well.
There are many who consider the absence of statutes on gender equality in political leadership to be discriminatory. However, Nigeria’s secular constitutional framework would not endorse the aspiration to elective office as exclusive to any social categorisation.
As a matter of fact it seems likely that these protests in demand for religious considerations may be the spark that would eventually ignite a conflict rather than Tinubu’s decision.
With these demands, the worries expressed by many that the manipulation of Nigeria’s diversity as self serving weapons of belligerence could threaten its cohesion may not be far-fetched.
