By Kanmi Ademiluyi,

The state of Mr. President's health appears to be a clear reflection of everyday life in Nigeria's 'semi-democracy'. The aides of President Umaru Yar'Adua, most of whom are clearly out of sea operating in a democracy, clearly do not feel that they owe the public any explanation as to what ails the Number One Citizen. Since as the erudite columnist, Tatalo Alamu (of The Nation), famously observed, the electorate has been abolished, explaining anything to a bewildered public might simply be superfluous.

The debate about the President's health is also a fallout of the bizarre 'elections' of 2007. If there had been a proper electoral process, surely the state of the health of the candidates who contested the elections would have been placed on the front burner. Senator John McCain, presidential candidate of the Republican Party in the United States, for one, has had to make a full disclosure about the state of his health. Hardly surprising, since the man is 72 years old and he has had a joust with skin cancer. Nevertheless, in a proper democracy the state of a candidate's health, his finances, even his personal life are key to determining what to expect, if the candidate succeeds. This is not going to happen in contrived processes where an atmosphere of 'do-or-die' replaces normal, acceptable campaigning. There were, as soon as he was nominated as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, dark mutterings about the then Governor Umaru Yar'Adua's health. It was waved aside and was not allowed to become an issue then; afterall such things are not relevant in a do-or-die situation.

Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. There is every need for full disclosure because even a semi-democracy cannot go on like this. Hopefully, this would have been done before this article comes out in print. There is absolutely nothing wrong in The Presidency issuing a comprehensive statement about the President's health. Indeed 'semi-democracy' or not, it is rather nauseating that the President's men could hold their fellow citizens in such utter contempt. The attitude is clearly, which one be your own? It is true that we are not a tax-payer's democracy, where the taxes of tens of millions of citizens are what is used to sustain the polity. On the contrary, as everyone knows, we are just like any other banana republic dependent on a mono-crop. Nevertheless, Umaru Yar'Adua is the numero uno, the country's head of state and the commander-in-chief of its Armed Forces. For this reason, the citizens of the country have every reason to ask questions and be given answers as to the state of the health of their President.

As the lawyer and rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana, has rightly pointed out, there is also the little inconvenient matter of the Constitution. Even in a deformed 'democracy' surely we cannot wish away the constitutional provision in Section 144(4) which compels the Senate President to set up a medical panel to determine whether the President's "infirmity of body has rendered him permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office." Falana did his patriotic duty in raising this issue. Will this help the cause of full disclosure? Everyone of course wishes the president well, but we also have an inalienable right to know. Even without the issue of the president's health, his administration has been perceived as being painfully slow, if not totally ineffective. Now that there are discordant tunes about the state of his health people have every reason to feel apprehensive.

There is a lot to be perturbed about. It will of course be macabre to imagine the worst and rather unfair too. However in view of the geo-political realities of the presently constituted Nigerian federation what happens politically if the president's infirmity of body renders him incapable of discharging his obligations? This could become rather inconvenient, given the present complexion of the polity. The, if you like, 'historic compromise', referring to the formula expediently agreed upon by which a 'rotational' presidency was midwifed, between North and South, in itself shows just how fragile the federation is. What happens if there is a lacuna or a spanner inadvertently thrown into the works? Will those who are currently benefiting from the change of baton which took place 15 months ago allow a natural constitutional transfer? One should think about it. It is the fragile nature of the polity which is the basis of the present feeling of apprehension. What we are presently operating has not really been tested as to its resilence. It will take a major crisis to demonstrate how solid the shock absorber is. In this sort of situation the more open the society is, the better.

The presentation of information in the last one week has been really pathetic. Obviously there are a lot of people who are afraid of their own shadow. Above all is the contradiction of the valiant attempt to run a democracy without democrats. After the manoeuvers of last week, the discomfiture felt by those who matter about the need for the public to have access to information, we are clearly in for a bumpy ride, for this attitude permeates not just the matter of the president's men but across the board. It is obvious that the public is just expected to shut up, grin and bear it on every issue whether it's the state of the president's health, finance, energy and what have you. When the magazine (or the newspaper, as they would rather be called) The Economist, described Nigeria as a 'semi-democracy', they were absolutely bang on!