Category: Segun Gbadegesin

Elections are the life blood of democracy.  For this reason, election season is always part-tense and part-entertaining. In dear country, it’s now the beginning of election season and, already, there are head-shaking and jaw-dropping declarations and behaviors. By the time it ends, one hopes that we wouldn’t have shaken our heads out of joint or broken our jaws.

At least, that was Opalaba’s assessment of what he claimed to have religiously observed. As is my friend’s practice, he remembers his old pal when his “mind is full” and he “couldn’t fathom it alone”. But when the call came in this time, I wasn’t fully prepared for his penchant for dry humor in the face of serious issues.

“This is not going to be a genuine election. It’s APC versus APC”, Opalaba announced, in lieu of a courteous return of my warm greetings. Refusing to take the bait of an extended argument over civility, I simply asked: “How do you mean?”

“Don’t you see?”, my friend waded earnestly into an explanation mode. “It is President Buhari against his APC National Working Committee (NWC).”

At this point, I knew where Opalaba was heading. President Buhari was recently reported as voicing his strong view on the controversy generated by the conduct of the primaries of APC. While the party’s NWC had insisted that primary contestants who felt aggrieved by the outcome must withdraw their cases from the court and give the reconciliation committees a chance, the President publicly supported the right of individual members to seek justice in the court.

Opalaba’s observation was that this position that pits the president against the NWC is tantamount to a divided house which may succumb to the stress of division and fall. He told me that he shook his head in disbelief, unsure of what the winning strategy of the party was. “Is Buhari his party’s conscientious democrat or just another politician playing it safe?” he asked.

For me, this wasn’t a head-shaker and I told my friend so. For it to be a head-shaker, you must conclude that the episode is unheard of, or down-right foolish. It is neither.

“It’s a difficult issue, a head-scratcher”, I observed. “You have to understand the task that the NWC was trying to accomplish just as you must also understand where the president was coming from. First, since 1999, democracy in Nigeria has been a sham, and the problem starts with internal party democracy. APC and its legacy parties are not innocent bystanders in the debacle. This year, it reached an unflattering depth of squalor when party supremacy was thrown to the dogs, and governors robed themselves in the mantle of emperors, insisting on unilaterally naming their successors. In a democracy! What was the NWC of a progressive national party to do?”

“Second, however, President Buhari, himself a three-time victim of election fraud, knows what it is to be on the other side. Truth be told, the “imperial governors” were only a small part of the issue. There were allegations of credible primaries won and then “lost” for reasons too murky to be acceptable to “losers”. The President is most likely aware of some of these, and given his own experience, it is not surprising that his sympathy is with them.”

While Opalaba appreciated my straddling both sides and understanding the legitimacy of their positions, he wasn’t persuaded about the publicity of the differences between the President and the NWC.

“But why go public with a damning controversy which may also ruin chances of reconciliation? Already, there have been hardening of positions and aggrieved candidates have been decamping in droves. If the president meant to assuage the feeling of victimhood, couldn’t he have been more strategic about it? How do you think this would affect the chances of the party in February? Sure, coming out for “primary losers” may endear him to them, but will they take his words as a dog whistle to vote their conscience in other elections such as governorship and National Assembly?”

Opalaba was getting worked up and I wanted to avoid any showdown. I was going to bid him bye when he brought up another “jaw-dropper”

“Baba is campaigning for his former Number 2.”

“Yes, I read about it”, I responded.

“What do you think?” Opalaba asked.

“He is a Nigerian and the Constitution grants everyone the freedom of speech”, I told my friend.

“But the right to freedom of speech does not respect a right to self-contradiction”, Opalaba rejoined.

“How do you mean?” I asked.

Opalaba was ready for me: “A few years ago, in an interview, former President Obasanjo recalled a conversation with a former President of the United States. The latter had congratulated him on his achievements, he reported. However, he was also told, as he recalled, that he had a Vice President who lacked integrity and was corrupt. Obasanjo had repeated these story and similar ones about former Vice President Abubakar at every opportunity, especially whenever it appeared that Atiku was exploring a run for the presidency. Until now when, on the campaign trail, Atiku suddenly becomes Obasanjo’s integrity guru.”

“It is called politics”, I told my friend. But I know he wasn’t satisfied.

“Politics, my foot. You are the philosopher of political morality. I have heard you and read your writings on why politics cannot be divorced from moral values. Are you now endorsing elderly flip-flopping?”

“As you know, in this land of Omoluabi, we are not supposed to query elderly wisdom.”

But my friend is not done.

“Did you hear about Dr. Bukola Saraki’s complaints against President Buhari?

“No, I replied.

“Ah, it’s hilarious! The Senate president all but admitted that he was a greedy but naive electoral investor whose hope of good returns for money spent on Buhari’s election was violently dashed. Our people pray not to be a victim of owo shorti, or deficit trading. That’s what Saraki confessed happened to him with Buhari’s 2015 victory.”

“It is ungodly to make jest of the misfortune of other people”, I responded.

“Pele o, virtuous man.” I didn’t know that you condone election racketeering. I can now see that EFCC has a potential target.”

“Reporting a friend to EFCC is not outside your pedigree. It’s in your DNA. Your ancestor of the same name betrayed his best friend to his king, and only providence saved the man from the hangman’s noose.”

That shut Opalaba down. But he had more head-shakers.

“Did you also hear about Waziri, the privatizer?”

“Never heard that name before”

“Well, I am sure you do. You just don’t make the connection.”

“Waziri Adamawa is the same presidential candidate that Baba is campaigning for. You do remember, of course, that Baba chose his second coming to sell off Nigeria to cronies and campaign donors. When Baba endorsed Waziri after years of condemning him, he told his audience that his former No. 2. has changed and was well-groomed for the job. Apparently, he was well-groomed for the job of selling national assets, which effort he led as No. 2. Now, to affirm his bona fides to Baba, Atiku has declared his intention to sell off NNPC, one of the remaining national assets that he and Obasanjo missed out on selling to their cronies. Akotileta?”

“Now, that’s a head-shaker right there.”

For not contradicting my friend, I think I won his admiration. For he just moved on.

“I ‘ve got one more for you. old chum”.

“What could that be?” I asked.

“It’s PDP’s wish for mass forgetfulness. They want us to forget 16 years of loot, graft, impunity, and bad governance. The party wants us to forget that, back in 2016, shortly after Nigerians forced them out of power, PDP admitted that it failed Nigerians. And the party publicly apologized to Nigerians. Not only this, the party contemplated a change of name because they were ashamed of the name that people have justifiably identified with the worst of political crimes. Since then, the party has not been further tested in office. Do they now think that we have forgotten their days of locust?” Opalaba asked.

“It’s beyond me, friend!”

 

 

More than a year ago, I did a two-part series on the challenge of restructuring. It was in response to serious complaints from high places that advocates of restructuring had not explained what they meant by it. There have also been many interventions since then. But only a few days ago, the matter of restructuring was on the radar again. In faraway Paris, President Buhari accused some unnamed individuals of lazily mouthing restructuring. Back in Lagos, Vice President Osinbajo insisted that he is for fiscal federalism but not geographical restructuring. Do we need further evidence that restructuring is not going away?

The President’s dismissive attitude toward advocates of restructuring may be excused on the ground that he has been confronted with the issue only recently since he assumed office. So, he is unfamiliar with the thousands of hours and sleepless nights over what many consider the lifeline of the republic since the mid-eighties.

We can single out the effort of late Chief Anthony Enahoro and his team, first, Movement for National Reformation (MNR) in which he had an assembly of remarkable Nigerians from across the land, and later in Pro-National Conference (PRONACO). There are also ethnic nationality organizations from Afenifere to Ohanaeze and the Southern Nigeria Peoples’ Assembly. Surely, President Buhari cannot mean that all these distinguished individuals and groups are merely clowning around.

A distinguished group of Southern and Middle Belt leaders visited the Senate recently. There, as the spokesman of the group, Chief John Nwodo, President of Ohanaeze, laid out brilliantly the challenges of the 1999 constitution that we operate. They told Senate President Saraki and his team that the problem with our nation was the overconcentration of power in the center contrary to the wish of our founding fathers. They reminded their hosts of the good days of true federal system and the exploits that we made as a nation. They challenged the Senate President to fulfil his promise to revisit the bill on devolution of power. Their plea fell on deaf ears. Surely, they were not clowning around!

As the elders know too well, provided there are lice in our attire, our finger nails cannot be spared of blood.

Professor Osinbajo is for fiscal federalism and state police, but not for restructuring. The Vice President made this submission, a reiteration of his position, a few days ago in a lecture to the Association of Friends. By fiscal federalism I believe he means the equitable division of the revenue that accrue to the nation among the states and federal government. As the former Attorney General of Lagos State, Professor Osinbajo was the plaintiff in several cases brought by state against the Federal government in pursuit of a just distribution of national resources. But as he was also quick to note, what came out of the effort was hardly enough to right the wrong of over-concentration.

Take the Vice President’s advocacy of state police, one of the demands of advocates of restructuring. If the National Assembly passed legislation today and the President assents, state police will fail if states are only left with the share of the national revenue that they have now. They cannot even now pay the salary of teachers and civil servants. The Vice President is certainly right that wastage of resources through corruption is the bane of our politics. But there is more. If our states are run by angels, we would do much better, but it will not be enough if we fail to revisit the structure that leaves so much in federal hands.

It is not just about oil revenue. There is a stream of revenue that now goes to the federal government that should not, if some of the functions that it undertakes are returned to states. Just as an example, I cannot comprehend why marriage licence must be a federal task.

As I stated in this column over a year ago, we cannot keep pretending as if where we find our nation politically now is where it has always been. It is undeniable that we have gone through series of restructurings since independence. In 1960, Nigeria had a true federal structure. In January 1966, it was restructured as a unitary system by military fiat because they misdiagnosed the disease that afflicted the First Republic. The federal system of governance with its emphasis on derivation as the principle of revenue allocation was not the culprit. Rather, it was the imbalance in the relationship between the regions that stressed the system.

A more effective remedy would have been the creation of more regions so that no one region was able to impose its will on the rest. General Yakubu Gowon did just this in 1967 but he retained the unitary structure of governance and the nation has been saddled with it since. The 1979 and 1999 constitutions have only just validated and replicated the military fiat of 1966. For those who question the need for restructuring now, the question they should answer is this: has the country been better off with the present unitary structure? And if not, is there a more auspicious time?

As the Southern and Middle Belt delegation reminded the Senators, in 1963, no regional government ran to the federal government for bailout funds to pay its employees. Every regional government depended on the resources available to it because the revenue allocation formula encouraged regions to develop the natural resources available to them which they then used to promote the welfare of their citizens. On the other hand, the unitarization of the country with the revenue allocation in favor of the center has not encouraged states to explore resources available to them. Instead, they depend on allocation from the center, which also dictates how much they pay to their state employees.

In its simplest form, restructuring is devolution of power from the center to the component units. In a federation, the component units are the states or the regions. This assumes that the center is saddled with too many responsibilities that it cannot possibly discharge as effectively as the component units. Therefore, it needs to shed some responsibilities and transfer resources for the states to take on those responsibilities.

The rationale for this cannot be clearer. The federal government takes on matters which states are more capable of discharging effectively to their residents. These include education, health, and agriculture. The usual response to this observation is that states are not even now able to pay their workers. What is not acknowledged is that the resources that the federal government corners for itself now would have to be released to the states when they take on these responsibilities.

Along with the foregoing reasoning is that when revenue allocation was based on 50% derivation, regions scamper to exploit the resources available to them whether in agriculture or mineral deposits. Nobody has provided the justification for the shift in revenue allocation in favor of the federal government, which did not even occur during the civil war years. Why did the federal government reduce the percentage of revenue allocated to derivation from 50% to 45% in 1975 and continued to crash it to 1.5% and 3% until it was moved to 13% in the Fourth Republic? We behave as if this is normal but the advocacy for a return to status quo ante is not! Yet, clearly, this is the reason that states have not fared well, and their citizens are wallowing in abject poverty.

The APC Campaign Manifesto promises devolution of power most probably because it sees it as the least radical and most workable in view of the diverse nature of the country. If this is true, then there is really no basis for further dispute. If some are lazing around about restructuring, the party and its leaders do not have to listen to them. They can just revisit their campaign book, ensure the consistency of the recommendations of their Committee on Devolution of Power with their manifesto, and give the nation what it can offer on that basis. Not doing anything in four years about this problem will not make talk of restructuring go away.

 

On Monday, democracy was on President Buhari’s mind. Receiving the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency Hon. Julie Payette at Aso Rock Presidential Villa, the president observed that democracy is improving steadily in Nigeria, noting that Nigerians are having a deeper understanding of the culture and tenets of the system and the institutions of free and fair elections are being strengthened. 

If the president is right, then Nigerians have earned a bragging right and must hold their heads up for making it to the elite club of nations. After all, democracy has gained global recognition as the best form of government. It’s true that we still lack progress in the indices of development, but we will sure get there once we have the right system of government.

The president emphasized how we got to this point. We have been learning from advanced democracies while we also look inward to appreciate our peculiarities. And it must be the case that these peculiarities of ours do not drag us down or pull us back from the goal of greater enrichment of democracy. Otherwise the president would not have considered it worth mentioning.

To determine if democracy is winning in Nigeria, we must measure it against the ideal, using for guidance the Lincolnian definition according to which the people rule themselves on behalf of themselves and for themselves. And it doesn’t not matter that this ideal is fully realizable only in village or city-state democracies where every adult member gathers under the tree to deliberate on and decide important issues. There are various ways in which even complex societies like ours can deepen democracy and advance on its ladder. To my mind, a meaningful movement toward the ideal requires our nation to invest in deliberate efforts toward the fulfillment of at least five conditions. 

First, there must be a shared interest in the ideal. If we all agree that the rule of the people by the people and for the people is the best, and we are all included in the peoplehood, then, some of us cannot secretly harbor the monarchical or imperial spirit while expecting others to serve as subjects and toe the line. From the president to the council chair, from the Senate president to the councilor, and from the richest to the poorest, there must be a common interest in upholding and promoting the tenets of democracy to the fullest. 

Practically, what this means in the simplest terms is consistency in our advocacy and implementation of democratic rules and procedures. One indispensable rule is that the people choose their elected representatives. And this choice applies to both the party nomination and general election processes.

This appears to be so clear and simplistic requirement that some may wonder why it even needs emphasis. If we expect the people to vote for their party’s candidates in a general election, it is commonsensical to accord them the right to vote for their preferred party candidates during nomination. It is this principle that favors direct primary. It is a progressive principle, the idea being to enlarge the coast of democracy by bringing more people into its tribe. Of course, the aristocrats and wannabe monarchists could care less. For them, the fewer the merrier and so they limit party members’ access to monopolize power. 

A second requirement is a constitutional respect for the equality of citizens through legislation that limits the influence of money and wealth in politics. Ideally, this means that some citizens are not filthy rich while others are stinking poor. But we know that this ideal is unrealizable where free enterprise is in play. But respect for constitutional equality is not an unrealistic requirement. What it requires is a strong legislation that bans vote selling/buying and voter suppression. It further requires making access to political offices devoid of artificial obstacles. If the cost of nomination or expression of interest forms is so prohibitive that only the wealthy can afford it, this defeats the ideal of constitutional equality of citizens.

Thirdly, there must be strong institutions designed to protect and promote the democratic ideal. These include independent electoral umpires, non-partisan security agencies, an independent judiciary, and open and ideologically distinct political parties. Obviously, some of these are more important than others. Political parties are not essential for democracy to flourish as we have had examples of no-party democracies. However, in the context of modern representative democracies, political parties channel the interests of members around coherent ideologies which they champion. 

A fourth condition is that individuals and political organizations are not allowed to game the system for private ends, and everyone is required to play by the rules which are fair and are put in place ahead of contests. As the temptation to cheat is always present, and as cheating is a threat to the interest of everyone in maintaining the system, this is perhaps one of the most important requirements. Unfortunately, it is one that many societies, including ours, have taken lightly. Ballot swapping, ballot box snatching, voter intimidation, and raw physical combat at election sites are abnormalities that are not in anyone’s interest.

A final condition on my list is that positions of authority are not exploited for undue advantage. This is a no-brainer. If an incumbent running for reelection exploits his or her position to influence electoral umpires, security agencies or the judiciary, it is an unfair exploitation of their office, which they would lash out against if the shoe were on the other foot. It makes moral and legal sense therefore to have strict and enforceable rules against such action.

Clearly, no existing society has been able to satisfy all these five conditions to the fullest. In some advanced democracies where vote selling/buying is not a threat to the ideal because voters have a sense of their dignity that cannot be bought, voter suppression is employed against minority populations. Every society has renegade individuals and organizations whose reason of being is to cheat. And in some societies that we would normally expect to respect an independent judiciary, ideological orientation predominates in the selection process. But when judges are chosen and confirmed based on ideological leaning, do we really expect a fair dispensation of justice?

Rather than looking at other societies as our guide, therefore, it is best to ask ourselves what kind of society do we want to be? Moving forward, what is our interest in the progressive development of our democracy so that we leave a proud legacy for our children? As we count our steps on the ladder of democracy, do we set our minds toward an upward movement or are we tempted to go down a step because it serves our private interests more than the upward movement?

As we look forward to another general election in four months, we should learn from the shameful experiences of our recent past when our topmost leadership considered election as a do or die battle; when political opponents were deemed as mortal enemies; when electoral umpires openly and blatantly shuffled aside the ethos of their profession for the proverbial pot of porridge.

Leaders who see themselves as emperors whose will must be imposed on everyone must have a rethink because no condition is permanent. We have elections because we are a republic, not a kingdom under a monarch that is chosen by an oracle.

Every citizen has a right and a responsibility to have his or her vote count. And voters must not yield to the temptation of selling their votes for pittance for the simple reason that they are going to pay heavily for it throughout the next four years. If a governorship candidate spends 100 billion Naira or more on vote buying, we can be sure that he or she will take multiples of that amount from the treasury of the state in the next four years. Then we have no good reason to complain if we were recipients of his/her electoral corruption.

We are now far below on the ladder of democracy. But we could ascend to the top if we set our collective mind to it. Let’s do it.

Your Excellency,

 

I respectfully address you directly today for three reasons. First, I am aware you are a good consumer of information, who loves reading newspapers, including opinion pages. Therefore, I am encouraged that this piece will find you. Second, beside your expressed interest in a second term, I believe that you are even more concerned about leaving behind a legacy of probity, outstanding achievements, and principled democratic leadership.

Third, in the philosophy and practice of leadership, the reality of a leader’s achievement is sometimes eclipsed by the conflicting perception of followers. A perception of disinterestedness in the day to day task of governance may fortuitously create an impression of incompetence, which is all that a desperate opposition needs to attack an incumbent. When they succeed in translating perception into reality in the minds of the voting public, a leader seeking legacy is in danger of losing the goodwill of the people. Unfortunately, this is where I think you are currently. Things may change tomorrow, depending on your reaction today. Let me explain.

Four years ago, many political observers were terrified by the reality that confronted them. They knew that if there was no change, the country was headed for disaster. Boko Haram was in control of large swaths of land. The economy was collapsing under the weight of largescale corruption. The ruling party, PDP, was in tatters, unable to nip the crisis of greed in the bud. APC, your newly minted party, caught the attention of the people and its change slogan was made for the occasion. Your nomination as the flag bearer of the party was picture perfect. So were the APC state congresses and the nominations to various positions. With a sense of discipline perceived, the electorate believed that your party was ready to control the levers of power in the nation. You got elected.

Four years later, no one is in doubt that the same level of goodwill doesn’t exist. For someone who wants a legacy, you must be interested in knowing what changed. Our people observe that if a dog once approaches a person with its tail dancing to an invisible music, but the next time it starts barking angrily at the same person, we must conclude that something changed for the negative.

This is especially distressing for many of your supporters who believe that you have passionately tackled some of the most challenging issues facing the nation prior to your election. You have degraded Boko Haram, recovered the land they invaded, and rehabilitated many displaced citizens. You have worked hard to diversify the economy, and your investment in agriculture is yielding bountiful fruits literally and figuratively. You have taken the battle against corruption to new heights though it appears that the enemy is unrelenting in fighting back. Your opponents are naturally not impressed by all these. But it appears there is something more to your challenge if the mockery of your achievements is not limited to your opponents and some of your supporters are beating a retreat.

So, what changed with your party and with you that the dog that once danced now barks? I concede that this may all be a matter of perception. But when a 2015 die-hard Buharist now tells me that he would vote APC ticket in his state, but he would not vote for the party’s presidential candidate, that is more than perception. What gave?

Mr. President, it all started on your first day on the job. Perhaps, with a genuine intention to flaunt your new democratic credentials, you inadvertently sent the wrong message to your party and the National Assembly by claiming that you belonged to everyone and to no one. The old foxes took their cue and the consequence was the anarchy that descended on the party and the institutions it had just taken over. Thus, Senator Saraki aligned with PDP to capture Senate leadership and ensure that he belongs to both parties, hedging his bet on the future. With the failure of devolution legislation in the National Assembly, we have seen the strategy play out the way it was designed to.

I am not sure if any lessons were learnt. But those leaders who struggled with you through the merger talks and who had good ideas of what a progressive party must be and do for the people cannot but marvel in disappointment. What is their incentive now to go all in with you again?

The crisis that now threatens your victory and the party next year could have been managed well if you have been in charge from the beginning. You may have wanted to avoid the accusation of high-handedness and micromanaging that bedeviled former President Obasanjo. But on this issue, he knew better that the political crab must not sleep with its eyes closed if it would effectively protect its head. It was almost too late before you realized the danger of staying aloof. Your democratic credential surely overwhelmingly surpasses Obasanjo’s. Still, an Aristotelian mean would have served you best.

For your detractors, the most unforgivable infraction was your response to the herdsmen killings across the Middle Belt and some southern states. Admittedly, the atrocities predated your inauguration and there may be some political intrigue going on. But it shouldn’t take days without a word from the father of the nation when the victims needed assurance that their government was with them in their distress; and not visiting Benue for days after the tragedy was a mistake. And apparently suggesting a moral equivalence between resident farmers and herdsmen on a mission to appropriate land and kill for their cattle was quite unfortunate. In a universe of values, where integrity and dignity count for something, you and Atiku don’t occupy the same plain. It is therefore a sad turn of events that even some of your 2015 supporters are now lining up behind him.

What can you now do? Charity begins at home as the old proverb suggests. APC’s home is presently in disarray notwithstanding Comrade Chairman’s upbeat assessment. You are the leader of the party and you must act as such. The primaries have damaged the cord of unity and you alone can fix it. Delegating that responsibility to the chairman will not bring desired results. Sadly, it is beyond him now.

With a united front restored to the party, you need to hold up your achievements for the world to see. You cannot afford to outsource this responsibility to surrogates. They can complement your efforts; but if you canvass for the vote of the electorates, they deserve to hear from the horse’s mouth. And it is certainly not inappropriate to express apology for misperceptions which may have been caused by your action or lack thereof.

Finally, there is the perception of sectionalism which has followed you even before your tenure. Fairly or unfairly, many Nigerians think that you are committed to an Islamization agenda. There is probably nothing to it and your VP has done a great job defending you. But again, you need to address the accusation of lopsided appointment, favoritism and sectarianism.

There is no better illustration of how people came by this perception as the ongoing drama at the NHIS. Twice the Executive Secretary was suspended by the Minister of Health and the Board respectively. And twice, he was green-lighted to return by the presidency. You probably know better the challenge at NHIS and why you overruled the Minister in 2017 and the Board in 2018. I have seen Twitter threads alleging the excesses of the Board and HMOs. But you cannot expect the public to know what you know unless they are informed. If it is beneath your office as president, can the SGF or other highly placed official debrief the public?

Mr. President, I do not know if you can buy back the confidence and goodwill of many of your 2015 supporters across the zones. But there is a first step you need to take: level up with them; explain why their negative perceptions are wrong; and promise a more robust engagement with them to avoid future misunderstanding.

 

God bless Nigeria.

As I started writing this piece on Wednesday, the world was commemorating the annual Global Ethics Day, in celebration of the ethical ties that bind our world and are looked upon to sustain it for more millennia to come. The foremost institutional symbol of this tie is the United Nations Organization, which has rallied the global community and world leaders for the peace and stability of our political, economic, and security systems, with an understanding that the world is so interconnected that what happens to one, no matter how remote, is bound to affect others. Think of the outbreak of HIV/AIDS epidemic and its spread.

That we have not had a World War III despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the menace of rogue states and narcissistic leaders is a not a miracle. It is the result of bilateral and multilateral cooperation on the part of visionary leaders with moral conscience. Despite the abundance of cynics, we can still celebrate value-driven diplomacy by the few that continue to make a difference.

I was in the mood of celebration and writing my piece on global ethics when my phone rang.

“At last, OBJ has been atikulated”, Opalaba announced with the triumphant glee of a mocker.

“Atikulated? What is that?” I innocently asked my friend like an ignorant one pleading for knowledge. But if you expected Opalaba to respond with volunteering information without drama, you have no idea who he truly is.

“Here you go again with your ostrich performance, burying your head in the sand as the world moves past you. You cannot honestly tell me you are not aware of what is going on in your motherland”, my friend retorted. Today, however, I didn’t appreciate the drama.

“Please just go away and leave me alone” I thundered into the handset. “Enough already of your unsolicited calls if all you want is vent your unwelcome insult when all I asked was an innocent question.”

My friend was shocked. I have never reacted this way to any of his frequent taunts. And in retrospect, I know that he likes clowning around. But I had myself been in a state of suppressed anger as my column two weeks ago attested (“Ever felt like giving up?”). The various news since then have only aggravated the situation for me. Opalaba walked right into this. For a whole minute, my friend was silent, and I thought that he had hung up. Then he broke the silence.

“My friend, has it come to this? Is this what our country has made of you? You no longer recognize a simple joke from your childhood friend? God help you and me because it is not getting better,” Opalaba whimpered. And a gripping sense of shame overcame me.

“I am sorry, old chum. But nothing is funny again to me about motherland”, I replied.

“I know what you meant but I do not want to bother myself now about the mindset of former president Obasanjo going back to his vomit. You had him swear that God should not forgive him if he ever got himself to endorse Atiku for president. At that time, we were not told that Atiku had offended him personally. “The impression we were given was that Atiku was unfit because he had an unethical character. Indeed, the source of the popular perception of Atiku as incorrigibly corrupt was his former boss who had to know.

“If the former president had accused Atiku not of moral bankruptcy, but rather of having offended him as a person, it would have been difficult for Obasanjo to make a serious case against an Atiku presidential ambition. But now what is he saying? “Atiku has shown remorse for his action, and therefore I have forgiven him.” But can Obasanjo forgive Atiku on behalf of the nation if Atiku had truly helped himself to the coffers of the nation? If not, then he forgave Atiku for what he may have perceived as the latter’s transgression against him.

“What was that transgression? Could it be Atiku’s principled stand against the third term ambition of the former president? That seems most likely. For, while Obasanjo has, since after the event, denied that he really craved for third term, no rational being believed him. All this means that the grievance of Obasanjo against Atiku has not been about any fundamental affairs of the state; it has not been about substantive national interest; it has been about his personal interest. Yet the man insisted that endorsing Atiku for president would be a sin for which God was not going to forgive him; that is, a sin which deserves God’s punishment. But what has he just done?

“What values are my grandchildren are to take away from the land of my fathers. Do I tell them not to rely on vows and pledges because they are not to be taken seriously when uttered by well-placed adults who also know one or two things about honor?”

Opalaba has been unusually listening patiently to my soliloquy without interrupting. At last, after a deep breath, my friend lazily moaned: “But isn’t that what I mean when I said OBJ has been atikulated? Atiku has infected our Baba with the disease called atikulation. You once wrote about Atiku as an enigma. I still have that column. And in it you suggested that that no one had been able to unravel what makes Atiku tick. He moved from PDP to ACN and back to PDP. He saw no opening there for his presidential ambition. He moved to newly formed APC. Again, he saw no opening there for his ambition. Then he moved again back to PDP.

“No one saw this constant decamping and defecting as a mark of instability or opportunism. And voila, he was welcomed with open hands to a party that he had ditched twice and was handed the presidential ticket, a prized gift that was denied those committed leaders who had remained in PDP since 1999. OBJ appeared to finally come to terms with this; and decided that he had no option especially given the way his CNM and its preferred party, ADC, has fared in this election cycle. For someone who cannot afford to be outside politics despite his false claim of nonpartisan political stand as a statesman, OBJ cannot afford the loneliness that he was going to experience. So, with his endorsement of Atiku, Obasanjo is going back to partisan politics and to PDP.”

“You are probably right, my friend” I interjected. “But there is still a puzzle to be resolved for me. From your submission, Obasanjo needs Atiku for his own rehabilitation. So, what is the objirisation of Atiku about? Just last month in Lafia, Nassarawa, Atiku was so dismissive of his former boss when he declared that if Obasanjo had problem with him, that was his problem. I thought then that he was declaring, again, the principled position for which he had been known in his relationship with Obasanjo.

“Now Atiku is singing a different tune. He not only accepted the endorsement of his former boss, he also pledged, strikingly, that if he was elected president, he was going to continue where Obasanjo left. Really? Atiku promised restructuring. Obasanjo was and still is a foe of restructuring. What do we make of this? Is Atiku on the same page with advocates of restructuring who are now lined up behind him?

“There is a clue in the report of the same Lafia address where Atiku appeared to unveil some aspect of his idea of restructuring: “I will restructure the country by empowering the youth, eradicate hunger and poverty, as well as fight insecurity.” While these are important tasks of a president, accomplishing them does not amount to restructuring as it is understood by its advocates. Surely, if this is Atiku’s restructuring approach, Obasanjo is all in. But assume that Atiku is in sync with the ethnic-nationalities idea of restructuring, it is impossible for him and Obasanjo to be on the same page. So, either he is deceiving Obasanjo, or he is not leveling up with advocates of restructuring.”

Let us start with an acknowledgement of a shared frustration about the ineffectiveness of our political and economic systems to solve our common problems as fast as we would like. Furthermore, let us concede that we are relatively new to the democratic system of governance, having been bumped out of the system we adopted at independence at various times by our all-knowing military leaders.

Now, however, we can proudly proclaim that from 1999 to date, we have experienced the longest period of democratic governance since 1960. Moreover, now we can happily affirm that we have reached a landmark this year. Having been under democratic dispensation for a total of 29 years since independence, we have made a record of spending half of our existence as a nation in democracy and half under military rule. It means that this time next year, if the trend continues uninterrupted, we would have had more years under democracy than under military. We are making progress!

What we must work on now is the deepening of our democracy by democratizing the candidate selection process; reducing, if not removing completely, the influence of money through vote buying; entrenching intra-party democracy through which rank and file members feel empowered and influential; and strengthening the parties as ideological strongholds for the pursuit of people’s interests from different ideological perspectives. Hopefully, this would obliterate the arbitrariness of our choices at elections.

As we are just bidding farewell to the 2019 election primary season, it is fitting to take up the matter of democratizing candidate selection here today. Indeed, I believe that if parties pay good attention to this important requirement of democratic selection of candidates as a component of democracy, most other factors will fall in place. Democratizing candidate selection will reduce the influence of money including vote buying, and It will empower the rank and file by entrenching intra-party democracy.

What then is involved in the democratization of candidate selection? We may approach this question by examining how candidate selection might be undemocratic. A founder of a party may arrogate to him or herself the power to select its candidate for general election. This is one extreme but there are variations. A local or state executive of a party may assume the responsibility of selecting candidates while the rank and file members are expected to support the leadership choice. Hitherto, our system has been a variant of the latter.

We should, however, avoid the imputation of ulterior or unseemly motives to the position of such leaders. For them, a new democracy is like an infant baby who needs time to grow and mature. In its childhood state, the party needs to be guided and nurtured. Selecting candidates who have been tested and found fit for office by the leader(s) is a reasonable approach that would save the party from regret.  Not only this. Leaders are more likely to be concerned about bringing together the various constituencies of the party and balancing their interests by ensuring that every segment of the electorate feels welcomed and represented in positions. Therefore, leaders are best placed to select candidates based on this important objective. This is a logical approach from the perspective of the party leader(s).

However, for many observers, this justification, logical as it appears, overrates the political wisdom of leaders on the one hand, and their virtuous motivation, on the other hand. Leaders have sometimes misjudged the competence and character of their preferred nominees and electing such nominees may be disastrous for the party and the nation or state. Second, leaders are human beings who have their own self-interests as motive forces. When they select based on such motive forces, their nominees may be good for them but not for the party, state or nation.

These various arguments have played out in our budding democracy since 1999. Party leaders, including incumbent governors and presidents, have played larger than life roles in the selection of party candidates for elections. Pursuant to this practice, there have been agitations against “imposition” and for “internal democracy.” It is probably in response to this agitation and revolt that the new Chairman of All Progressives Congress (APC), Comrade Adams Oshiomhole, himself a former state governor, acted with dispatch when, shortly before the Osun governorship election, on behalf of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the party, he announced that the party’s aspirants for governorship would be elected by the party rank and file in a direct primary. For many neutral observers, it was one of the best decisions to have come from the party.

However, as we also witnessed, some of the APC aspirants in Osun protested vehemently against the NWC decision and some of them walked away from the party, based on this disagreement. Moreover, we also witnessed the rancor that the decision generated among state governors and state party executives. This raises the question: why are candidates, governors, and party executives against direct primaries? It is an important question in view of the advantages that a party stands to gain from having its rank and file elect its candidates for general elections.

In a major study of primary election reform in nearby Ghana, two scholars, Nahomi Ichino and Noah L. Nathan of the University of Michigan came up with stunning conclusions on the outcome of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) primary election reform of 2015, which expanded its primary electorate to include rank and file members. The researchers found that the reforms increased “both the overall number of aspirants seeking legislative nominations and the number of aspirants from groups likely to be underrepresented in local party leadership, including women.”

Moreover, the researchers found that the reforms “decreased the probability that nominees were wealthy individuals with little political experience but with private resources to buy nominations”. This means that it reduced substantially the ugly phenomenon of vote buying. With an increase in primary voting population due to the adoption of direct primary, vote buying becomes less attractive because it is more expensive. How much would a candidate have to share among thousands of voters? Instead, as Ichino and Nathan discovered, candidates resorted to making credible promises about facilitating needed public goods to the local constituencies once they were elected. This is a more decent exchange and a more promising benefit to the communities.

In his insistence on direct primary, Comrade Oshiomhole is probably motivated by the expected benefits of full democratization to the party and the nation. Yet, even he cannot foresee the complexities of a drastic change in the modus operandi of a major party.

Can a candidate who has fallen out with his governor expect a fair shake in a direct primary when his governor also controls the party structure? If the voters are truly free from the powerful hold of party leaders, a candidate may bypass the latter and go directly to the electorate. This is a significant “if” which is out of sync with our contemporary experience.

What if the candidate appears to have remained in the party because the national leadership urged him to? But if that governor is overruled and the aspirant is given the green light by the national leadership, is that imposition or not? What if another governor seeks to impose a candidate in collusion with a state party leadership. But a protest ensues, and the national leadership orders a direct primary. Is that imposition or not? But what justifies one imposition and condemns another?

How about cases of primary election victories which were short-lived because the mandates to contest were withdrawn? There were also allegations that some candidates bought expensive nomination forms, got vetted and cleared, only to find their names missing from candidate rosters on election day. Yet there were complaints that some primary elections were, for all practical purposes, annulled because, without their knowledge, automatic tickets had been offered to some other candidates.

Presumably, these are exceptional cases that tax the mind and require Solomonic wisdom to untangle. We should therefore not be discouraged provided the mindset for reform is solidly in place. Even with small baby steps, desired change is sure to come if we keep moving forward.

The question in my title is deliberately vague and clarification is warranted, lest it gets interpreted the way it’s not intended. Obviously, one can give up on many things: personal ambition, education, seeking employment, travel, health, and in the extreme, life itself. While I am cognisant of the possibility of someone somewhere contemplating giving up on any of these, none of them is the focus of my question. But I leave it as vague to make an important point.

The point is this. While there may be occasions when everything appears fussy and cloudy to the point of contemplating giving up on one’s dreams, or education, or health, or opportunities for employment, one must remember the eternal truth in the advice of the sage and summon the courage to carry on. After all, it is not life itself that matters, but the courage we summon to plow through the fog that sometimes obscures its light.

I do not make light of occasions and situations which tax the intellect and burden the soul. Why is this happening to me? Far too many, including yours truly, have asked this question many times over the course of a lifetime. It is a humanity defining question. It reminds us that we are created a little less than the Angels. But hey, we are also created a heck of a lot higher than the beasts of the forest.

Our rational faculty, the differentiating factor between us and jungle animals, is meant to help us through the darkest alleys of life. With it, we create families and communities with their capabilities for sustaining members in high tides and low currents. Thankfully, this is one indigenous cultural ethos that we could still hold on to even though it’s also going through a lot of stress, considering the unimaginable phenomenon of human baby sales.

So, despite the negativities that life sometimes offers, there is no good reason to give up on life or on our dreams. For there’s always a silver lining. As the song writer puts it:

 

When upon life’s billows you are tempest-tossed

When you are discouraged, thinking all is lost,

Count your many blessings; name them one by one,

And it will surprise you what the Lord has done.

 

Now, however, there is an area of our contemporary life that has always tended to befuddle and depress and confound. And to avoid such a negative effect on the mind and preserve one’s sanity, it may be suggested that it is rational to give up on that area. But what if the area concerned has such an enormous influence on life itself. What if giving up on it means compounding the befuddlement and the depression? What if giving up on it means that other less caring and more reckless and more vicious are left in charge?

This has been the dilemma of politics as an institution for many a rational being since the beginning of the modern era. Whether any individual cares for it or not, politics has the most profound influence on the life of any community, including those who decide to shun it. On the other hand, it is the most depressing activity to get involved in. Yet, as Plato rightly observed, the penalty for refusing to participate in politics is that one ends up being governed by wicked or inferior people.

So, what do you do? What options do you have? Give up because it is depressing? Or participate because your life may be upended by wicked or inferior governance? This may appear to the committed as a false choice. People don’t give up on politics completely and there are different levels of participation. Yet still, many don’t participate at any level, including the most basic level of just going to the polls, not because they find politics depressing, but simply because they are not bothered, or they face more pressing matters of daily living.

For those who care but are bothered by its depressing nature and the noise and the hustling by political jobbers, is it rational to just give up?

I ask because more than a few times, I have been in the state of mind of giving up. You probably were too at some point. When you get to that point that you feel it’s all a waste of time, having invested your time and mental resources including your meager material resources, and having put your all in a political cause and a movement, but no visible progress because no meeting of minds, what do you do?

I was a youth vanguard in the old Action Group with family scars to show for it. I was an active participant in the politics of UPN. Like many pro-democrats, I was involved in the struggle against the military. I never intended to serve in any capacity. Just to ensure that progressive civilians get to determine the course of my nation. But each time progressives appeared to take over in my neck of wood, something terrible happened. They had the right policy agenda for the good of the masses. But somehow, they got outwitted and out-manoeuvred especially by the retrogressive forces at the centre. Yet, we kept hope alive, hoping to capture the centre someday. You can then imagine my relief when progressives captured the centre in 2015. You ask: “did they really?” And now, I wonder myself.

Some clearly joined for self-serving reasons. Some came from a background of deep and unchangeable conservatism. Yet others got planted by the opposition for obvious reasons. And now with desertion and decamping in real time, it remains unclear what 2019 has in store for the nation. Might the era of the locust be back so soon?

Recently, I bared my mind to two individuals that I respect. One, an elder who has been in this game for far too long and is still there experiencing more than his fair share of heartache. Two, an intellectual friend that I respect for his sagacious understanding of the issues and a rational approach to our national malaise. I was giving up on anything that could cause me mental harm, including political activism. Enough of heart wrenching political news. No more Social Media forums, I protested. As the elders suggest, what doesn’t make you deaf ends up making you sad. I can live the remainder of my time on planet earth lying low and enjoying life with my grandchildren.

The elder responded that he read my message with understanding. But he gently disagreed with my conclusion by simply disabusing my mind. He had seen it all, he explained. But more to my situation, he sympathized with not being on the ground which made it more difficult for me to come to terms with the political noise deafening my ear drums. But, according to him, it wasn’t that bad, and I should not allow what I was hearing and reading to give me anxieties. He was sure that they were certainly capable of achieving our common objective no matter how long it took.

On his part, my good friend strongly objected to my rationalisation of apathy. “You have always theorised about the ultimate meaning of life”, he reminded me. What is the meaning of life if it is not to persist, despite setbacks, in the promotion of the good? And what arena is best suited for promoting the good than the political arena? To persist in promoting the good is to make sure that even when there are stumbling blocks that you are almost sure are immovable in your path, you toil on in the hope that those coming after you and following your example of perseverance, will one day surmount the obstacle and achieve your common objective.

It was certainly good sharing my concerns with others who share my view of politics and the good it promises if done right. And based on their encouragement, I can continue in the path of progressive activism; while urging everyone that has ever felt like giving up, to hold on firmly because if we don’t give up, we will achieve victory in the end.