It is impossible to escape a superlative adjective for the emphatic success of Mr. Ayo Fayose of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the Ekiti State governorship poll of June 21. By his spectacular emergence, the governor-elect has apparently demonstrated the actuality of his self-definition. Days to the historic election, he said in an interview, “You cannot take away the fact that I am a recurring decimal in the political equation of Ekiti State. You can’t take that away from me. You cannot equally deny that I am a grassroots person.”
His unqualified dominance, reflected in the accurate description of his victory as a landslide, has understandably continued to generate shock waves, especially in unbelieving quarters. Particularly remarkable is the fact that four days after Govenor Kayode Fayemi of the All Progressives Congress (APC) conceded defeat in a rare show of sportsmanship, and following a transition-related meeting between the two men, the incumbent’s party indicated its intention to legally protest against the loss. Strikingly, domestic observers and foreign monitors endorsed the election, employing terms that left little or no room for antagonism, such as “free”, “fair”, “transparent”, “peaceful” and “credible.” However, from the APC’s point of view, expressed by its National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed, “Election is a process, and whatever happens on the voting day is only an integral part of that process. What happens before, during and after the voting day complete the process.”
There is no doubt that by the APC’s move, which is an obvious afterthought, Fayemi’s celebrated submission has been vitiated. The regrettable picture of contradiction was avoidable. It is ridiculous, and reflects a laughable management structure, that the party and its candidate expressed inconsistent views. Did the candidate make his surrender broadcast without input from the party leadership? It is pertinent to note that Fayemi said, “I have just spoken with my brother, Mr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, congratulating him on his victory.”
Reinforcing the confusion, Fayose who initially commended Fayemi’s acceptance of defeat in flattering terms, has uncharitably labelled it as a publicity stunt, alleging that the governor is strangely not picking phone calls from him. According to him in an interview, “The governor said I am conceding defeat. Let me be realistic with you, there is a difference between propaganda and reality. I have been calling the governor since after our meeting, but he hasn’t picked the call.” Should this development be seen in the context of the APC’s opposition and interpreted to mean that Fayemi may be reviewing his capitulation?
Indeed, there are understandable reasons for Fayemi not only to rethink the election, but perhaps more importantly, to also replay his tenure and its implications for the people of the state. Before the crushing electoral defeat, public perception of his administration, largely informed by media presentation, gave him good marks for good governance. Against the background of his unexpected loss, it is apt to wonder whether the media was faithful to its role in re-presenting reality. Or possibly, the people wanted, from their own perspective, something better than “good”.
Evidently, this poll was an enlightening lesson on the fundamental distinction between appearance and realty. An apparently puzzled Fayemi correctly noted that his understanding of the people’s expectations may have been flawed. He said philosophically in his broadcast, “Indeed, a new sociology of the Ekiti people may have evolved. However, the task of understanding how the outcome of this election has defined us as a people will be that of scholars.” It is said that profound illumination is often accompanied by profound blindness. Perhaps he was blind to the other side of the coin. In other words, it could be argued that the outcome of the election also defined Fayemi and his administration.
It is worth mentioning that about one month to the election the publicised result of a poll released by ANAP Foundation indicated that Fayose, 53, a former governor of the state who held the reins of power from May 2003 to October 2006 when his four-year term was abbreviated by impeachment, had the support of 31 percent of the electorate, while Fayemi was backed by 29 percent, with 37 percent “yet to decide.” The pollster portrayed the election as “a close race”. It is instructive that this particular poll, which expectedly attracted knocks from Fayemi’s camp, truly turned out to be wrong, but not to Fayemi’s advantage; worse still, the race was far from being “close.”
Of course, this explains why quite a few in Fayemi’s circle are still in aftershock. It seems illogical that Fayose who conceded that he had a negative and unattractive track record in office without concrete evidence of reformation would gain acceptance so effortlessly. This is the character who said in a pre-election interview, in words directed at the electorate, “I am assuring them that the Fayose they were afraid of is a better Fayose. He is more mature and more responsive. If you say I’m a bad man, I say I’ve changed. I am appealing to them that I am a changed man.” It is worth considering whether this appeal worked and resulted in the electorate having a change of heart. Did this, among other things, put Fayose in the good books of the Ekiti voting population against Fayemi’s supposedly persuasive governmental performance?
Interestingly, it is a reflection of the stain on Fayose’s image, which he carried into the election, that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) officially contradicted reports that that it would drop the corruption-related charges against him in connection with his previous tenure as governor and abort his ongoing trial at the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti, following his emergence as governor-elect. Is this case likely to be concluded before October when Fayose is expected to take over as Governor of Ekiti State, and therefore enjoy immunity as a sitting governor?
Furthermore, it is curious that his 2006 impeachment, which he insists was politically motivated, was evidentially overlooked by the electorate. Is it possible that if the decision to remove him from office was left to the people rather than their representatives in the House of Assembly, he would not have been dethroned?
Predictably, Fayose’s sucker punch, for that is what his election represents, will generate emotionally charged reactions from his supporters and opponents for quite some time; and it remains to be seen whether he would justify his victory by achieving greater political and governmental success than Fayemi.
