17 Aug 2007 |
|
| There is an interesting reader response question on the BBC website about African opposition parties and leaders, the article is asking readers to comment if they feel opposition parties in Africa are non-existent because the norm seems they band together during an election and after the election they just dissolve and re-surge again during elections basically serving as parties for the purpose of elections, readers responses have been interesting and this is the driver behind this article. The 2007 elections are over and done with though we still await tribunal verdicts on irregularities during the elections. During the elections we watched as candidates that Nigerians felt would be better suited put themselves forth and actually expected to win without any concrete political structure whatsoever. It was very tempting to burst the bubble of support that those candidates enjoyed by telling their supporters that it was impossible for their candidates to win but I decided a retrospective analysis after the elections would be less confrontational. These “ideal” candidates contested at all levels and an obvious example would be Pat Utomi, he shall be used as an example of an obviously better candidate without a political base. Pat Utomi’s entrance into the presidential race was greeted with a lot of euphoria by those deemed to be progressive and the not so progressive. Utomi possess very impressive credentials and has enjoyed a track record of being an articulate advocate of very brilliant positions in the circles where he is known. Utomi entering the race certainly added a positive twist to the elections (as was the entrance of the likes of Jimmy Agbaje in gubernatorial elections) and yes the person of Pat Utomi was great but the politics of Utomi still underlined a basic Nigerian flaw- an inability to plan ahead and execute. It was quite disturbing to believe that someone as brilliant as Pat Utomi could actually believe he could win the Presidency of Nigeria right about the time he entered the presidential race. Begging for an answer was if Pat Utomi was just in the race to raise the stakes but knew he could not win, but why go through all the effort and expend so much resources and time if you believe your chances were nil? It has been hard to resolve what exactly Pat Utomi and his strategists were actually thinking or with all their imputed brilliance if they were just naïve of commonsense principles. If I ask any Utomi supporter right now to tell me the platform on which Pat Utomi ran for the elections a good proportion would be mute (actually as I write I would need to check that up myself). The question begs where was Pat Utomi before the 2007 elections in the National discourse? On “Patito’s gang” and on some newspaper pages commenting mostly on how Obasanjo would never take expert advice because Obasanjo believes he knows all? Who were the associates of Pat Utomi prior to running for the presidency, people who shared common ideals as Utomi and were channeling such ideas towards achieving social transformation? Would it be fair to conclude that Pat Utomi was just a brilliant guy we see on TV, did not know he had a party or ideological platform or had any ambition to be president and like a meteorite about a year or so to the elections he declares to vie for the presidency? What Pat Utomi represented to those who supported him was someone with fresh ideas and efficient methods to achieve them but underneath all the mist was the same emptiness we see in the stock of present politicians. A central problem to Nigerian progress is our “fire brigade approach” to about everything; we lack the discipline to plan towards achieving an ideal especially in politics. By every measure the time frame that Utomi joined the race or declared his ambition seemed clearly as an afterthought in the light of our rustic political terrain and our chaotic system. It was expected that Utomi (since he was not going to vie on an existing party platform) would have declared his ambition at least three to four years before a general election, stating clearly his ideals and attracting people of like mind. His true test of leadership would have been expanding his ideals, winning converts and sustaining the momentum till a general election, this would have proven valuable especially for a man that has never occupied an elective position. At this junction most people would claim I am being naïve that am I not aware the money wins elections which Pat Utomi does not have like the PDP. I state emphatically that money is most vital to win elections for those that are least prepared than the prepared. Elections are not won by money alone the same way business is not built by great capital, if not it would have been impossible for Henry Ford to walk eight miles to Detroit penniless to look for a job and end up building the largest automobile company in his days, planning, clear direction and knowledge trounces money at every post. Politically this has been exemplified in the victory of Lula and his party in Brazil and some East African countries where parties were built and geared from the bottom up and went over to win general elections in hostile environments. Elections are paid for by the electorate that believe in the ideals you stand for, modern elections are showing that contributions sourced from the grassroot is vastly surpassing corporate donations in oiling election campaigns. Assuming Pat Utomi had in 2000 right after the first general elections went ahead and forged a party based on the ideals he propagates and went around selling his vision and was patiently and constructively building a strong foundation or platform by 2007 such party would have been formidable enough to have made a major impact in a general election. It would have been able to generate party faithfuls and supporters outside the party, along with corporate admirers that would serve as financial backbone, but to have declared about two years before a general election with a non-existent party and expect to win was anything short of magic and typical of the lack of respect for hard work common to our present political class. If the “ideal” candidates like Utomi cannot show the discipline and foresight needed to build structures that would enrich our political culture and institutions rather preferring to waste resources in elective post “capturing” then they deserve not to be in leadership no matter their personal brilliance. It is this lack of discipline to planning and execution that further keeps us in perpetual bondage to our present mediocre leadership and chaotic democracy. If these “ideal” candidates built strong parties with strong foundations and platforms, the civil populace would have been better mobilized to protest the egregious elections and we would have had a viable opposition to constructively scrutinize government policies. But when elections are turned to pure contests for public positions we arrive at where we presently are with mediocre leaders and emasculating dictators in a democratic setting, making a mockery of democracy and eroding hope for social transformation. Change does not come easy, it requires leadership of not only a new way of talking but of thinking and acting, change of the nature which Nigeria needs must be deliberate. For example, if Utomi had won how would he have pushed his ideals without assembly members from his party and in lower houses or states? Would we have ended up with a weakened president held hostage by his party’s impotence? Utomi clearly put the cart before the horse; he clearly went about the presidency without the hardwork expected of different and visionary leadership, emotions and rhetoric should never win an election we should see the present decay defeated by disciplined thinking and not luck. Even in the light of the flaws of the elections and its results Utomi and other “ideal” candidates did not escape with their integrity intact rather they exposed their inability to plan and execute effectively, a trait requisite to change present Nigeria. Present day progressives should take a leaf from politicians such as Awolowo and Zik who planned and built political structures that served as ideological vehicles and agents of change, that even long after their departure vestiges of such structure still lay around. The same way we are tired of corrupt, base politicians that rule over us today, we are in the same vein weary of those who promise change but cannot deliver due to their inability to dedicate to principles required for change but would rather whine about the decay in the system. The decay in the system is what warrants change, and the process and actualization of change is usually deliberate and not accidental especially to acheive social transformation, the leadership that would lead us to change must show itself different and act different, if not they continue to hinder our hope of change. About 100 days into the Yar Adua administration we see no visible contenders for 2011, we see no one constructively engaging government policies and demanding accountability, we see no one propagating any new ideals or vision, come 2010 leaders of all shades would come singing “vote me for president”, “vote me for this and that” “I am better qualified” … would the real leaders please stand up!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.