GREED AS CREED
By Ahmad Sajoh
One of the biggest fallacies I hear everyday is that we copied our Presidential system of government from the United States of America. In 1998 I was part of a delegation that went on a study tour of the USA before the return of democracy in Nigeria. We visited 15 states and interfaced with state executives, state legislatures, city Halls and Universities. In the process I was privileged to receive a Certificate of Recognition from Kansas University Topeka the capital city of Kansas state, and an Honorary citizenship of Kansas City the capital of the state of Missouri. I had a deep grasp of the presidential system as practiced in the USA.
If that is where we claim to have copied our system then we really did a very bad job of such copying. My recollection of that visit was that the American system is built on the fine values of service and sacrifice. Even if it is not as perfect as expected in the USA, it is still far better than what we have here in Nigeria. Where they emphasize service by leaders, we emphasize entitlement due to the leaders. Where they promote sacrifice by their leaders we promote indulgence by our leaders. Where they insist that every American life matters, we see our population as mere statistics. The whole concept of “swing states” in the American electoral system speaks to the fact that even the American citizens are committed to political points of view. Democrats are Democrats while Republicans are Republicans. Gerri meandering between parties is very minimal. But here politicians change parties like changing your dress in the morning.
But it is in the protection of the guardrails of democracy that I see our major differences. Like the criminal vandals and scavengers who remove guardrails from our bridges, the political class have removed most of the guardrails of our democracy. Thus, our democracy is on a free fall into the river of valueless ness because of the removal of all guardrails. Otherwise why will politicians abandon the platforms that elected them to office at the slightest excuse in order to join the party in power? Why do they feel so insecure once outside the corridors of power? Is politics just about being in power or getting the spoils of office? Obviously not. It is for the purposes of getting citizens to participate within realms of reason that there are guardrails to protect the vehicle of democracy from falling down into the river of valueless ness. But are these guardrails protected by our politicians?
One of the most important guardrails of any multiparty democracy is the Political party. Political parties are supposed to drive the “Choice Process” ensuring that candidates and other political actors present choices before the electorates. However, in all honesty, do our parties help in determining choices? What is the difference that our political parties present before the electorates? And if they do present anything different, does it manifest after winning the elections?Definitely not. What matters after elections is the disposition of the winner not any party manifesto or blueprint. We have political parties without ideology or purpose. Their operations are like revolving doors of the same building. You can enter and exit from each of the doors because all of them lead to the same location. And because all the doors lead to the same building politicians have found it very convenient to walk in and out of any of the parties at will without qualms. In fact the nearest our parties can be described in practical terms is to say they are special purpose vehicles for winning elections. As special purpose vehicles the political parties have rendered our democracy a “Motor Park”. When you go to a motor park and the vehicle you want to enter is full, you simply move to the next vehicle. That is how our democracy is practiced. So, when a person loses nomination in one party, that person simply walks to the next door to enter the next party. That is really bad for democracy.
Despite the scenario painted above, what happened recently in my state of Adamawa went beyond the usual infantile nature of our politics. To witness leaders of opposition parties “dance naked” in the market place in respect of favours received or not received from the ruling PDP Governor of the state is the height of political opportunism. Granted that opposition is not enmity, but opposition is also not an extension of the ruling party. Opposition parties are instruments of oversight of the government formed by the governing party. They are also agents of the protection of the rights of the citizens who voted against the ruling party and even those who are non-partisan. How could anyone who genuflects before a system in order to benefit from that system oversight it when it is wrong? How can a compromised opposition that supposedly collect largesse from the ruling party leadership defend the rights of their members who are maltreated by a dictatorial leader on account of their choice of the opposition during elections? Many people detest the silence of the opposition in the face of many leaders who have turned despotic and are being selective in service delivery. Many of our leaders have this tendency of not growing beyond politics in their governance template. Where leaders insist that areas they did not win elections should not be favored, who protects these people? Were they wrong to have voted for the opposition parties in a democratic system that guarantees freedom of choice? One of the oversight functions of the opposition is to ensure that citizens are not punished for their preferences at elections. But where will the citizens go for protection if the opposition leaders collect favors from the ruling party candidate who won the election? If this trend continues will voters trust the opposition parties in subsequent elections? At this rate, will the opposition political parties have any meaning to the electorates at all?
This brings me to the recent boycott of the Local Government Election by my party the APC in Adamawa state. With due respect to the leadership who have more information than I do, I still believe the boycott was ill-advised. As a stakeholder if I were consulted I would have advised against a boycott. We should have eased the process for the participation of our party members by charging just stipends even if in our opinion it were to be a sham election. The reason for my position is that participation would have given us a platform to advertise our people to their electorates at the grassroots. Their candidature would have provided them opportunities for visibility against a time when free and fair elections will hold. Our people would have also raised Germaine issues that directly affected the electorates during the campaigns. At least some hard truths will have been put in the public space. Additionally, we would have had reasons to have first hand records of the anomalies in the electoral process even if it is for academic purposes. We could also test the process at the Tribunal. But beyond all of that, if we had participated we would have given our party visibility which is very necessary in order to debunk the notion that our party has been killed in the state. Again like I said the leadership knew best why they took the position they took.
Sometimes I wonder about a very interesting natural phenomenon in our lives. When the stomach is empty alarm bells sound within the system and one knows definitely that the stomach is empty. But when the head is empty nothing really happens to show that it is empty. Perhaps that is why some people think with their stomachs rather than with their heads. And for these people it is not difficult for greed to be the creed. Allah tsare mu da wannan yanayi.
As always I come in peace
