THE FUNCTION OF THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION IN NIGERIA
President Goodluck Jonathan was reported, yesterday, to have gloated that no other party in Nigeria can dislodge the PDP. According to him, the PDP constitutes a better platform than any other party:
"I'm yet to see those who can beat PDP. They will continue to make the noise but they cannot beat us, because the gap between PDP and others is astronomical.
The way we do things and the way they do things is very different; the way we talk and the way they talk is very different; the way we reason and the way they reason is very different. Our commitment to transform this country and their thinking about Nigeria is very different."
The temptation is to ask a superficial question as to what manner of platform the PDP gives its members. Your guess is as good as mine! But that isn't the critical issue here. What is, is the notion of difference alluded to in the quote. What President Jonathan seems to be saying is simple: We are here and the opposition is there. And it would seem, within his rhetorical logic, that being here is much better than being there. Being 'here' affords the advantage of political power; being 'there' only allows for impotent fuss. Being 'here' on this side of power affects everything about those who are lucky to be on the platform the PDP provides.
All these culminate in the final statement: "Our commitment to transform this country and their thinking about Nigeria is different." Is there an attempt to differentiate 'commitment' from mere 'thinking' in this statement? Where commitment embodies loyalty and responsibility (an attempt at restructuring Nigeria--from the Latin committere), thinking would seem to connote some kind of armchair rumination devoid of practical experience and active confrontation.
Now, you really shouldn't laugh; I know I must be ascribing too much to the President!
Philosophical depth or not, I think the president is, in a sense, essentially correct, especially with the reference to the gap between 'here' and 'there'. This is in the sense that being 'here' within the context of political power provides the opportunity for a firsthand understanding and appreciation of the complexity of governance. This provides a critical framework for hypothesising that only those who have tasted political power can appreciate its manifold possibilities and dangers. Being in power gives a huge insight into the problems, the exhausted solutions and the untried possibilities. Usually therefore, those who are eager to cross from 'there' to 'here' would flounder and possibly fail when confronted with what they didn't bargain for.
We can ask Mr. Fayemi of Ekiti State.
Yet, PDP has been there for how many years now, and being 'here' hasn't made any significant difference to the lives of over 170 millions Nigerians. So, Mr. President is equally fundamentally wrong. In the case of PDP, being in power for this long hasn't shown any political responsibility and responsiveness to the anomic situation in Nigeria. But this isn't news to anyone any longer. We are all agreed the president is--of course, you guessed right--clueless with regard to Nigeria.
What is news, what essentially removes the boundary between 'here' and 'there', between those in power and those outside of it, is the unifying cloak of political listlessness that characterise the political class in our dear Fatherland. The tragedy isn't that those in power under the PDP umbrella are a rapacious lot. No. The tragedy is that there isn't an alternative class with an alternative political agenda to look up to. Thereis no political counterpoint which, for me, translates into no political hope. Is this cynicism? I don't know.
Prof. Ayo Olukotun's recent article titled "Nigeria versus Nigeria" addresses this issue of 'Nigeria bashing' and widespread pessimism and cynicism about the political class. He remarked:
"I am astonished each time I go to an academic seminar to find the amount of cynicism and despair concerning Nigerian political life. Part of this mindset is expressive of healthy self-criticism which is vital to the sustenance of democracy. Where it becomes disturbing, however, is when it comes close to saying that Nigerians or its political class are an especially bad congregation set apart from the rest of mankind. In other words, a theory of Nigerian exceptionalism is advanced with the predictable conclusion that there is no hope for the country or that only a radical authoritarian solution can address the accumulating mess."
The professor then went on to adopt a comparative methodology of excusing these anomalies because they are to be found elsewhere. That is surprising to me. It is like a thief retorting, after being caught, that he isn't doing anything new since there are thieves everywhere too! Does that point assuage my pain at being robbed? Hell no! The essential point is that I have been robbed. There isn't any exceptionalism in that.
After comparing Nigeria with india and the United States in terms of insurgency and corruption, Professor Olukotun concluded:
"The point being made here is that the Nigeria malaise is not exceptional in a global context. What is perturbing is the lack of a national consensus led by a visionary leadership on the need to confront our dysfunctions. The fact that we contained the Ebola scourge wining global applause in the process suggests that we have untapped reservoirs of mastery and rejuvenation."
I think the professor glossed over the point italicised by me. That point was lost in the heat of comparison and Naija-optimism. If the current political leadership manning the rudder of power is clueless about what direction the Nigerian state ought to go, where do we look for direction?
Simple: the political opposition. And the function of the opposition is simply to chart an alternative political agenda around which the progress of the state can be (re)calibrated. In our own case, the term 'alternative' is the wrong choice of word. We can't talk of an alternative where an agenda is missing ab initio.
Shapiro once remarked that "the process of government must be studied not only in the light of whst those with power under their control try to do and actually achieve; but also with regard to those who oppose those aims, or whose interests and resistance have to be conciliated before those in power can act." Opposition in this sense is to be distinguished from political competition--the attempt to merely replace the ruling party in power while all the rots and wahala bedevilling the state remain intact. Such a politically competitive party does not need a serious political manifesto to win election; it only needs charisma and bravado with lots of drumming and lots of free cash flying around on the campaign trail! Real opposition isn't that base...it speaks to the genuine needs and aspirations of the people that are absent in the current political dispensation. It frames a genuine alternative with facts and figures; it unfolds a political blueprint in the short-, mid- and long-term. And need we emohasise that those behind the articulation of the agenda need not be saints. We can even allow them to satisfy, within limit, their greed as long as Nigeria remains on track.
APC had an initial rush of affection from Nigerians. And then it stepped into a messianic framework within which all of Nigeria's troubles will dissappear once power changed hands. It also makes all the required noises with logical and illogical accents. But APC's political noise hasn't been stabilised by a political blueprint of how to genuinely displace the PDP.
Shouldn't we lament this 'Opposition'? President Jonathan says all they have is mere noise. He is right. At least his own administration is muddling through. What will APC do better in the unlikely event of dislodging the PDP? How do we trust a political party without a political programme? Since the APC is faiking already without even stwpping into power yet, where else do we look to for political salvation?
Labour? Intellectuals? Abeg!
Adeshina Afolayan
Sent from Samsung Mobile
No comments:
Post a Comment