The shocking news hit me like a thunderbolt. Just like many Nigerians who had kept vigil to monitor the results of the governorship election in Ekiti State that pitted the incumbent governor, Kayode Fayemi, against his main challenger, Ayodele Fayose, I had been in no doubt about the outcome of the election.
I first learnt of the results as they trickled in from a media friend who was in Ekiti to monitor the election. As they flowed in, it had become apparent that the enfant terrible of Ekiti politics was coasting home to victory. In the early hours of Sunday, I watched with bated breath as the Returning Officer announced a result that declared Fayose the winner. To say I was dumbfounded will be an understatement.
I am still in shock as to why an incumbent widely regarded as the ‘’poster boy’’ of Nigeria’s intellectual powerhouse could have lost so scandalously. I mean, Fayemi did not win a single local government area in the state-not even his own. It was that bad. Honestly, I must admit that I am still dazed. I was surprised not because I belong to nor have sympathy for any of the political parties.
I had admired how Fayemi’s intellectual background has enriched political discourse both in our country and Ekiti in particular. I must admit that I also have a love-hate admiration for the doggedness of Fayose as the stormy petrel of Ekiti politics. Now, let’s put partisanship aside, we all admire the style and democratic credentials of Fayemi which he has proved when he conceded defeat to Fayose – a rare feat in this clime.
I am in doubt that if we sample opinions today from the leading parties, many of them will yearn to have a leader like him in their fold. In the last four years, I had completely fallen for Fayemi’s political style. His personal life is also worthy of emulation. His cerebral interviews are a delight to watch. He is an intellectual in the real sense of it. One cannot but not admire his antecedents in public life. Here was a man who played a pivotal and even dangerous role in ending military rule in the country.
At the Ake Literary Festival in Abeokuta late 2013, I sat in the audience as I listened to the governor who spoke on the title of, “The Space Between: After the Struggle; Before Democracy”. His exploration of the intersection between our current democratic experience and the interregnum before the May 1999 handover was thought-provoking. He offered insights into what transpired when the military transferred power to the civilians 15 years ago.
As I listened to him, I was in no doubt that in a political landscape dominated by politicians with the wrong notion of the role of politics in governance, Fayemi represented the freshness we had long hoped for – or so it seemed. I was also proud as I browsed through his curriculum vitae, that Ekiti, reportedly known to have produced one professor per household deserves nothing less than a governor like Fayemi. But have I been proved wrong? Less than a year after my encounter with the governor, he was rejected at the polls on Saturday by his people who had now pitted tent with another son of theirs, who many say is the very antithesis of what Fayemi stands for.
What went wrong? In the days since the election, political discourse has centered on why Fayemi lost so shockingly. On social media, on the streets, and at homes, the debate has been about Ekiti. How on earth could Fayemi have lost? How could the “bad boy’’ Fayose have won? How could Ekiti have rejected their son so brazenly? Of all the reasons advanced for the Ekiti shocker, the one that had resonated with me is the portrayal of Fayemi as an “out-of-touch” elite and the tagging of Fayose the “champion of the poor”.
When I say “out of touch”, it is not that the governor is an outsider; rather, he is definitely a bonafide son of the soil Ekiti should be proud of. Being out-of-touch in the Nigerian political lexicon, however, defines the politician who is not grounded in grass roots politicking characterised by dispensing government largesse in cash and kind (raw or cooked food items) directly to the people who, out of poverty, only understand the language of instant gratification. Rather than building enduring infrastructure, politicians of this school of thought believe their electability or popularity among will be enhanced by the amount of patronage they can dispense. In doing this, they create a cult-like figure in the eyes of the critical mass of the working poor. In a country where poverty stalks the citizens like a shadow, this has proved very effective. Over the years, this style of politics is known as amala politics used by the late strong man of Ibadan politics, Lamidi Adedibu.
Since he broke into Ekiti political life as a first-time governor, Fayose deployed this strategy effectively. In the last election, Fayose proved to be a good disciple of this school of thought. For more than four decades, Adedibu used the “politics of the belly” to dictate the political outcomes in the state. Politicians deferred to him. He seized the political space with a rather incomprehensible tact that left even the intelligentsia spellbound. For the period he reigned, amala politics became a familiar lexicon in the state’s body politics and the nation at large. Even presidents paid homage. A semi-literate Adedibu understood the prevailing economic situation of the state when he took charge of the political turf. He knew that by addressing the scourge of poverty, he would have enhanced his political status.
He discovered, perhaps, in his unscientific yet undisputable research that food, for an average indigene of the state, was uppermost. And that for as long as he could feed them amala for at least, three times a day, that aspect of poverty would have been taken care of. For merely buying into this initiative as a realist that he was, Adedibu firmly held sway for several decades. His following was incredible and cut across different strata of the society – from the educated to the motorpark touts. His wish was the command of the lot as Ibadan, where he was resident, was and still in the majority of what transpires whenever the game of number is put to play.
Although his sometimes approach to politics was excusable, given his level of education, he however beat the educated to the game by devising a strategy that seemed to have eluded them and held onto what they thought was naturally theirs. In recent years, poverty has deepened in Nigeria. According to the World Bank, over 100 million Nigerians are poverty-stricken. A majority are also said to be living on one dollar per day. These Nigerians are vulnerable to base inducement by politicians. It is a sad commentary of our democracy that has failed to lift Nigerians out of poverty. Rather than create sustainable wealth, our predatory leaders seek to exploit the misery of Nigerians to perpetuate themselves in power. In Ekiti, we now seem to be back to the era of “amala politics”, so much so for moving our democracy forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment