IMO POLITICS: GAME OF NUMBERS, CONSCIENCE AND PERSISTENCE OF INEQUITY? PART 2

Spread the love

By Prof. Protus Nathan Uzorma

A sociological school of thought opined that man is a product and a maker of history; as such, history makes man and while man remains a maker of history. Consequently, every human activity is historic. The present distortion of the equity charter in Imo State in my opinion is a brainchild of history. For instance, as a child, I remember the deriding song, “Obodo niile emepechelaa ofodu Okiwe n’Orlu,… This deriding song is a historic reality that as at the creation of Imo State, provincial towns of Okigwe, Orlu, Ohaozara, Afikpo, etc., were in very deplorable states, Okigwe and Orlu sectors were worse, while Umuahia, Owerri and Aba were blossoming.

Such reality put to song, was never satirical and could thus prod a people to awakening; even to a long-term perspective planning (to use Anthony James Catanese’s words). Similarly, shortly after the war and losses of Imolites’ housing properties especially in Port Harcourt, many displaced victims moved to Towns like Owerri, Aba, Umuahia where accommodations were possible but rendered difficult by the middle-man who became gainfully employed (as agents). Their source of income was the “kola” and those who failed to take advantage of their services and type of agency-arrangement were openly told, to move out of the area if they do not like it.

Chief AJN Nzeribe (in his Emergent States in Nigeria: The Challenges of Development. The Imo Experience: 1976-1986), noted that “the arrogance of a typical home bred Owerri house agent or middle-man while discussing in a beer parlour over the plight of new arrivals in the town could succinctly be summed up in the following words: Onye si naala Owerri ari ya mma, ya kwara lee”.[i]

Comments of these sorts as said earlier, nudge the concerned to alertness; are nonetheless challenges that result to positive outcomes in nearest future. Today, after the massive loss of properties of Ndigbo after the war in places outside their homelands and ethnic lands, every dick and Harry seek to develop their lands and thus seize every opportunity meant for the even-development of the entire state to develop their lands in the name of dividends of democracy.

Since after the 1999 era that marks the end of Junta in Nigeria and in which many civilians thrilled during the Military regime, the inception of democracy has made politics, the shortest means for rapid community development and the amassment of wealth. And since who plays the piper dictates the tone, political office holders are conceived as “Our opportunity to develop our area; the more “we are in-charge”, the more dividends of democracy”. Notwithstanding whether it denies others of what suppose to reach them.

This mentality justifies the constant quest for transfer of higher institutions in Imo and Anambra States by every Governor on seat, to his area, as well as the other valuable structures existing before or supposed to exist in his or her regime. Funnily, could these justify why Okigwe and Orlu Zones who were previously backward in development, have gibbered momentum out of many years of democracy in the State? This mentality may be one out of the many factors that lead to the emergence of godfatherism in the State. Godfatherism (or Babanigbejo as Prof Olufemi Taiwo calls it), is often personified, even though the valence in virtue of which he comes by the influence he has and the power he exercises is not limited to any single factor.

The godfather may personify ethnic privilege in a situation in which membership of a given ethnic or national group bestows unearned or unmerited benefits. Yet, despite the numerous valences involved in his emergence the common denominator is that the Babanigbejo deploys other than rules to secure advantages for his clients (who may be an individual, a group or political unit) as well as for himself. Let us see then how this godfatherism affects the equity charter in a political unit like Imo State.

The former Governor of Enugu State, Dr Chimaroke Nnamani during a public lecture in Babcock University, Ogun State, defined godfatherism as an attempt by the elite to create a godfather zone- a region for select few- to escape the rigours of proper democratic mobilization and mass participation. This definition has some implications. It is in se centred on a democratic polity and reveals an elitist statue (that creates a cabal) and an oligarch, while its modus operandi contains manoeuvring manipulations of democratic charters, processes and de rigueur for true democracy. True democracy according to Loius Nkemdilim, is the people’s government based on fair and equal treatment for everyone and their right to take part in making decision concerning them. This definition of democracy is practically out of the question in Imo State.

Generally, electioneering in Nigeria is capital intensive, and this has led to the emergence of: The godfather phenomenon and political fiancierism or sponsorship, (which practically becomes the proprietorship of the State and the one that blows the piper); of political plinths and cult-personality whereof certain cold wars come, which often end up in schisms and inter-party defections, brutish politicking, electoral violence and political assassinations. Being the sole proprietor or the owner of the Government of the political unit in question (State, Senatorial Zone, Federal Constituency, State Constituency, Local Government Area, Ward, etc), the godfather inter alia rises at will and chooses whoever he or she deems fit for governing the very political unit for his or her proper politico-economic advantage. R.A. Joseph described this process of using government positions to pursue personal or group interests as prebendalism, a political trait that has ruined every facet and unit of the country’s political vitality. This spontaneous and individualistic uprising often does not concur with the general equity-charter or economy of power shifts, as he or she employs every possible measure in order to assure success in his or her venture.

According to John O Odey, the godfather’s activities frustrate every facet of the socio-political and economic growth and stability of the political unit where he has cultivating interests, and because he holds or knows his whereabouts within the key holders of government positions, whatever he does or engages in is covered, accepted and swallowed even when it is very bitter and nauseating. The godfathers and elitists materialism are for him mere activities of sycophants, through whose activities peace and order, stability and equity are muzzled before and during elections in the country. Researchers world over have come to the common opinion that large economic returns are the accoutrement of every political godfather. Thus, Katznelson and Kesselman’s question: Who gives political contributions, has swift responses in the Nigerian political language: The accumulative oligarch, the comprador bourgeoisie, the affluent business men that vest their economic might into politics for commercial and deference gratifications.

Money is a political maternal milk; consequently, political funding is bilateral in that both the financier and the sponsored concurrently pursue same political goals, formulate concomitantly same teleological strategies and being divided, each group (of the sponsor and the sponsored) has considerable leverage on the other in a procedural interchange. This leverage has consequences on the very political unit in question. For instance, when a society that operates a pluralist party system has several candidates featured for elections, the tendency of getting multiplied competitions which severity proves virility and goes in tandem with the masculine political tonality, the rule of survival of the fittest becomes the acceptable norm and the concepts of equity and justice in power-shifts and sharing become nominal. This is because the plutocracy and oligarchic tendencies turn the political arena into a coterie of financiers who given together become caucuses that determine the course of events within the political unit; not minding any form of traditional agreement in existence in the political unit. This certainly leads to Anthony James. Catanese’s The Devil Theory of power elite dominance of state and local politics and planning to the exclusion of all other special interest groups, (which is absurd in modern democracies as practised in Europe and America, and now envisioned in most developing countries, notably our country Nigeria).

Leave a Reply