Since the April 9 election of the next set of National Assembly members in which the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost almost all the seats it presently holds in the South-west states, some politicians and commentators have been making statements to the effect that the electorate has made a mistake by opting out of what they called “the mainstream”. PDP’s main rival in the zone, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), secured most of the seats. Labour Party of Nigeria (LPN) snatched the seats in Ondo State from PDP while a breakaway faction of the PDP in Ogun State led by the governor, Gbenga Daniel, which is now known as Peoples Party of Nigeria (PPN), managed to secure two House of Representatives seats.
In essence, the South-west will be represented in the National Assembly by members from four different parties – ACN, LPN, PDP and PPN. The zone has only six states.
Those who canvass the idea of ‘mainstream politics’ believe that by rejecting PDP candidates and voting for other parties, the Yoruba are deemed to have fallen out of the Federal Government’s favour and therefore stand the risk of being excluded from largesse coming from the centre. The protagonists of the so-called ‘mainstream politics’ even accused the Yoruba people of reverting to regionalism.
In one such comment, Alhaji Tajudeen Oladipo, PDP national vice chairman, South-west zone, was quoted to have also said at a press conference in Osogbo that “the result of the election did not mean that the PDP failed to deliver in the South-west. It is just that the people want change for change sake.”
I feel inspired to comment on the claims being made by those ‘mainstream’ advocates because it was borne out of a historical falsehood which had almost become a partisan truth in the country.
The aspect of our political history that I am talking about is the one in which some people falsely accuse late Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the two parties he founded, AG and UPN, of only restricting themselves to the Western region in terms of programme, politicking and ambition to capture power.
This assertion is incorrect. In 1958, when the British were preparing to hand over power to Nigerians at the federal level, Awo had made it clear that he was through with holding power at the regional level, and that his ambition was to become head of the Nigerian government. His parties worked hard to build nationwide alliance and contested the elections in most of the constituencies in the country. It is a different question whether the strategy was good enough to give victory to the old sage.
In any case, with the perversion in our federalism, he could not have won. So, though the AG and UPN which dominated South-west in the First and Second Republic aspired and worked hard to rule the entire country, they were unsuccessful. The correct position is that a man who voluntarily left the headship of the government of a region to become leader of opposition at the centre cannot be said to be averse to having his people participate at the federal level.
I have since pondered the issue of ‘mainstream politics’ in a federal system and declare that there is nothing like that in political science. I dare say the claim of mainstream in a federal system where the units of the whole – that is the states – are actually the aggregate of the centre, only portray the ignorance of such commentators.
The states in that aggregation are equal. None can be said to have the power to push the other out. Neither can the government at the centre excise any of the states.
To demonstrate the equality of the states, we can ask a few questions: Can President Goodluck Jonathan decide that because the South-west voted out PDP candidates, he will not comply with section 147, sub-section 3 of the constitution by refusing to appoint federal ministers who are “indigenes of such states” from the zone? Or is it possible for the National Assembly controlled by the PDP to pass a law stating, for example, that Ondo or Osun State is no longer part of Nigeria because its people voted against PDP?
Whether a state is small or not, voted for a party in the majority or not, the federal government is obliged to fulfill its obligations to that state. The idea of ‘mainstream’ is what has destroyed our federalism and created the under-development that now pervades the polity.
It connotes the dependence of states on oil money being shared at the centre, instead of each state government looking inwards to conceive creative ideas that can help explore its comparative advantages over other states for the purpose of creating a robust internal revenue base that could be used to develop its constituency.
Ordinarily, states should engage in healthy competition over which one can best serve its people as it was in the First Republic when we last practiced true federalism.
The false premise on which the idea of ‘mainstream politics’ is based led to the creation of a ubiquitous behemoth in the federal government which has now covered the field. The warped federalism that we have has subverted genuine federal system which can lead to development across the country. The big federal government is suffocating the states such that many states in the country are no longer economically viable.
What is bad in having many parties control different states given that it enables the governors to know that when they fail in their responsibilities, they will be voted out? Is the multiplicity of parties not supposed to create democratic options and make developmental ideas to compete in our states? Let’s even stretch the ‘mainstream’ ideology to reveal its absurdity: is it right to conclude that the Republican Party in the US and the states they control are out of the American mainstream?
Again, can we say the Labour Party and the constituencies of their MPs are out of mainstream British politics, even though Britain is not a federal state? Can anybody who truly understands politics in a federal state with presidential system of government say that a zone with six states and with representation from four parties has not done well in creating optionsa?
In such setting, if any of the representatives fail to adequately represent the interests of his constituents, he will be exposed and voted out in the next election. So, I think the South-west people have been strategic in their votes in the April 9 election.
Those who canvass the ‘mainstream’ idea should know that if we are to admit the efficacy of their theory, then they need to show how aligning with the party in control of the federal government has benefitted the South-south and South-east zones over the years.
They also need to show how the control of federal government has benefitted the states in the north. The new development efforts that one can see in states like Kwara, Katsina, Rivers, Gombe and Akwa Ibom is not because they are controlled by governors who are members of the PDP. It is because the governors are determined to make a difference.