by Tarila Marclint Ebiede

Some pundits and commentators claimed that Fayemi’s principled stance on idealistic democratic politics and his refusal to engage in patronage politics is the reason behind the loss

Discussions on the results of the recently concluded gubernatorial elections in Ekiti State dominate both social and traditional media. The focus has been largely on the “Why” and less on the lessons learnt from the victory and defeat at these polls. The present contribution seeks to invite reflection to shift to what in pragmatic terms the results suggest for political evolution in this country and particularly for any beneficial engagement with the electorate who seek survival and safety in the short term and full empowered development in the long term.

It will be recalled that the Atedo N. A Peterside (ANAP) foundation commissioned NOI Polls to conduct a pre-election poll in anticipation of the June 21 Governorship elections in Ekiti. The results showed that 31 percent of respondents planned to vote for Ayo Fayose, Kayode Fayemi, the incumbent, was the choice of 29 percent of respondents and 3 percent of the respondents wanted Bamidele Opeyemi, a former friend and associate of the Governor, but who had decamped to the Labour Party following disagreements with Fayemi, to be the next Governor of Ekiti State. The most striking data in that poll comes from the 37 percent of respondents that were undecided. This data will become very valuable in the post-election analysis. This is so because Ayo Fayose did not just win the elections, he also won with 56 percent of the total votes cast against incumbent Kayode Fayemi who had 33.4 percent at the polls. Thus, it appears that most undecided voters threw their weight behind Ayo Fayose. The final results, especially the margin of victory, came as a surprise to everyone, including the winners.

Election observers have reported that the election was “free and fair”. The question that followed was why 66.6 percent of voters cast their votes against Governor Kayode Fayemi, a public intellectual who brings excellence to the business of governance. Many have blamed the perverse political socialization of the voters. Some even argued that Nigeria is not ready for democracy. In simplistic terms, some commentators noted that “stomach infrastructure” trumped “transformational infrastructure” during the Ekiti elections. This linear narrative is very simplistic. Especially when scholars of Nigerian politics and development such as Claude Ake and Okwudiba Nnoli have extensively engaged this subject of democracy and development since the emergence of the post-colonial nation states in Africa.

Some pundits and commentators claimed that Fayemi’s principled stance on idealistic democratic politics and his refusal to engage in patronage politics is the reason behind the loss. Conversely, many attribute Fayose’s victory to his transactional politics and populistsengagements with the voters of Ekiti State. I do not think that these linear opinions explain the citizens’ response to Governor Fayemi’s development and governance strategy. Instead, it is my view that the discussion should focus more on understanding the unique context of the Nigerian society and the need to find a development narrative that is an outcome of a social conversation that involves the local people.

The problem of balancing democratic ideals with urgent development needs, some would even say, basic survivalist needs, of the local people is an intellectual challenge as well as political one. Patronage politics at the local level provides a quick win for politicians, but it does not build the political culture and institutions that we need to sustain democracy in the long run. Social democratic politics, on the other hand, seeks to build the political culture and institutions that are required for democracy to thrive and consequently lead to bottom-top demand for better governance and development.

However, there are, in my opinion, two fundamental challenges that work against social democratic politics in Nigeria. The first is that Nigeria’s political culture is defined by patronage network that is sustained by “prebendal” politics. The second, and most fundamental, is the high rate of poverty and disempowerment among ordinary Nigerians that constitute the majority of voting population. Thus, the task of progressive politicians and intellectuals in Nigeria is to find innovative ways of promoting developmental politics without losing the support of the people who are easily placated by conservative patrons who are in power to maintain the status quo.

The challenge before progressive politicians and intellectuals can be situated within the context of the development question raised by African scholars in 1970s. I find the answers provided by Claude Ake in his last treatise “Democracy and Development in Africa” very helpful. Ake made a strong case for combining democratic governance with local development initiatives that empower the ordinary African. This process, Ake argues, builds the self-esteem of Africans and also gives local communities the opportunity to set and work towards their own economic agendas. Following Ake’s theory, development should be inclusive. An inclusive development involves the local people in the decisions that affect their lives, thus empowering them as citizens. This challenges the self-defeating‘empowerment’ that comes from political patronage.

As we move closer to 2015, the true progressives should study the Nigerian society and present their ideas on how they want to return Nigeria to the path of development and sustain our democratic journey.  We are faced with an urgent need to conceive and implement a developmental politics that encourages local participation and empowers citizens. True progressives’ should shun blue print approaches to development. We need to genuinely involve people in the development of their communities and this will place them on an auto pilot mode in the fight to ensure the continuity of transformation. By so doing, we can successfullychallenge and replace the prevailing patronage politics with the desired democratic ideals in Nigeria. The replacement will be gradual and a Fabian pragmatism would be most appropriate to midwife this. Whilst we engage to achieve this transformation, one message from the Ekiti election is resoundingly clear – blueprint models which ignore local realities and needs are not likely to fly and candidates espousing them face possibilities of serious rejection at the polls.

 

—————————-

Tarila Marclint Ebiede is a PhD candidate at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Belgium. He tweets from @ETMarclint

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.