Continuation of last week’s article;
This brings to mind a similar story from the period leading up to the 1979 general election. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the leader of the then Action Group (AG), was widely admired in my community, particularly for his groundbreaking free education policy, which had a profound impact on many families. His reputation as a champion for the people’s welfare was well-established, and he was seen as a visionary leader.
However, despite his popularity and the positive changes he had brought, Chief Awolowo’s approach to campaigning had unintended consequences. He often toured various regions, including my community, in a helicopter, which, at the time, was seen as a symbol of wealth and elitism. While he may have intended to demonstrate his commitment and reach, this method of travel created a disconnect between him and the very people he sought to serve. Many in my community felt that his use of a helicopter was out of touch with their reality and concerns, as they were struggling with basic infrastructure issues, such as poor roads and lack of access to essential services. As a result, despite his strong policies and popularity, the people refused to vote for him.
This experience highlighted how, even with the best intentions, political strategies can sometimes backfire. It also illustrated the importance of staying grounded and connected to the people you aim to serve. While Awolowo’s policies were transformative, his method of campaigning inadvertently alienated the very communities he sought to uplift, teaching us a valuable lesson about the need for empathy, accessibility, and understanding the local context when engaging with the electorate.
In today’s political landscape, it seems that knowledge of one’s own community, state, or even country is no longer a prerequisite for success, as I pointed out in my previous article, Election or Selection; those were times when decisions were made by the elders of the communities for the good of all. Representative leaders were chosen through an open, unanimous process of nomination and voice votes. The process was devoid of politicking and lobbying. The criteria for an individual to merit consideration include; character, good standing in the community, selfless service, and loyalty to the people’s cause. The latter is actually a measure of one’s obedience to the authority of the elders, how well you can execute your orders, the peoples’ agenda.
In reflecting on our journey into nationhood, it is abundantly clear that democracy, as it is currently practiced in Nigeria is not the best system for us. There are so much discontent in our land. This is because the political class and the bureaucrats have failed to provide us with visionary leadership. Our country is currently on the fast lane to anarchy. There are countries around the world where governance by selection, rather than election, has produced stable and prosperous societies. In these countries, the selection process is not a free-for-all contest, but a careful and deliberate process designed to choose leaders who are best suited to govern. The emphasis is on merit, experience, and the ability to lead, rather than on who can steal the most votes. Increasingly, politicians are winning elections or securing positions of power without a deep understanding of the issues that matter most to the people they are meant to serve. Campaigns often focus more on personal branding, media presence, and party affiliations rather than genuine engagement with the challenges facing local communities.
This shift has led to a disconnect between elected officials and the everyday realities of the people. Politicians may rise to power through strategic alliances, financial backing, or promises that sound appealing in theory but fail to address the true needs of the population. In many cases, they may have little knowledge of the specific struggles faced by the citizens they represent whether it’s the lack of infrastructure, inadequate healthcare, or widespread insecurity.
The result is a political environment where leadership is more about image and less about substance, with leaders often failing to deliver meaningful change because they don’t understand the real issues on the ground. This trend raises an important question: how can we expect leaders to solve the pressing problems facing our country if they are disconnected from the very people they are supposed to represent?
As I have emphasized before, it is crucial for those in power to genuinely understand and connect with their communities, states, and country in order to make informed, effective decisions that benefit everyone.
The situation unfolding today in Rivers State bears a striking resemblance to events in the 1960s, specifically the turmoil within the Western House of Assembly. This crisis led to what was known as the “Wẹtẹ” controversy, which played a significant role in triggering Nigeria’s first military intervention. The military’s takeover resulted in the suspension of the constitution and the disbandment of all political parties, marking the beginning of several decades of military rule. At the initial stage of the military rule, the politicians found themselves completely unemployed for a long time so they started to plot against the military by making a good part of the nation ungovernable. Over time, as the military government grew increasingly unpopular, the voice of the people began to rise. Eventually, the military regime sought to collaborate with politicians, with power often shifting between military factions in a series of takeovers. This period of instability marked a turbulent chapter in Nigeria’s political history.
Review the article I wrote a year ago, titled ‘Nigeria, My Country: So Divided,’ and ‘Parliamentary System of Government: Government of the People, for the People, by the People’ respectively, which remains relevant to the current situation in Nigeria and reads as follows: The first military junta began following the 1966 Nigerian coup d’état, which overthrew Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and made Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi the head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria. He too was soon overthrown and murdered in a coup in July of the same year. This followed a long list of more military coups then a civil war that lasted three years. During that time, we went from four regions, namely, the Northern, Western, Midwest, and Eastern regions, to 12 states and now 36. The military coup, the civil war, the killings, the divisions and the bitterness that followed divided our country to a point of no return, causing the nation to degenerate to one huge ball of fractured pieces that may never fit quite well together again.
Government of the people, for the people, by the people was the system our founding fathers inherited from the British. It is a system that has been in place for hundreds of years in Britain and some commonwealth nations. But the system was booted out less than six years into our independence by the military and some of our founding fathers were killed during the takeover. Young students of politics and today’s politicians may have forgotten the reasons for the killings, the reason for the change that gave us military for another 40 years and more or, forever.
When you consider all these factors, it becomes clear why Nigeria transitioned from a developing nation in the 1970s to an underdeveloped country in the 2020s. This decline can largely be attributed to the partnership between the military and political elites, which gave rise to a series of military administrations that, over time, became more focused on managing crises than addressing the country’s fundamental issues.
The latest manifestation of this is seen in the military-appointed leadership overseeing the ongoing crises in Rivers State. The country, still grappling with its challenges, remains in search of the ‘messiah’ that General Olusegun Obasanjo once referred to – a leader who could guide Nigeria toward true progress, a vision that was shattered following the annulment of the 1993 election that would have seen MKO Abiola assume the presidency.