How our political differences further separate us

Ahead of the general elections scheduled for the first quarter of 2023, the jostling for advantage amongst members of our political class has resumed in earnest ― the extreme prejudice that it comes with is a staple of most competitive activity, politics especially, in this parts. As usual, the current pushing and shoving has not involved the elaboration of party planks or platforms (new or old). Policy positions on key social and economic issues ― how to fix rising unemployment, for instance, or to boost domestic productivity, bring down inflation, or curb the erosion of the state’s monopoly of the means of violence ― although urgently required by the current poor state of the country, are not the strongest suite of our politicians.

This explains the central contradiction of this new non-tribal politics: the fact that almost without fail the cachet that these defecting party people carry with them is a benumbing capacity for exaggerating the same old differences ― ethno-national and religious ― that have threatened our commonwealth since 1960.

Instead, the sharpest elbows and hardest bumps have been part of an osmosis of politicians between our two main parties ― the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the All Progressives Congress (APC). Although recent developments in this space have had our talking heads in a funk, one, rarely commented upon, upshot of the ease with which Nigerian politicians swap parties is that the process might, after a certain fashion, point to the evolution of a new tribalism. As politicians traverse party lines, partisans of the party welcoming the defector are remarkably indifferent to how virulent the defector’s previous denunciation of his or her new host party was. Neither do they seem fazed by how loftily he extolled his previous affiliations.

Also Read: Slower-paced inflation ― any lessons?

Compared with the exclusiveness of our traditional ethno-national cleavages, in the political space, all that matters is that the defecting politician is no longer on the other side. How important is it that it also does not matter what ethno-cultural stock the defector comes from, or what sectarian confessions s/he adheres to? Indeed, even the latter may succumb to the osmotic process. Given how being Hausa, Igbo, or Yoruba (the myriad other nationalities scarcely get a look) matter in all other spheres, and how this importance has militated against the building of the synergistic relationships without which the country will continue to punch beneath its weight, is the development of this new tribalism a welcome process?

…these suppositions take for granted the fact that the ease with which these people flit from one party to the other means anything. They do not. If nothing else, these rash of defections simply remind us that the difference between both main parties are not material. They are not, in the context of contesting for public support, vehicles for airing different opinions on how the state ought to be governed…

In the extent to which it appears to transcend the diverse shortcomings of the old fissiparous divisions, the temptation, at first blush, is to answer the latter question with a resounding “Yes”! If only Nigerians recognised places of birth and residence, rather than state of origin as the key determinant of the political salience of each citizen, for instance, chances are that it would be a far better place. And were religion not so mixed up with how we identify ourselves, were we instead more focused on the liberties without which no person is free ― rights that thrive on a healthy and educated populace ― we would not be struggling with the current threats to the integrity of the state.

Also Read: Nigerian Stock Exchange Hosts Dangote Cement to Virtual Facts Behind the Figures

However, these suppositions take for granted the fact that the ease with which these people flit from one party to the other means anything. They do not. If nothing else, these rash of defections simply remind us that the difference between both main parties are not material. They are not, in the context of contesting for public support, vehicles for airing different opinions on how the state ought to be governed, and once voted into office, for testing the rectitude of these platforms. Neither are they substantial ― as witnessed by the absence of meaningful debate on solutions to the many problems that presently ail the country. They are instead opportunistic devices that help an increasingly small coterie of people to the nation’s purse strings.

This explains the central contradiction of this new non-tribal politics: the fact that almost without fail the cachet that these defecting party people carry with them is a benumbing capacity for exaggerating the same old differences ― ethno-national and religious ― that have threatened our commonwealth since 1960.