1 month ago
9 ARTICLE AD
Last Friday I asked a question: “Does ‘common man’ play tribal politics?” Here, I provide a perspective to the question using a few observations. In Nigeria, tribal politics has never benefitted the common man found across tribes and religions. Tribal politics was encouraged by the political elite who named political parties based on their tribal affiliations as seen in the First Republic. Politicians appeal to tribal biases to get voters, get to the political table first where they participate in the sharing of ‘national cake’, and they’re the beneficiaries of whatever cake they share.
The foregoing is easier to comprehend when it’s remembered that those who occupy political offices from the First Republic to the present continue to devise crafty ways to remain in power by all means. So, it is not all the time a people vote for a politician solely because they come from their tribe. The people’s choice is often known to be brazenly thwarted. In the First Republic, the major parties’ leaders led their region so the impression of tribal politics in that era was inevitable. How much of this situation was the common man responsible for? Did the average Nigerian voter play tribal politics in the First Republic? Or, did the political elite appeal to tribal sentiments to get to power and thereafter firmly maintain their grips?
In the Second Republic, efforts were made to restrict tribe-based political parties but create parties with national spread. The five, later six, political parties that were registered had a fairly national spread across the then 19 states. Contrary to anything witnessed in the First Republic, the chairman of the ruling National Party of Nigeria was from the west, the president from the north, while the vice-president was from the east. Though NPN was regarded as preferred by the north, the prominent Yoruba businessman Chief M.K.O. Abiola was a member and he wanted to contest the presidency on its ticket.
Noteworthy was the fact that the Unity Party of Nigeria, led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, won the governorship seats in the west yet the party’s performance across the federation was so good that it contested in court the result which gave the presidency to the NPN. Even the “12 2/3” states verdict of the Supreme Court which affirmed NPN as the winner was the outcome of the argument presented by a Yoruba legal luminary, Chief Richard Akinjide, formerly a member of Action Group in the First Republic. The performance of the UPN and NPN would show that the common man across the nation voted across tribal lines. Some parties closely associated with their tribal bases didn’t even win the governorship seats in their states.
It needs to be pointed out that the Yoruba didn’t follow Awo in the Second Republic because he belonged to their tribe. He had performed in the First Republic to earn people’s trust, and his party manifesto of free education, free health care, etc. helped a lot. Helpful as well was the popularity of the candidates UPN presented who were well-known to the locals and regarded as replicas of Awo. Nonetheless, due to local sentiments particularly Ibadan which wanted its indigene as governor in Oyo State, UPN lost in 1983 to the NPN candidate, Chief Omololu Olunloyo. But the UPN gained Kwara State previously under NPN.
Up north in old Bauchi State, the UPN governorship candidate—I interacted with him years later—was so popular that ahead of the election the pro-NPN Emir stripped him of his traditional title, Garkwan Gombe, ostensibly because he belonged to the “enemy’s party.” A former top election official said to me that he was personally instrumental in changing election results in old Adamawa State where the chances of the UPN’s governorship candidate were equally very bright. “I delivered Adamawa State to our party,” he had said with a smile on his face.
Such stories aren’t uncommon in states where the ruling parties are determined to remain in power. Once they know the opposition parties have the support of the common man, ruling parties generally devise means to outwit them, from the polling units to the courts. As it was in the First and Second Republic, so it was in the Fourth as well as in the current democratic dispensation, even though opportunities for election malpractices were reducing gradually. I think the common man in Nigeria hasn’t been the type who would vote tribe above good governance, delivery of services to the people, and provision of opportunities for all to move ahead. Playing tribal politics never provides all of that to them.
In fact, most Nigerians tend to want to be part of what is called mainstream national politics by voting for the ruling party at the centre since politicians use this as a reason to promise that dividends of democracy would surely get to the common man. People may vote based on sentiments, and this does inform how people vote in the manner they do anywhere in the world, yet Nigerians often vote for the party they believe best understands them, protects their collective interest, and makes life meaningful for them. If that party is considered to be APGA in the east, or PDP in south-south and APC in the west and north, it’s one sentiment all voters are entitled to. Such a tendency shouldn’t come under “playing tribal politics,” more so as electorates who voted AD, ACN, PDP, and APP in the past were known to have later voted APGA, NCPP, Labour, or APC and vice versa.
This argument is even stronger when it’s considered that each party has locals as candidates among each tribe, and they are the faces of even a party that some may consider tribe-based. If the candidate of a pro-Awo party among the Fulani in the Adamawa mountains best meet the locals’ aspirations, they vote for the party. If a pro-Igbo party happens to have a more popular local candidate in Jigawa State, the same thing can happen and vice versa. And coalitions and alliances that these parties later form show they want to be as national as possible, rather than remain tribe-based.
This leads me to the 2023 presidential election. There have been accusations of tribal politics online and prominent figures are enmeshed in it. This was against the backdrop of Ndigbo and the Yoruba accusing and defending their respective parts of the country. When accused by others, offering defense for one’s part of the country doesn’t necessarily mean playing tribal politics. It’s a debate and whoever starts accusing others, possibly falsely, needs to know they don’t have the monopoly to criticise others. Accusation is a call to debate, and if any side doesn’t like what they get in return they should stop what they give in the first instance. So, the accusations and counter-accusations online which some term playing tribal politics, don’t look exactly like one to me.
In any case, who played tribal politics? The common man who voted based on who they thought would make life more meaningful for them or politicians who appealed to tribal sentiments? A few issues informed how voters voted in the 2023 presidential campaign. Many agreed it was the turn of the south. Voters in the west believed Asiwaju Bola Tinubu prepared the most and would give the best fight against the PDP opposition. Nonetheless, the presidential election result in Lagos State was what it was. The result in Oyo State was what it was, both in the same west that some accused of playing tribal politics.
In the east, the pre-election decision was that no Igbo man should be a VP candidate to anyone. Peter Obi got some 90 percent of the votes there. His supporters weren’t limited to the east. They were in the west even if this didn’t translate into electoral success for him. Asiwaju Tinubu secured enough votes across the regions to win. Across the country, the common man voted for each of the presidential candidates. Did this indicate that the common man played tribal politics? Those who publicly postured as their tribe’s candidate and benefitted from it were the ones who won 90 percent of the votes cast among their tribe. They knew themselves, especially those who in their attempt to appeal to primordial sentiments called the 2023 presidential election a “religious war.”
