Politics And Development In Nigeria There are two basic problems with the relationship between politics and development in Nigeria. Firstly, there is the fact that people who know how to win elections, often, do not know how to rule and those who know how to rule, often, do not know how to win elections. Secondly, politics operates within a shorter time frame than development i.e elections need to be won within a short term cycle while development policies need to be implemented over a longer period to be effective. These two contradictions define the nature of Nigerian political economy. The contradiction between those who know how to get power and those who know how to use it is one of the curses of the Nigerian society. We have often tried to resolve this contradiction by creating all sorts of alliances between power brokers and technocrats. There is the model that both IBB and OBJ employed, of packing their cabinets with technocrats. There is also the model that Tinubu employed in Lagos, by using his grip on power to put a technocrat in office. (Note; it is one thing to be in office and another thing to be in power.) By both these models, the idea is that the power broker (whether he is on the throne or standing behind the throne) provides the “political cover” for the technocrat to carry out his or her reforms. All these experiments at marrying the power broker and the technocrat have all ended in failure. In every case, the selfish ambition of the power broker limited and, eventually, truncated the technocrat’s effort at reform. So, yes OBJ brought Okonjo-Iweala, Ribadu, Ezekwesili, Soludo, El-Rufai and co and used them when and how it suited him. When he was interested in reform, reform happened. When he lost interest in reform, reform disappeared. The same thing is happening in Lagos. Suddenly, Nigeria’s best performing Governor is being investigated for corruption. (Personally, if all Governors could be “corrupt” like Fashola I would not mind one bit.) Again, the interests of the power broker (in this case, Tinubu) have again endangered reform. The truth is that there can never be a true alliance between a power broker and a technocrat. Their under- lying motives are too different. At some point the technocrat is going to insist that the resources the power broker wants diverted towards patronage politics should go into public investment. That’s where the problem starts; when an Ngige tells an Uba that the monthly deductions from state funds cannot be made anymore or an Okonjo- Iweala tells an OBJ that a third term bid would be bad for the reform agenda. Up till then, it would look like a marriage made in heaven. But there really is no meeting point between light and darkness. As long as the power broker is first a politician and then a reformer, his rapacious need for resources to oil his political machinery will always, eventually, de-rail the reform. So, how can this contradiction be resolved once and for all? The technocrat has to successfully build his own political platform. Power precedes reform. No power, no reform. It is that simple. Fashola cannot stand on Tinubu’s back if he wants a free hand; he has to stand on his own feet- politically. Those who know what to do with power must learn how to go and get that power. Follow in the path of Lee Kuan Yew. If the “good” people keep leaving the politics to the “bad” people, thinking the “bad” people would then leave the “good” people alone to spend public resources as they see fit, they are deceiving themselves. Reform is at the mercy of politics, always. But how do you build a political platform, as a reformer, without giving in to the same type of politics that the power broker is guilty of? At this point, we have to be clear about something. The problem is not with the person of the power broker; the problem is with his politics. It is the fact that the power broker maintains his political influence by using public funds to dispense patronage to loyalists that consistently threatens reform. So, if the technocrat-turned- politician decides to de- throne his erstwhile political godfather simply by playing the same game what he would end up doing is simply taking his godfather’s place as the new dispenser of patronage in town. Nothing changes. Nigerian politics would have swallowed another reformer (like Anambra politics swallowed Soludo for a while). That’s what we see happening in many states in Nigeria where former protégés turn on their godfathers. Political power changes hands but, because the nature of the politics itself does not change, nothing changes. The climb to a place of political power does not have to turn a technocrat into a power broker. For power to really shift from power broker to technocrat, the technocrat must stay committed to not just capturing power but to capturing it in a different way, a way that changes the way politics itself is played. At the risk of sounding too idealistic, the technocrat must be able to put more than just money on the table. For instance, I dare say that Fashola’s performance as Governor can be a formidable political asset in any election. After all, the reputation that Adams Oshiomohle had built up as a Labor Leader played a large part in his ability to beat the intimidating machinery of Tony Anenih. It’s possible. The myth is that only money bags can win elections in Nigeria. Well, that’s the myth. Man landed on the moon. The Berlin wall came down. Apartheid ended. Anything is possible. New generation politicians (who believe that power should be used for the public good) can replace old brigade politicians if they are willing to roll up their sleeves and ORGANIZE. They cannot be discouraged by what happened to people like Gani, Pat Utomi or Soludo. First, there was Rosa Parks; then Martin Luther King; and then Obama. A luta continua, vitoria e certa; the struggle continues for victory is certain. But even when that victory comes, the battle would not yet be ov
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:01:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015