Politics of the stomach

Democracy, he was told, meant everyone would have a say in government. Incredulously His Royal Highness (HRH) asked how it was possible for everyone to “put mouth in a matter at the same time”. They explained about ballot papers and voting to determine who would hold office on everyone’s behalf.  HRH asked “who exactly would […]

Democracy, he was told, meant everyone would have a say in government. Incredulously His Royal Highness (HRH) asked how it was possible for everyone to “put mouth in a matter at the same time”. They explained about ballot papers and voting to determine who would hold office on everyone’s behalf.  HRH asked “who exactly would have a vote?  He was told that his driver, his security man, teachers, women in the market and all adults would all have a vote. HRH then asked the crucial question “how many votes will I have?” When informed that democracy meant he would have only one vote like everyone else, he closed his eyes and shook his head from left to right.
HRH eventually opened his eyes and spoke and said “this democracy will be politics of the stomach not the head!”  In his own farsighted manner HRH knew democracy could only succeed where people have elevated themselves to a social and economic level in which they are no longer motivated by trying to overcome basic insecurities. He was predicting that economically disadvan-taged and socially unfulfilled people can’t possibly decide what is in their best interest.
The recent election in Ekiti State where a performing governor lost his bid for re-election without a whimper, to an opponent who was busy “campaigning” by sharing free t-shirts, money and bags of rice in the market, illustrates clearly that politics of the stomach is our present day reality.  Democracy assumes that the electorate are well informed enough to take decisions as to where their best interests lie. This is why freedom of information and proper education are prerequisites to true democracy. Regrettably neither exists in Nigeria today. Our substandard educational syllabus is a major problem. The decision to remove history and geography as compulsory subjects for all schoolchildren has been disastrous.
The end result is that generations are growing up who know nothing about their past or the struggles we have been through as a nation, and are all set to repeat the same mistakes. Their insular world view is a direct result of never having learnt about the great civilizations of the world in terms of either history or geography. Certainly ignorance of geography means our youth were never taught to respect different peoples with differing cultures. Is it really realistic to expect our educated, much less the uneducated, to truly understand what is in their best interests? Even more so when the truth about all the scandals of the past is hidden in unpublished reports? The Ekiti result was a paradox of performance and failure in re-election.
There has always been a belief that in Nigeria, as in most other places, a politician who performs well in office will be rewarded with re-election. The outgoing governor’s performance in the last four years was well above average and there is a general consensus even amongst the opposition that he did well in terms of infrastructural development.  He failed to come to terms with the fact that the electorate can’t eat infrastructure. In order to earn their respect and their vote (which after all, at the end of the day is theirs to cast), politicians must learn to positively impact on their lives in a very personal manner. The Fayemi experience is a very important landmark for the People’s Democratic Party and their aspirations for continuing in office. It stands to reason that if we can accept that a man who performed well can lose an election, then we must also accept that a man who hasn’t performed well can win one.
This will be extremely significant in 2015!   All this doesn’t mean we should write off the poor masses of Ekiti as people who don’t know where their best interests lie. To give them some credit not only did INEC disenfranchise so many voters as usual, but also Governor Fayemi was generally perceived as being too distant and standoffish. What’s more the truth is that over the years our electorate have come to realize that the only benefit they derive from democracy is whatever they can get in exchange for their ballot paper. They know that once voting is over, their participation in democracy ends, and the relationship between themselves and politicians comes to a halt until the next elections. So if a bag of rice with salt and five hundred naira are their “dividends of democracy” at least they know they got a share”.  Ayo Fayose has every right to be congratulated for understanding the times and not wasting his time articulating a manifesto!
After all, these are only necessary where the majority of the electorate is well educated. Upon reflection perhaps the greatest handicap to the development of our democracy is that we started with universal suffrage. The intellectual class has been effectively disenfranchised by the majority vote of the illiterate and poverty stricken masses. At the end of the day there is very little point in an individual contemplating the socio-economic implications of government policy, when ten of his neighbours will sell their votes for a bag of rice and salt!   However a word of caution for the poor suffering masses. It’s easy to provide bags of rice during elections and recoup the money hundredfold once in office.  Our political class relies on politics of the stomach in order to perpetuate themselves. Imagine what would happen to them if one day Nigerians were all so content and free from stress that they actually took time to actively participate in democracy?  It’s vitally important for the masses to wake up and realize that the success of politics of the stomach is based upon keeping them perpetually poor so that their mandate can be bought easily and cheaply.