Why politicians part ways with benefactors – Prof Adeyi
Ezekiel Adeyi is a professor of Governance, Identity Politics, and Development Communication, and former Head of Department, Political Science Department, University of Jos. In this interview, he speaks on how relationships among political allies can be managed. We are witnessing and increase in fallouts between politicians and their benefactors. What could be responsible? In […]
Ezekiel Adeyi is a professor of Governance, Identity Politics, and Development Communication, and former Head of Department, Political Science Department, University of Jos. In this interview, he speaks on how relationships among political allies can be managed.
We are witnessing and increase in fallouts between politicians and their benefactors. What could be responsible?
In politics and party politics in particular, globally, this concept of mentorship or support is there, that you see somebody you rely on, you see somebody you can trust, somebody you want to hand over to, is there and the fellow will see you as a political father. In Second Republic Nigeria, we had five political parties, later six, and the leaders had their own favourite members based on loyalty and the potentials they saw in them. Malam Aminu Kano had Alhaji Abubakar Rimi, Balarabe Musa and Bala Muhammad in the PRP, who were like his intellectual base, brain box, and they saw him as their father. And in NPP, Nnamdi Azikiwe saw Sam Mbakwe and Jim Nwobodo as his children because others defected to the NPN then.
So, those were the new breeds, who were his political sons and the same thing with Obafemi Awolowo; he had people like Bisi Onabanjo who had been with him, Lateef Jakande of Lagos State, and so on. But godfatherism in those days was based on loyalty. It was based on the competence of the son. If you notice something good in a son, in a member of your political party, you would want to groom him. But now, what we see is that people want somebody who is handicapped, that they can use as houseboy. You want to finance his election, you want to protect him so that he’ll be giving you returns. I don’t know if you get the difference. In those days, they recruited to promote democracy, but in the contemporary situation, you bring people who are your personal assistants, who are from your village, and invest in them so that they can pay back, not to the society but to you.
In the past, the godfathers were loyal to an ideology of a party in advancing democracy. The godsons saw their godfathers as role models that they could follow, that they could learn from. If there was any issue, they rushed to the fellow. But nowadays, the godson cannot talk because even the party nomination form was bought for him, campaign money was given to him, and they will impose who and who should work for him. That is why you see our democracy is not just stagnated, but it’s moving in a reverse gear. Now, people see it as a shortcut to make money, but in the past, the military was seen as a shortcut for career advancement. Once you go to secondary school, you become second lieutenant. So people rushed to the military.
But now people go into politics to make money. And the godfather will say, ‘I’m the one who made you. Who are you? When you came to my house, was it not only one shoe you had? etc”.
What do you think is causing these relationships to break down?
There is a disconnection. You know, when you pick a son and you underrate him, you bring him up thinking that you can use him. And if he’s emancipated, he discovers that there are some things he cannot do for you. Definitely, there will be a kind of political rebellion, ideological conflict.
I’ve studied the situation in Benue, seriously, and I noticed that it was a misunderstanding or a different value system. Once you are in politics, you submit to political leadership, and you forget about who you are. Even if you are a university professor, and you are under somebody who is a grade 2 teacher, he is your political leader. But again, if somebody can finance your election, and you now feel that you cannot submit to him, that is dangerous. Also, if you finance somebody’s election, that does not mean that the fellow should be your houseboy.
When you look at Kaduna, the case is complex. Uba Sani was the anointed son of El-Rufai. But as a matter of fact, if you know the history of the current governor there, he is not hawkish in politics. He is more like a dove. And when you have a godson that is not aggressive the way you are, then you cannot go far.
So, what we are saying from all these is that the political relationships in this dispensation are not defined by a theory?
They are defined by circumstances. They are defined by what either the son or the father considers as good for him. It is only in a few cases that they think of what is good for the society.
So, godfatherism revolves around who is in power, who has money, who can influence party decision. And recruitment of godson is not based on merit; it is based on the people you can manipulate.
Are you saying that disloyalty is the main factor causing problems?
Before you talk of disloyalty, it’s misunderstanding. Loyalty to who now? Are you to be loyal to the godfather or to be loyal to the electorate or your conscience or the constitution? So, these are the contradictions. So, what I’m saying and what we should know as citizens, electorate, and especially as media men, is that there are different contexts of this godfatherism. Some godsons are committed to democracy, but their godfathers see democracy as a business where money will be coming to them. And then some godsons are corrupted by power. And once they are corrupted, they are infected by the desire for power. At that point, they won’t listen again. So, there should be an understanding through the media. The media should play a role to see that the godfather doesn’t just pick anyone, but should make consultations with the community and the electorate before they say, this is the one anointed.
How do these conflicts affect governance?
This crisis is all about power, not about governance. They want to control resources of the state. They want to control people who will be there. And in that struggle, it is the people that suffer. That way, it has affected governance. When the governor and his benefactor or his godfather are fighting, they spend more time giving some people money to organise rallies among others. That money should ordinarily go to health services, education and road.
What we can do is that the civil society should liaise with the media to carry out campaigns. And the media should do some special reports about budgeting. What’s your budgeting like? How are you implementing it? The media should know. If some suspicious movements or payments are made, which will affect governance, the media should bring it out.
How can this issue be effectively addressed to ensure that the electorate reap the benefits of democracy?
The way this can be managed is for the electorate to participate in politics. If you have good participation, if people are doing that, the few hands will not take decisions on their own. Also, the judiciary should be ready to give judgements that will improve the system. The party machineries should not be hijacked by moneybags. Parties should function from the ward to the state level, so that members can have a sense of belonging. Above all, poverty is a dangerous virus killing democracy. This is because people will say one thing now and once they are given money, they will change. So, if there is good governance, if our policies embrace the masses, things will be better.