The concept of zoning the governorship position among the three senatorial zones (Ondo Central, Ondo North, Ondo South) every four years was probably instituted with the good intention of ensuring that no senatorial zone is permanently excluded from power. Zoning was an arrangement with a supposed noble intention of fostering equitable, all-inclusive, and balanced development across our dear Sunshine State.
Regrettably, despite the zoning arrangement by political parties in Ondo State since 1999, the state continues to face significant challenges in infrastructural and human capital development. Even though Ondo State is endowed with a diverse array of natural resources (oil & gas, bitumen, limestone, timber, rubber, clay), cash and food crops (cocoa, rubber, palm oil, yam, cassava, maize, vegetable) landmark tourist sites (Idanre hills, Araromi beach) a vibrant youth population and substantial monthly federal allocations, statistics and realities on the streets reveal persistent high unemployment rate and widespread poverty. Moreover, companies in Ondo State are underperforming, and agriculture despite abundant resources, yields low productivity.
Considering historical precedents and contemporary circumstances, it is crucial to acknowledge that the development we crave in Ondo State cannot be achieved through the concept of zoning the governorship position among the three senatorial zones. Despite its seemingly fair premise, this rotational system has failed to produce the desired developmental outcomes for the state. In fact, it has inadvertently become a hindrance to progress. A major flaw of the zoning arrangement is that it prioritises political permutation over meritocracy and competence. Every four years, instead of allowing the most qualified candidate to emerge through a competitive electoral process, political parties impose candidates based solely on their geographic origin, letting the good people of Ondo State entrust governance to individuals who may lack the requisite skills and vision needed to propel development effectively.
Another dangerous effect of the zoning policy is the perpetuation of ethnic divisions within the state. By emphasising ethnic and geographical identity over shared goals and aspirations, the system consciously reinforces personal interest and undermines the sense of collective responsibility for the state’s development. This fragmentation hinders efforts to foster unity and collaboration among different communities, thereby obstructing progress in Ondo State on a broader scale.
As the April 2024 governorship primary in Ondo State approaches, a troubling trend has emerged in the political landscape; rather than actively campaigning and articulating their visions for the state’s future, contenders from All Progressives Congress (the ruling party) and the Peoples Democratic Party (the main opposition party) are making their Ondo 2024 campaign about questions of entitlement based on unwritten zoning principles. The focus on zoning arrangements at the expense of substantive policy debates and developmental agenda not only detracts from the real issues facing the state but also undermines the democratic process by prioritising political expediency over the welfare of the electorate. Instead of engaging party officials, delegates, and voters with concrete plans for rural and agricultural revolution, human capital development, and overall socioeconomic progress, governorship aspirants and their supporters find themselves hooked in discussions about which senatorial zone is “due” to produce the next governor. It is disheartening to note that the conversation is not only about Ondo 2024 elections but also about Ondo 2028 governorship election due to the unconstitutional eight-year zoning arrangement.
The predictability of the governorship rotation based on the unconstitutional zoning arrangement undermines accountability and innovation in governance. Because of the zoning policy, elected governors usually become complacent, knowing full well that their ascension to power and reelection in most cases is almost guaranteed based on gerrymandering and on the predetermined rotation schedule. Over the years, because of zoning, governors prioritise initiatives that yield immediate political dividends rather than embark on comprehensive, long-term development plans for the state. This leads to a cycle of superficial accomplishments, abandoned projects and active and passive waste of scarce resources.
More than ever before, stakeholders in Ondo State must prioritise substance over symbolism. Rather than argue about who is entitled to run based on zoning arrangement, candidates should be evaluated based on their track record, integrity, and concrete plans for driving sustainable development. Let us broaden the scope of public engagement and participation in the electoral process by demanding that in the build-up to the party primaries in April 2024, political parties should prioritise presenting candidates with character and capacity. The major focus should be to present outstanding and visionary individuals with a proven track record of excellence in the public or private sector. The governorship ticket should not be given as compensation or based on arbitrary zoning arrangements but on an assurance of the capacity of the candidate to provide visionary and inclusive governance that will help in wealth creation, agricultural, rural, and human capital development.
In conclusion, stakeholders in Ondo State must jettison the concept of zoning governorship among the senatorial zones in the state. We must break free from the cycle of stagnation and narrow-mindedness based on informal political agreements. Let us be intentional about unlocking the full potential of our dear Sunshine State by embracing a candidate-selection model that prioritises merit, competence, character, and capacity; not a zoning arrangement that has failed to help Ondo State unlock the full potential of its abundant resources and improve the livelihoods of indigenes and residents.
