A common view of political power amongst the experts is that it is essentially about who gets what, where and when. Implicit in that assumption is the acknowledgement that, in rich and poor societies alike, there is never an infinite supply of resources to go round. By consequence, therefore, a fight for the distribution of scarce resources is the natural business of politics. The intensity of that fight, however, differs from country to country and from one society to another. The outcome also depends on many variables, the most important of which are the characters of the ‘gladiators’ in the arena. For some, the fight is taken literally as a life and death affair. For others, it is taken in the spirit of sportsmanship. Politics in America, for example, has reflected this latter picture for centuries until the former US President, Donald Trump, upended it. His supporters stormed Congress in a futile attempt to halt certification of the presidential results as it was happening, last year, January 6, 2021. Trump had refused to concede defeat to President-elect, Joe Biden. He eventually bowed out of office a sulking and sore loser. This is so rare in American democracy that it can safely be considered an aberration – fingers crossed.
In most parts of Africa, sadly, the Trump scenario is not only the order of the day, it is the norm. When a political contest holds, the gladiators basically dig the opponent’s grave, ready to bury him alive. Saddest thing of all is that this scorched earth mindset finds accommodation not only between opposing political parties but, more significantly, between erstwhile comrades and fellow travellers within the same political tent. Any contest for position inside a political party is treated in the same vicious way as a contest between opposing political parties. In some cases, even worse. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly contest’ say, inside the APC or PDP, the two main political parties of government in Nigeria. Historically, though ‘opposition’ politics is alien to the indigenous African (consensus-based) communal governance. Translation for the word ‘opposition’ reads ‘enemy’ in various modern African languages. This deeply ingrained belief remains prominent amongst the elite, a great many of whom have lived, studied and examined the political game at close quarters in the West, although, politics over there is not free of bitterness either.
The reason(s) for open display of bitterness in politics, in Africa, is the object of this week’s essay. First, are Western politicians naturally good-natured individuals, while the Africans are naturally poisonous and embittered lot? The answer to that is categorically no. Let us examine the evidence. In 2007/2008 during the Democratic Party’s primary in the USA, the overwhelming favourite for the party’s nomination was Hilary Clinton and her closest challenger was the relatively unknown and ‘untested’ Barrack Obama. No serious pundit really gave him a chance against the heavyweight and establishment candidate, Clinton, who had the party machine solidly behind her. As the contest narrowed to the two candidates, however, the fight got really dirty: accusations and counter accusations flying around, damaging information dug up everywhere to lunch scurrilous attacks on each other. Clinton stood accused of playing the race card by asking in a commercial: “Who do you want to see answering the 3am crisis call in the White House, me or him?” An oblique reference to Obama’s race, and a greenhorn, and Clinton being the familiar, middle-of-the-road, white face. The campaign was one of the fiercest, nastiest and dirtiest in the history of the Democratic Party. It ended in Obama defeating Clinton in the primary and subsequently becoming president in 2008.
And, guess what? President Obama immediately invited Clinton to join his cabinet as Secretary of State, which she accepted enthusiastically. Hatchets quickly buried. During the Republican Party’s primary election in 2016, the bigwigs in the party came out in a particularly ferocious attack on Donald Trump’s candidacy, describing him variously as bigoted, racist, xenophobic, liar, erratic and all sorts of unprintable epithets. Chief among those lambasting him in such hyperboles were Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, both of whom later became ardent Trump cheerleaders in the US Congress. In a similar vein, during the UK Conservative leadership contest in 2019, current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and his current senior cabinet colleague, Michael Gove, moved from close friendship to become the archest of rivals for the party’s nomination. Gove, at first, was campaign manager for Johnson before suddenly deciding to run against him, describing Johnson as “unfit” for the job of PM. A clear stab in the front for Johnson by one of his closest chums. Johnson went on to win the conservative party’s nomination and the subsequent general election, with a thumping majority in the British Parliament. Gove is now one of the most loyal and ‘trusted’ in Johnson’s cabinet.
When politicians lose a political battle in the African environment, they set themselves up in permanent opposition to the winner even if they are from the same household. Once a political ‘enemy,’ always a political ‘enemy’. The winner must never be allowed to enjoy the spoils of victory if only to prove that the ‘better’ candidate lost. The loser subsequently goes on a long sulk, berating the victor and doing all he can to undermine him for the rest of the time. That said, there is no olive branch from the victor either. The loser must be taught a lesson for having the audacity to run against him in the first place. The main reason why this is not so prevalent in modern Western democracies is threefold; first, party loyalty is visceral, going beyond the immediate personal loss or gain from a contest. Second, there is the sense that, although painful at times, whoever emerges winner would have won fair and square. That, itself, makes losing more acceptable. Third, is class solidarity. The ruling class in the West maintains a level of social contact amongst each other that predates their foray into partisan politics. There is a network of contacts that run through their entire lives. They attend the same elementary, secondary, higher institutions and frequent the same social clubs. Besides, they have broad understanding of the need to preserve power, and keep the masses at bay.
We do not have a similar class solidarity in Africa. Ethnic or regional consciousness rules the day. Any day. No party or ideological longevity to hold the political line. The closest we have had in Nigeria to tribal party loyalty was the position of the APC and the foundation parties that preceded it in Lagos, stretching back a mere 20 years. Former governor Ambode was ousted at the end of his first term, by the then candidate, (now governor) Sanwo-Olu, in the party’s primary in 2019. Ambode went on to declare “total support” for the election of his bitter rival and even promised to campaign “vigorously” for him. That remains an isolated case, not likely to be repeated anytime soon. Why? Because politics is played in a social vacuum in Nigeria as elsewhere in Africa. Politicians often meet randomly as strange bedfellows, on makeshift party platforms, no history, no social or cultural ties beyond the here and now and we expect them to get on like a house on fire, graciously conceding defeats. Finally, by way of contrast, Western democratic power play is kept afloat by the ballast of the welfare state. Whereas, in Africa, politics remains a zero-sum game, because political leaders do not acknowledge each other as stakeholders and custodians of the land with an obligation to bequeath something of value to future generations.
[email protected]
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: [email protected]
