The APC has had one of the worst starts in our recent political history. With so many false starts in quick succession, the party has been left utterly embarrassed. The unyielding forces at display, both centrifugal and centripetal, have led to an explosive and exothermic reaction, which is threatening to consume their core. The APC-dominated 8th assembly has been characterized by name-calling, mace-dragging, ‘organic-punches’ and shirt-tearing (which apart from the indecent exposure bit, is not so much of a problem given their fat wardrobe allowance; they can actually afford disposable shirts that will be worn only once). They seem to have prodigally plundered the good will they had ab initio; allowing themselves to become a theatre of the absurd. With the way the action is coming thick and fast, if you blink you’ll miss it.
A hitherto simple task of appointing/electing the leadership of the National Assembly was messed up by the party, one with a clear majority in both the upper and lower chambers. Both houses are bitterly divided in two factions that do not appear to be finding common grounds; a battle I have since captioned “Puritanism” versus “pragmatism”. The puritans insisting on consecrated and pious stance of party supremacy and sanctity of party proclamations, and the pragmatic faction adopting the strategy of political expediency, exploiting the inherent ‘loopholes’ of democracy to achieve results.
For the purposes of analysis, let’s do a preliminary inquest. How did things get this bad? If you ask me, the party leadership – both the structured leadership and the powerful godfather(s) – are most culpable, as they have showed little or no leadership in managing the ambitions of their members. They appear to have openly taken sides, choosing to banter in the full glare of the media, as against quietly reaching out in a timely manner and pulling together as a family. The President too, cannot be exculpated. Although he opted for a hybrid approach of a puritan stance (or so it seems) of not interfering in the activities of an independent arm of government, and a pragmatic stance of accepting the eventual outcome of the NASS leadership election, however, I’m sure even he would have come to the realization by now that he deprived his party of his calming influence at their most trying time, post-election. He probably forgot that his position as the President, automatically bestows on him the position of the leader of the party. One would have expected that he’ll be concerned that that arm of government, currently enmeshed in this melee, will play an oversight role to his, including approving his budget and programmes.
Now, let’s move on. Of the two factions (in the upper chambers), the Saraki Group, were the more pragmatic. Aware that the party structures might not favour them, they adopted the strategy of the early Apostles – take the gospel to the ‘Gentiles’ since the ‘Jews’ were not given. And so, they broadened their evangelical net, courting PDP senators, aware of the fact that their numerical strength of over two scores cannot be jettisoned or undermined. In reaching out, they probably adopted the 13th Law of Power: “When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude”. The rest as they say is history. The gospel was well received by PDP; they got baptized, saw a quick opportunity, cashed in and quickly defied orthodoxy to leapfrog to a key leadership position much to the chagrin of the APC. Before the APC knew what was going on, they were “speaking in tongues”; the hallowed chamber had become a tower of Babel…
The Lawan group were rather puritan in their approach, or so they made it seem. Smarting from a supposed “party primaries” that favoured them, they hung on to an “old time religion”, insisting that the party rules must be applied to the latter. While they insisted on focusing on the APC sub-set (apparently carried away by their overrated majority standing), the Saraki group went beyond the unions and intersects, to the universal set; reaching out to both the “believers and unbelievers”. The Lawan group preached the gospel of party supremacy (but forgot that it was a mere proposal, and not an established doctrine). What they didn’t remember too, was that the fibre of the party was weak and so expectedly cannot withstand a robust stress test. They also probably forgot that while the party was formed with short term objectives, they did not entrench any lasting doctrine; so whatever supposed doctrine they were preaching was new to members. There are those who also point out that even that puritan gospel they were preaching had trappings of hypocrisy and grandstanding, as same was not adhered to at all strata of the polity, especially at the states. Never mind.
Same scenario repeated itself at the lower house, except that as expected, they were more combustible, throwing punches and dragging the mace in a monumental show of shame. This was the worst advert for the APC dominated 8th assembly; more so, on a day that it was reported that kids from a secondary school were there on excursion. While the Dogara faction took the more pragmatic approach of reaching out to members of the PDP and other political parties, the Gbajabiamila faction probably counted more on his majority role as minority leader in the 7th assembly, party solidarity and camaraderie and media razzmatazz. As it turned out, and rather unsurprisingly for analysts, he was stunned; Rt. Hon Dogara was elected speaker.
With this realization that the battle was lost, the “Party” reluctantly regrouped and came up with a list of Principal Officers and communicated same to the Senate President and the Speaker. Again, they were faced with the choice between Puritanism and Pragmatism. Should they show penance and atone for their “sins”, by announcing the party’s nomination of men they defeated on the way to the top, and risk having them breathe on their neck? As it turned out, the Senate President turned it down, announcing a different set recommended by the party caucuses at the respective geopolitical zones, whilst being careful to follow the recommended zoning structure. Would you blame him for choosing the path of political expediency? Did he break any constitutional provision? From a pragmatic point of view, do you think anyone who understands the dynamics of power, would appoint someone he defeated in a bitter fought battle (and mind you, they were still ‘unreconciled’), to be the leader of his house? I’m sure you know the answers.
That said, I’m surprised that the APC did not see this coming. The party was formed with a temporal goal – to oust the ‘common enemy’. It is not possible to drive a political party for the long haul with short term objectives and an adhoc ideology. The party had a well worked out strategy for winning the war, but none for sharing the ‘spoils of war’. They perfected their strategy for achieving success, but had no strategy for staying successful (managing success).
Also, like one APC member opined recently, the APC itself is a product of rebellion and so would have expected this and proactively adopted strategies for this moment. They opened their doors to all, including ‘rebellious’ members of other parties; men well versed in the Machiavellian principle of ‘no morality in Politics’. They became a cocktail of divergent minds; strange bed fellows united only in the short term for a common goal. It is only natural, that if proactive steps are not taken, such a marriage could produce children that would fail “paternity tests”.
Lastly, it appears the party forgot to tear the strategy manual they (the legacy party) used to arm-twist the PDP in the 7th assembly. They say thunder does not strike twice in same place. Oh no, it did happen at NASS. Thunder did strike twice, through Rt. Hon. Tambuwal and now the duo of His Excellency Bukola Saraki and Rt. Hon. Lawan. How same party allows themselves to be victims of same strategy introduced by them leaves the blame squarely on their feet.
To make matters worse, the party and their losing candidates appear stuck in the angst of defeat, and so seem stricken betwixt the hangover of their failed ambition and the bitter realization of concession. I know it’s not easy to let go of a well-nourished dream. I know they may have rehearsed how they will slam the gavel with style and panache, but you see, the reality is that elections have taken place, the nation now have a Senate President and his Deputy, a Speaker and his Deputy. They have to brace up and move on. As things stand now, it will be better to swallow that bitter pill than chasing a sweet but unrealizable dream of mustering 75%; if they couldn’t muster a simple majority, how can they muster 75%?
That said, the lessons here are many, prominent of which is the hard truth that if you do not want this kind of drama, avoid quick fixes while forming political parties. You need time to build a party, evolve an ideology and philosophy, making a doctrine out of it and ensuring all members run with it. I’m sure even APC members will quietly agree with me that this was their major undoing. Next time you want to hunt in pack, lay out the rules for sharing before the actual hunt, else you’ll have a chaotic jungle when the game is down. With all the good will of ‘change’ petering away, it remains to be seen how the party can put the false starts behind them and regroup.
Let me end by posing some questions for political scientists. For a moment, forget that this is all about the APC; think about it from a broader perspective. How supreme can a party get (or should a party be)? Assuming it’s okay for a party to zone positions to geopolitical zones, is it okay to stretch this grace to imposing specific leaders on the polity, knowing that this is a National Assembly of Nigeria not of the party? Should you put a party over nation or party constitution over national constitution? What are the boundaries of political expediency? A balance must be struck between loyalty to party and allegiance to nation. They must seek that balance and sustain it.
Written By: R. Tombari Sibe, an Engineer and Strategist.
@rsibe
