Snares of Disparity Politics in Nigeria By Oseloka H. Obaze

Nigerians were astounded and unsure of how to react to the meeting between President Muhammadu Buhari and former Senate President Ken Nnamani, on 25 April 2016, aimed at breaking the 2016 budgetary impasse. As Senator Ken Nnamani and the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Bello Masari advised the president, “It was in the interest of the country for the two arms of government to close ranks” on budgetary matters and “practice what we call co-management” between the two branches of government. Apropos Nigeria’s dichotomous and disparity politics, such an engagement is unprecedented. Disparity politics is the inverse of bi-partisanship. Disparity politics can be inter-party, inter-ethnic, inter-social strata, and in the case of the ruling APC party, intra-party, which explains why the Eight Senate had problems picking its leadership and now encounters a rift in passing the 2016 budget, despite being the majority party.
Buhari seeking the assistance of two opposition politicians outside government, in tackling the legislative logjam is noteworthy. It was a rare moment of bipartisanship, but also a gesture that marked for President Buhari and the APC, a weighty recognition of dominant realities and importance of collaborative politics, which compel opposing political parties find common ground through compromise. Indisputable, it was the rude awakening to the looming fiscal cliff and grounded government, rather than accommodative politics that compelled the meeting. While such bi-partisan meetings should be the norm, Nigeria’s real politik dictates otherwise. Thus partisan politics in Nigeria remains a zero-sum game, without middle grounds and devoid of centrists. Since Buhari’s government yearns for understanding and patience from Nigerians, its seeming allergy to bi-partisanship, becomes unfathomable. Not fully appreciated, is the extent to which disparity politics has hamstrung Buhari and the APC, since they took over in 2015.
Nigerian leaders have always promised change. Yet, in governing, they fail to carry Nigerians along, because political leaders hardly tolerate the opposition, and find consensus building difficult. Nigerian politicians have also reflexively adopted the Walpolean political economy model, “in which an alliance between the political and economic elite deprived ordinary citizens of access to economic opportunity”, whilst politicians feigned interest in the welfare of the masses. This underpinning thrust of Nigeria’s disparity politics, is double-sided; one flip side being, the perceptible transparent aspects of public privatization; and the other being the underhanded dark side of hijacking governance structures via greed and corrupt practices. This trend is remarkable for its dubious end product: Nigerianization of the economy did not democratize economic opportunity for all, and democratization of Nigeria, did not Nigerianize economic opportunity for many. Nigerians still ignore the adverse implications of this disequilibrium.
Economic dichotomy, a corollary of political dichotomy long assumed a destructive impetus in Nigeria. The deleterious impact has never been so adversely felt by Nigerians as in the past twelve months. If the dividend of change is analogous to hardship, shortages and deprivation, then Nigeria’s economy offered the most remarkable model. Yet, as we are informed, “inclusive growth is about bringing all sectors of the economy and different strata of the society into a process of broad-based economic growth. This raises incomes and creates wealth across the board through increased labour productivity. It is not the same thing as inequality.”
Nigeria’s middle class disappeared long ago. Today the middle class has no champions and a broad swathe of the national population feel disenfranchised. Such feeling is distinct from the routine claim of socio-economic and political marginalization emanating from different nooks, which undergird the corrosive tone of the country’s politics. Government as an employer can’t guarantee monthly salaries; most State governments can’t pay salaries and the Federal government is borrowing to pay salaries. So, the broad spectrum of economic wellbeing, wealth creation and resource distribution engendered by public policies tend to support two extreme ends of the spectrum. This sand glass model has the very wealthy at one end and the very poor at the other end, with a very sinewy middle-class. Such reality presents Nigeria’s present leadership with immense challenges, which perfunctory excuses no longer assuage. Nigeria’s challenge is thus best appreciated via John F. Kennedy’s counsel, that “if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich”. A corollary of this neglect is “declining trust”, characterized as, “part of a broader syndrome of disillusionment.” Ironically, Nigeria’s powerful and the powerless alike, are the victims.
Impatience aside, there is discernible widespread disillusionment with Buhari’s government. Why? The genesis can be traced to disparity politics. Buhari’s government is hamstrung because of the disparity within the ruling APC party, which is abetted by opposition disparity politics. As Senator Babafemi Ojudu, President Buhari’s Adviser on Political Matters admitted recently,
the “party that is in power is an amalgamation of different parties, different viewpoints and different ideas.. People from PDP have their own idea of doing things. People came from ANPP, CPC, ACN, a number of others came as individuals to join the coalition that formed this government.” Ironically, APC members, who as opposition members vowed to make Nigeria under former President Goodluck Jonathan ungovernable, now contend with their scripted disparity modus operandi.
Seventeen years into her return to participatory democracy, Nigeria has been unable to shake off the yoke of disparity politics. Political dichotomy remains aligned to ethnocentric politicking, hence the broad outcry of marginalization. Similarly, alignment of policies is sectoral, as is federal political appointments. Dots on the national political trajectory are all connectable to past political-historical events. The Zik-Awolowo schism; the Obasanjo-Okadigbo rift; Obasanjo’s ‘do-or-die mantra’ and rift with Tinubu; the Yar’Adua-Jonathan succession crisis that triggered the “doctrine of necessity” and Buhari’s-no-reward-for-five-percent voters, all add to the disparity problematique. The growing list includes the consecutive rustication of former Igbo Senate Presidents – Ewerem, Nwabara and Okadigbo - and the exclusion of the Igbo from the Nigerian presidency.
Hardly discussed these days, is the worrisome intrusion of disparity politics into Nigeria’s judicial system and dispensation of justice. Yet, behind closed doors, highly placed Nigerian politicians and leaders allude to judges aligned with or who have sympathy for differing political parties; and judges who fudge their judgements, so that they benefit plaintiffs or appellants from their ethnic stock. Such dubious realities compel the prevalence of judicial forum shopping. Just as disparity politics blunted Nuhu Ribadu’s EFCC from any notable convictions during Obasanjo’s administration, disparity politics is today rendering Buhari’s anti-corruption campaign redundant. Disparity politics explains why northerners never engaged constructively on the Niger Delta militant crisis; and southerners continue to view the Boko Haram scourge as a “northern problem”. Furthermore, twisted perspectives arising from disparity politics foster our inability to build problem-solving coalitions on critical national issues like state creation, minimum wage, budgeting, Boko Haram, Fulani Herdsmen, the PIB and resource sharing. This ostensibly wished-for divide remains costly, well beyond everyday economics.
Nigeria has nationalized indifference; hence mortgaging its future via politics and outcomes that remain indifferent to the plight of the poor and the nation’s youth. This explains why leaders across the political divide, cannot rally to a policy consensus on youth poverty alleviation. The Buhari’s presidency after initially reneging on its campaign promise, said “one million poor and vulnerable Nigerians will soon receive monthly payments of N5,000 to allow them live decently.” Ironically, the yearning by Nigerians for good governance is not peculiar, as it mirrors the desires of people in other emerging democracies; they “want better education and job prospects. And they want clean government.”
As Jean Riboud advised, “If you want to innovate, to change an enterprise or society, it takes people willing to do what’s not expected. Also as Larry Diamond avers, “to build public trust in government, government must govern better: more transparently, responsibly, accountably, and responsively, with more active engagement with the public… and …those who hold the power to rule (and hence to allocate resources) should exercise it...not in their own private interests and those of their kin, cronies, and parties.” Two critical variables of democracy are respect for peoples’ rights and earning their trust; irrespective of whether they voted for you; plus consensus building, compromise and collaborative-negotiations.
Most Nigerians believe that President Buhari is doing his utmost to orchestrate change. While House Speaker Hon. Yakubu Dogara recently challenged APC to “ensure that it delivers on its promise of change” it’s an uncontested fact that President Buhari, his party and his policies are ensnared by disparity politics. Overcoming this challenge will require the president resorting to bipartisan problem-solving, by using Nigerians in good standing irrespective of their political persuasion. Only through such bipartisanship can the president achieve his change agenda.
--------
Obaze, MD/CEO of Selonnes Consult Ltd., is the immediate past Secretary to the Anambra State Government.