Oby’s challenge

Early on Thursday, last week, Allied Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN) presidential flagbearer, Oby Ezekwesili, pulled out from the crowded field of an election that is slated to hold barely three weeks hence. She said she was quitting the race to devote her time to building a strong coalition that could overawe ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and leading opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the coming poll.

The activist-politician, who had all the while positioned her candidature as a viable alternative to the two dominant parties, appeared to have finally come to terms with the legendary futility of fragmented opposition challenge in political contestation. Bear in mind that the conclusive list of contenders recently unveiled by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) showed there are in excess of 70 candidates cleared to take a shot at the presidency. And that is out of a motley crowd of 91 registered parties the electoral body has on its roll.

In making her decision known on Thursday, Ezekwesili canvassed a broad coalition to effectively challenge the existing duopoly. “It is my ardent belief that this broad coalition for a viable alternative has now become, more than ever before, an urgent mission for and on behalf of Nigerian citizens. I have therefore chosen to lead the way in demonstrating the much-needed patriotic sacrifice for our national revival and redirection,” she said inter alia in a series of tweets. According to her, extensive talks had for some while been underway in private with some other candidates to birth the coalition.

Ezekwesili, from indications, anticipated that her move could be perceived as expedient avoidance of likely defeat in the coming poll, and she attempted to justify it otherwise. She as well revealed that the choice was not with the blessing of her party platform. “My commitment to this promising political recalibration has been consistent and in consonance with my agreement, at the request of candidates under the Presidential Aspirants Coming Together (PACT) arrangement in 2018, when I consented to supervise the internal selection process as an outside observer passionate about building an alternative force,” she said. “However, despite resistance from the Allied Congress Party of Nigeria on these and other issues, I have decided that it is now necessary to show by action and example my determination on this issue by stepping down my candidacy so as to focus squarely on building the coalition to a logical conclusion,” she added.

‘In tossing off her candidature…Ezekwesili pointed the way from brawn to cerebrum as is quite uncommon to our political class’

There should be no gainsaying Ezekwesili’s reputable antecedents as governance technocrat, international finance administrator and civil society activist, among other roles. But from what has played out hitherto on the field of electioneering, many doubted the chances of her going far in the impending poll had she not pulled the stops on her candidature. On the other hand, her withdrawal so close to Election Day will make no difference whatsoever to INEC’s arrangements for the 16^th February poll: her party will still be listed on the ballot, and no substitution of candidate is likely to be accommodated at this time. Related to this is that the relevance of the broad coalition she proposes to facilitate is extremely moot, because all political parties whose candidates have been cleared to run in the poll will yet show up on the ballot.

But there are nevertheless useful morals from Ezekwesili’s manoeuvre that pose a challenge to Nigeria’s power elite and indeed our political culture as a country.

In tossing off her candidature avowedly to work for a more inclusive opposition front, Ezekwesili pointed the way from brawn to cerebrum as is quite uncommon to our political class. Some would argue that she merely copped out to preempt certain defeat in the coming election, but it is instructive she had the courage to do just that. Among other traits, the beauty of democracy in developed societies is how contenders readily forego their aspiration in the face of superior dictates of the political field. That is much unlike in our clime where the prevailing mentality is to fight to the finish and hustle to win by all means – including by superiority of violence, serial subterfuge and a sleigh of underhand practices. Isn’t that what the notorious ‘do-or-die’ mentality is all about?

But our political culture really ought not be defined by coercive capabilities of the actors: not the quantum of cash a contender or the party platform could deploy as war chest; neither the ‘structure’ there may be in place, which for most part is a euphemism for hatchet hands that have been contracted in communities to execute the player’s desperation agenda; nor indeed the size of crowds that could be attracted or contracted to rallies in purported show of the player’s mass appeal. Of course, the point must also be formally made that it isn’t in the possibility of compromising the electoral body in favour of any partisan.

Rather, the strength of our political culture should lie in the power of ideas – even sheer fancies, but lucidly targeted at addressing critical questions of nationhood. To be sure, some ideas may be unhinged from the governing factors of reality, but they are helpful nonetheless because they would drive reasoned choices by voters and shape the national conversation. By all means, we should be able to live with that. After all, when United States President Donald Trump in 2016 vowed to build a border wall for his country, he was being prodigally idealistic. Now he is seeking to work that idealism into reality in a political standoff that has incurred the longest government shutdown ever, and from which a way out is presently being frantically sought. But then, the controversy has also helped to highlight the challenges of immigration in that country like never before in its entire history. That is a pointer to what ideas, or indeed mere fancies, targeted at addressing nationhood challenges could do.

By her manoeuvre last week, Ezekwesili as well pointed the way to how political actors must learn to separate their personal ambition from mission. If we take her stated premises as impeachable, her mission is to help midwife a viable alternative to the constricting duopoly of the two dominant political parties. She obviously realised that the mission could never be accomplished through her presidential aspiration; hence she sacrificed that aspiration, as she stated, in pursuit of the larger objective.

It remains to be seen, of course, how viable her stated mission in itself is. Besides, you can’t foreclose, as some might argue, that her real motive perhaps ranged from frustration with the limited chances that confronted her presidential bid, to preemptive concession of a looming defeat. Still, her example is indicative of how political gladiators should subject their personal ambitions to a larger objective aimed at the good of the society. One major reason for the desperation that characterises our political clime is the inability of actors to see their aspirations as fundamentally secondary to the larger goal of the good health and well being of the society. Hence, such aspirations are viable only to the extent that they serve the larger goal, otherwise they should be readily sacrificed for the larger goal. That is a moral the Ezekwesili manoeuvre holds out.

My view is that if all Ezekwesili achieves with her withdrawal from the presidential race is effectively promoting these morals in our political culture, she would have served her purpose for ever joining the fray.