The Stockholm syndrome

In 1973, there was the famous bank robbery at the Norrmalmstorg Square in Stockholm, Sweden, which resulted in a hostage crisis best known as the origin of the ‘Stockholm syndrome.’ This syndrome is the psychological condition whereby a victim of kidnapping or hostage-taking shows up a curious feeling of trust and affection towards his/her captor, while simultaneously growing rebellious towards potential rescue authorities such as the police. In the particular case of the 1973 Stockholm robbery, there was a hostage who became romantically attached to one of her captors and serially frustrated moves by security forces to secure her freedom.

Recent developments in the Nigerian political space symptomised the Stockholm syndrome at its patronising and cronystic best. The governed, or at least a significant portion, seem in sedate thrall to the power elite who hold the levers of power in unyielding captivity. Rather than put those power actors to task by calling them to painstaking account on their past and present stewardships, and setting reasoned terms for fresh issuance of power mandates ahead of the coming poll, the governed are falling over heels in sycophantic offerings to the governing elite.   

At the last count, about a dozen principal political office holders have ostensibly been prevailed upon by grassroots admirers to pitch for another term in the public offices they presently occupy, or indeed higher ones, in the 2019 general election. In a number of cases these supporters, who ordinarily are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, preemptively threw in humongous sums to underwrite party nomination forms priced at cut-throat rates, and as well other election expenses, as their modest way of getting the political principals going.

Only last week, President Muhammadu Buhari received presidential nomination forms of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) with a price tag of N45million, which was procured and donated by a group of supporters. “Just now at the State House, I was presented with the APC presidential expression of interest and nomination forms by the Nigeria Consolidation Ambassadors Network (NCAN). A mixture of familiar faces, as well as new ones, united by a common vision of a secure and prosperous Nigeria,” he announced on his @MBuhari twitter handle.

Also last week, a delegation of the Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria brought in a cheque of N56.8million to the APC leadership as support for the president’s campaign.

Earlier on in the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar openly dissolved in tears when a group of supporters donated the party’s N12million presidential nomination forms to him. Without that donation, he could easily have borne the cost of hundreds of those forms and not dent his vast resources.

It isn’t only at the presidential level there have been munificent offerings by economic stragglers to political deep pockets. Barely two weeks ago, Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu announced that a coalition of his tribesmen took him unawares by donating PDP’s N3.5million senatorial nomination forms to him. “They presented me the PDP nomination forms…requesting that I return to the Senate in 2019. My people, my primary employers, have spoken. I have no choice than to humbly accept to run for the Senate again,” he said.

And early last week, a group of cattle traders along with some independent petroleum marketers procured APC’s N22.5million governorship nomination forms to compel Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s outing with a declaration that he would seek re-election in 2019. Among others, Niger State Governor Abubakar Sani-Bello and his Kano State counterpart, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, have as well been treated to offerings of the ruling party’s expensive nomination forms by supporters who pressed them to seek re-election.

Even with the heavy clouds hanging over his choice of political platform, House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara last week in Abuja received supporters at whose apparent behest he gave in to seeking yet another term in the legislative chamber where he is presently serving out his third four-year term. Although he was yet to pick the nomination forms, Dogara said he had thought to call it quits, but was prevailed upon by the supporters to the contrary.

‘It isn’t only at the presidential level there have been munificent offerings by economic stragglers to political deep pockets’

Talking strict legality, it is debatable that the various donations of nomination forms as well as funds for election expenses – as with rice farmers’ N56.8million cheque for Buhari’s campaign – complied with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as Amended), which is the subsisting law. Section 91(9), for instance, stipulates a cap of one million naira donation by any singular entity to candidates; but it might be argued that politicians now on the gravy train are aspirants yet to emerge as candidates. Section 92(1) of the same law, however, defines election expenses as costs incurred “within the period from the date notice is given by the (Independent National Electoral) Commission to conduct an election, up to and including the polling day in respect of the particular election.” INEC issued the said notice on August 17; and as such, all expenditures from that time henceforth, including the recent donations of forms and funds, could well be reckoned as election expenses to which statutory ceilings apply. But that is just by the way.

The topical issue here is more the morality than legality of the donations. It is curious, for instance, that supposed grassroots citizens are stampeding with huge donations to well-resourced political actors in a country of some 180million people where more than 87million live in extreme poverty, according to the World Poverty Clock.

In June, the Brookings Institution had named Nigeria the world’s poverty capital, having overtook India that previously held the position. Even if we disregard Brookings’ status report, as the government counseled, we have the account of British Prime Minister Theresa May who late in August said Nigeria was home to the highest number of “very poor people” in the world. May spoke in Cape Town, South Africa, during an African tour of which Nigeria was one of her call ports. But a more objective indicator, perhaps, is the Poverty Clock at the World Data Lab in Vienna, Austria, which stated that as at June 2018, 44.2 percent of Nigerians were living in extreme poverty. Living in extreme poverty is defined by the World Bank as living under $1.90 (N684) per day.

The extent of responsibility of respective political actor in incurring or mending this economic condition is without doubt arguable. But preemptive offerings by supposedly struggling citizens to ease these actors’ way in/into power is a different ball game. Notice that the donations are not exactly the same as pennyworth contributions typically mobilised by candidates from throngs of faceless individuals as a gesture of conviction in the merit of their platform, as is common to developed democracies. Ours is a situation whereby supporters step out to be seen with their huge offerings by beneficiary power actors.

Nigeria’s tax authorities may need to do a reality check on how well these generous donors have met their tax obligations under the law. But that is by the way. A more important issue is that if the country’s economy is what it is reported to be, those donations proved Theresa May’s point that though our economy is thriving, it is not inclusive. “Much of Nigeria is thriving, with many individuals enjoying the fruits of a resurgent economy. Yet 87million Nigerians live below $1 and 90 cents a day, making it home to more very poor people than any other nation in the world,” the British leader had said. In such circumstance, the onus is on government to more diligently pursue inclusive growth of the economy.

Another dimension to this curious trend is the morality of power actors unquestioningly accepting the said donations. It is hugely doubtful that the donors are free givers who desire nothing in return, and the obvious catch is an expectation of dedicated patronage when their favoured political actors are settled in power. If they ever have their way, the joke is on the anti-graft labours of the present administration.