Still on Ekiti elections: Cooked rice, raw rice and the trouble with Nigeria

A lot has been said and written about the Ekiti June 21 governorship elections (See for instance: Fashola; Ekiti Polls: My  Take. BusinessDay, 30/6/14, backpage; Ekiti: APC’s first baptism of real politic, Niyi Bello, Guardian,29/6, p16;Lssons in Fayose’s return. The news, 7/7/14, cover  and  Ntia Usukuma’s treatise on political marketing Guardian, 28/6/14, p47). To say that the outcome was shocking is an understatement. But for the fact that everybody-eventual losers, journalists, civil society organizations-ranked the elections excellent, one would have taken it as the usual ‘signs and wonders’ by PDP. Those who want to appreciate the stark contrast between expectations and outcomes should x-ray media reports a week before the elections.   The news, features and comments were about how 21 political parties, commercial motorcyclists and artisans declared support for Fayemi, how PDP finally collapsed in Ekiti State like a pack of cards following the defection of top members into APC, 12 reasons why Fayemi holds the ace and all the ‘scientific polls’ and predictions that gave a landslide to Fayemi, with NOI polls being attacked for predicting a mere 2% gap in favour of Fayemi.

It was obvious that  Fayemi had everything going for him: performance, charisma, urbanity, suavity, grace, civility and good education while Fayose had everything going against him :a lot of question marks, ongoing trial for corruption ,rejection by  Ekiti elites , disrespect for elders  and lacking  the Omoluabi ethos. However, we already know the results and while many generally held that it was due to stomach infrastructure, others also argued otherwise. People recalled Fayemi’s various battles with teachers(needs assessment), civil servants and pensioners (irregular payment of salaries and pensions), students (school fees), the wretched of the earth (okada-ban and demolitions without a human face), governance initiatives that plugged leakages in the systems,  among others. In effect, it was a payback time as people decided to punish him for the negative byproducts of all the goods he did or tried to do.  It was as if  Fayemi was punished for doing the right things: providing leadership, laying foundation for the future, and reforming governance practices. Some people mischievously accused Fayemi of speaking too much grammar and taking government too seriously. 

But he was speaking too much grammar when they elected him and the governor of Ekiti state should actually speak big grammar. Furthermore, Government is indeed a serious business. I agree with Fayemi that he indeed fought a good fight but if we follow the argument of Abraham Ogbodo, it appears that he was either working with a wrong course outline or the marking scheme was faulty!

On the issue of rice, the real difference between Fayose and Fayemi is between raw rice(today) and cooked rice( tomorrow). Fayemi built the future but Fayose gave them here and now (immediate existential concerns). In this case, the question is whether you give customers what they want (marketing concept) even if it is poison or you give them what is good for them and the society (societal marketing concept). It appears Ekiti voters are not interested in deferred gratification. It is surprising that Ekiti, the fountain of knowledge, did not appreciate Fayemi’s practical transformation and rather preferred the politics of the present. However, the Ekiti affair goes beyond this because a lot of issues and questions have arisen. While it shows that voters are emotional (rather than rational), it also shows that people want more than governance; they want leaders they can touch, see and feel  and it appears Fayemi did not fit that bill. It also shows that politics is a long term affair and that long term planning pays. Fayose left office in 2006 but stayed in Ekiti, connecting and reconnecting with the people, sharing their pains and joys and building his brand in their hearts. He knew that one day, the opportunity would come and when that opportunity came, he seized it with both hands.

Another issue is whether Fayose was even qualified to run for that post and why the PDP presented him despite his various baggage. He was  impeached for gross abuse of office and that impeachment has not been upturned by any court and he was under endless investigation by EFCC.  It is not surprising that PDP fielded him because the party always fields candidates with real ‘k-legs’. Omisore and T.A Orji won from detention, Jonathan himself was declared corrupt by Ribadu, Ibori had several theft cases against him and Andy Uba had his hands full as Obasanjo’s executive PA. Fayose was also booted out of office by the same PDP in 2006; it is a classic case of going back to ones vomit! Does it also mean that the people of Ekiti, as educated and enlightened as they are, are not bothered about Fayose’s various question marks? Or is it as some people argued that their various professors were out there in the various campuses all over the world analyzing and propounding but missing in action during elections?  Also, how come EFCC was quick to drop charges against Fayose just because he was declared the winner of an election that has eventually been challenged. Does the constitution confer immunity (and impunity?) to governors elect? In any case, why has the case or cases dragged on from 2006 to 2014; 8 whole years?

Some issues have also arisen from the APC angle. The APC ran Bamidele out of town. The young man was not even allowed to launch his political ambition and both he and his supports became endangered species. When APC started shouting about the suffocating antics of PDP, they did not have my sympathy; they did not come to equity with clean hands. The Bamidele phenomenon is also an unfortunate outcome of APCs anointing and selection strategy. Most of the crises facing the party across the country are traceable to this strategy and unfortunately, the party is indulging in blame-trading rather than sincere soul-searching, repentance and restitution. Ekiti also exposed the dangers and limits of UAD (use and dump) as a political strategy. Fayose aligned with Fayemi in his war against Segun Oni but after victory  the gentleman’s agreement was jettisoned; they reneged on the senatorial seat arrangement with Fayose(and that would have been his last political bus-stop. But certain developments since them are giving me serious causes for concern(next week)…

 Ik Muo