In his 2018 book, “How to Get Rid of a President: History’s Guide to Removing Unpopular, Unable, or Unfit Chief Executives,” David Priess, an American academic and former intelligence operative with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), highlights how the 1876-1877 presidential election “reinforced Americans’ disgust with corrupt electoral politics.” It was America at its worst. Parsing Mr Preiss’ narration will be ineffective for our messaging intent, so instead I’ll present crucial portions verbatim viz.
“A committee appointed in 1878 by the House of Representatives to investigate the Hayes-Tilden election exposed to the public many unscrupulous aspects of the contest – from voter suppression before the election to ballot tampering during it to effort by supporters of both candidates to bribe the three Southern swing states’ election officials during the returning-board debacle.”
“Its findings suggested that while Hayes would have been the winner had African Americans felt less intimidated from voting, Tilden would have been the winner had Republicans not manipulated ballots and bribed members of returning boards.”
“Perhaps as a result of revulsion to these tactics, which appeared to exceed the dirty tricks in previous campaigns, voter turnout in future president election years would never again reach the level achieved in the Hayes-Tilden contest.”
As if by some sort of serendipity, Tom Hanks, a very famous American movie star, together with Jeffery Robinson, penned and filmed an opinion piece for the Washington Post in early April 2023 titled “How to rig an election – with deadly, racist consequences,” which dramatizes in easily remembered graphic detail how the so-called “Compromise of 1877” will have debilitating consequences for African Americans for almost 150 years thereafter. Some background is important at this point.
Rutherford Hayes was the presidential candidate of the Republican Party, which supported black emancipation, in the 1876 presidential election. Samuel Tilden, was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, which back then was underpinned by white supremacist ideology. But while Mr Tilden won the popular vote, he did not have enough at the electoral college to emerge winner, as votes in four states were in dispute. An impasse ensued, with neither side willing to concede defeat.
Mr Obi is Nigeria’s opposition leader. He may be president someday. But today, he is Nigeria’s leader of the opposition. He must do his duty
As a compromise, white supremacist Democrats proposed that the Republican Hayes could be president if they agreed that troops from America’s north, a Republican black emancipation bastion, will withdraw from America’s white supremacist south, where the Democrats ruled. Simply put, African Americans were sold to quasi-slavery yet again. In Hanks and Robinson’s words in the Washington Post, the Republicans “sacrificed the rights and liberties of newly freed enslaved people to settle a disputed election and appease southern resentment.” It was a bad compromise that will cost African Americans dearly. As the history will show, it is naïve to presume that political advantages secured in time will be frozen in time. They rarely do without additional effort. And once they are compromised away for varied reasons ranging from stability to corrupt self-enrichment, they are very difficult to reacquire.
This is perhaps the lesson Nigeria’s northern elite learnt early and so well. During the Obasanjo-Jonathan years, there was a lot of political anguish in northern elite circles. The whole was slipping away right before their very eyes, they thought. “Allah ka dawo mana dashi” (“God, bring power back to us”) was pronounced as prayer in many mosques in the north during this time. When they thought Yaradua was finally going to break what was increasingly seeming like a jinx, he died. To put it bluntly, making sure Buhari became president was quite literally a do or die affair for the northern elite. They were willing to make a deal with anyone, even a Mr Tinubu. With that kind of regional support, Mr Buhari’s presidency was assured. That is why despite Mr Buhari’s many failings, he remains a hero of his people. Mr Tinubu does not have the same advantages.
Mr Obi’s urbane and calm political approach is almost certainly a relief and source of huge frustration for Mr Tinubu. Because while on the one hand Mr Obi has successfully calmed his boisterous young followers, he has also shown by that action that his political influence is unquestionable. Mr Obi also has the kind of overwhelming support among his Igbo folk that Mr Tinubu does not have with his Yoruba kinsmen. Mr Tinubu’s appeal to Yoruba kinship has not worked because of his many controversies, betrayals and perceived violent affiliations. Afenifere, the Yoruba socio-political group, cannot easily forget the damage Mr Tinubu did to them. It will probably be to his huge frustration that being president will not be enough to win many Yorubas over. What people have seen and experienced by themselves cannot be sweet-talked over: People know exactly who Mr Tinubu is, especially his Yoruba kinsmen. Mr Obi’s task therefore is to hold the line by ensuring that his huge number of followers across tribal and religious loyalties have in him a source of hope in a country that many are beginning to give up on. Mr Obi is Nigeria’s opposition leader. He may be president someday. But today, he is Nigeria’s leader of the opposition. He must do his duty.
