Opinion
Why the colour of #RevolutionNow was not Arab Spring-red | By Festus Adedayo
Published
6 years agoon
They all happened almost simultaneously, as if in a choreography. On February 9, 2011, a huge crowd of protesters had gathered at the Tahir Square in Cairo, Egypt. Unruly, eyes dilating like pellets of ice immersed in mug-full Campari liquor, it was obvious that this was a crowd determined to change the status quo.
They shouted anti-government slogans, calling for an end to oppression, economic adversities and collapse of the Arabian spirit in the Arab world.
A couple of weeks before then, specifically on January 14, 2001, at the Habib Bourguiba Boulevard in Tunis, Tunisia, it was the same huge crowd, mobilized to end the decadent order. Similarly on February 3, 2011, a mammoth crowd of dissidents gathered at the Sana’a in Yemen, calling for the resignation of President Ali Abdullahi Saleh. A couple of months after, specifically on a cold morning of April 29, 2011, hundreds of thousands of people at Baniyas, Syria, gathered to upturn the ruling order.
The overall goal of the protesters was similar: Bring down oppressive regimes that manifested in low standard of living in the Arab world. Dubbed Arab Spring, an allusion to the 1848 Revolution and the Prague Spring of 1968 by Political Scientist, Marc Lynch in an article he did for the American Foreign Policy magazine on January 6, 2011, the upheavals were a series of anti-government protests sparked off in early 2010s in Tunisia that eventually culminated in uprisings and armed rebellion that became widespread across the Arab World.
In a twinkle of an eye, they spread to five other Arab countries, namely Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain, leading to the deposition of the second President of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali; Egyptian Hosni Mubarak; Muammar Gaddafi and Yemeni first President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. In places where such upturns were not achieved, major social dislocations, riots, civil wars and insurgencies followed. In all of this social violence, the demonstrators’ catchphrase was, translated from Arab, “the people want to bring down the regime.”
So, did the #RevolutionNow conveners actually want to bring down the Muhammadu Buhari government last week and if yes, were they representative of the people of Nigeria? I asked this question because, if the Arab Spring upheavals were what they sought to clone, we must place it side by side the gloat of the Buhari presidency which likened their own version to a child’s tantrum and a poor imitation of the original. Femi Adesina, Buhari’s spokesman, articulated the Buhari government’s disdain for and scant belief in the possibility of a rehash of an Arab Spring-like revolution in Nigeria.
My reading of this mockery of the protests was that Buhari, like the ruling class elite now and before him, was persuaded that the internal contradictions in Nigeria can never allow for a people’s revolt against governmental oppressors.
“A revolution is always a mass thing, not a sprinkle of young boys and girls you saw yesterday in different parts of the country. I think it was just a funny thing to call it a revolution protest. In a country of 200 million people and if you see a sprinkle of people saying they are doing a revolution, it was a child’s play. Revolution is something that turns the normal order. What happened yesterday, would you call it a revolution? It was just an irritation, just an irritation and some people want to cause irritation in the country and what I will say is when things boil over, they boil over because you continue to heat them,” the Buhari publicist said.
I am persuaded that the social condition of the 200 million people Adesina literally venerated for staying aloof to the #RevolutionNow is far worse than those of the Arab countries’. Like them, a tiny clique too has held the jugular of power for decades, continuously riding roughshod over their suffering people and believing that a violent upturn was a mirage. This ruling elite’s lethargy, in Nigeria, has resulted in apathy to the worsening fates of society and breeding a teeming agonizing majority.
However, my reading of the presidency’s dismissive appraisal of the #RevolutionNow protests shows that that mockery is situated on a wonky pedestal. Buhari’s basis for dismissing the protest includes its scant attendance, absence of belligerence of the protesters and the fact that things have not yet “boiled over.” Of a truth, on the outward, Omoyele Sowore’s #RevolutionNow, which provoked that disdainful appraisal of the Nigerian presidency, may look too sparse to qualify for a people’s revolt. However, proclaiming it a failure may be a fatal mis-reading of the temperature of revolts.
Though Buhari must have been buoyed into lethargy by the many contradictions of the Nigerian state that might not have allowed Nigerians to troop out in their millions to convince government that Buhari is sitting on a keg of gunpowder, things are actually fast boiling over from within. It is apparent that government has failed to see the success of the protest as a symbolism for perforation of the veneer of governmental resistance. Since it could not see this implication, government then dangerously lapsed into a couple of false assumptions which show it as incapable to properly read what people don’t say.
In his weekly Facebook epistle, Adesina was further lionized to make further fatal fallacious blunders. Citing the viral call of a 4-year old boy who urged his mum to calm down, entitled Why We Need to Calm Down, the president’s spokesman made same ruling elite mistake of equating infrastructural projects with development and imagining that the people are happy. He regaled Nigerians with construction projects which he said were unprecedented in Nigeria’s history. Does he know that development is mental and not merely physical structures?
While Nigeria may indeed have witnessed a flurry of Chinese loan-funded, ostensibly corruption-ridden infrastructural projects, Nigerians’ joy level has sunk considerably under Buhari. Development is in the peace that has eluded Nigerians in the last five years, in the widespread belief that Nigeria is rudderless under Buhari and the fear that Boko Haram, ISWAP, ISIS and bandits are presiding over the Nigerian affairs, rather than the elected political elite.
By definition, a revolution is a fundamental, sudden change in political power and political organization. It is propelled when a people revolt against an oppressive government run by generally perceived incompetent people. In human history, there have been an array of revolutions which significantly changed the status quo. While notable revolutions are the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783, the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, Africa has had its own experiences, ranging from the Angolan Revolution of 1961 – 1974, the Egyptian Revolution of 1919 and the Zanzibar Revolution of 1964. The most recent in this league in Africa is the Arab Spring.
So, what gave #RevolutionNow conveners the impression that Nigeria is ready for a revolt?
Successful revolutions have been known to succumb to some indices. James DeFronzo’s Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements, which can be regarded as a handbook for revolution, provided some insights. Mass frustration resulting in local uprisings, dissident elites, powerful unifying motivations, a severe crisis paralyzing state administrative and coercive power and a permissive or tolerant world context are some of the indices DeFronzo suggested cannot but be present if a revolt against an existing order must sail through.
A critical look at the Nigerian situation reveals the following: Whereas there is mass frustration in the country, this has seldom resulted in local uprisings, except the June 12 riots. In the same vein, the Nigerian elites, being part and parcel of the maggots that lace the Nigerian decadence, are literally having a saturnalia inside the Nigerian sewage and are far from being dissident against the status quo. Again, whereas there are motivations for revolt in virtually all parts of Nigeria, the complexities in diversities of tribe, religion and culture have compelled divisive motivations.
The Nigerian ruling elites are coercive, reckless and feckless in their rule but the contradictory indices earlier provided have restrained massive and widespread paralysis of governments. Allied to these is the fact that while there is indeed a sidon look of the international system against the slide in the affairs of Nigeria, this has lionized the ruling elite into further tightening the screw of their misrule.
Only a surface analysis would conclude that Nigeria is not ripe for a revolution. A combination of an incompetent ruling class and a gale of hopelessness is oscillating in the Nigerian sky. A conservative estimate will show that, at least 90 per cent Nigerians, from all the geopolitical zones, are miserable, hopeless and perceiving life as worthless. At every point, those purportedly elected to provide succor daily advertise confounding helplessness.
Look at the Bauchi State governor who recently appointed a Special Assistant on Unmarried Women Affairs; or the systemic chaos that is the order of the day in Nigeria. Check out the symbolism of Edo State where the unrivalled lawlessness of Adams Oshiomhole is jamming the arrogance of power of Godwin Obaseki. And of course, the massive theft of Nigeria’s inheritance and full-blown wretchedness of Nigerians, both of which are tribal-blind and religion-jaundiced.
What are those contradictions that made the #RevolutionNow look like a failure and which have made Adesina and his ilk gloat at the possibility of an overturn of the system? One is the structural default that Nigeria sits upon. No successful revolt can happen, in the words of DeFronzo, without unifying motivations. Though there is mass frustration, the motivations for revolt are not unifying. This necessitated what happened recently in Katsina, Buhari’s home state. Tired of their massive killing by bandits with a corresponding incapability of their son, Buhari and his sidekick governor, Aminu Masari, Katsina people blocked the roads and asked for their twin resignation.
Also, persuaded that the unprecedented heists in government and Buhari’s cancerous cronyism are offshoots of a systemic imbalance, Southern Nigeria has consistently called for restructuring. In the ears of a feudal North used to kowtowing, however, that singsong is absolute bunkum. Again, while bandits who come from a seeming culture that justifies slaughtering have butchered more Southern Kaduna people than the number of rams they probably slaughtered in their lifetime, the rest of Nigeria’s consternation at this bloodletting sounds strange to the sons of perdition whose DNA is violence and bloodshed. So where can there be one voice against systemic disorder as to propel people to massively gather to upturn a decadent status-quo like Buhari’s?
The above are ills resulting from the calamitous dalliance of Flora Shaw and her British soldier liaison, Lord Lugard. Unfazed by the fact that Nigeria is not a nation but a concentration of nations, with different persuasions, worldviews, cultures, social foundations, human excitements and expectations, this duo soldered the nations into a fractious whole, with dangers for their forcefully welded existence. This resulted in last week’s “sprinkle of young boys and girls,” a la the presidency’s gloat, as against a mass uprising, even though the indices of revolution, the hopelessness, the frustrations, are present everywhere. The truth is, there is no difference between the widespread despondency in Katsina-Ala, the frustration in Nkalagu or the massive disdain with Nigerian ruling class in Igboho but motivations for dissent are not the same.
Femi Adesina and the ruling class as a whole may however not have too long to gloat. To gloat at the impracticability of a revolution is a fallacious appeal to authority. It can also pass as a fallacy of the straw man. This is because it is not unlikely that the Nigerian ruling class might have been holding on to weak, phony and ridiculous beliefs that have no basis in science. The collapse of current world order, especially in this world of Coronavirus, may have underscored this.
It is in the enlightened self interest of the Nigerian ruling class to flatten the curves of inequalities and gross lack and want, otherwise, its thinking that Nigerians are incapable of rising against it will collapse.
This was the thinking of the runners of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The lyrics of Orwellian Beasts of England say this much and are a pointer to the fact that, if the oppression and frustration in Nigeria continue unabated, it may be a push for a surge of the adrenaline of the Nigerian oppressed.
Orwell had enjoined the suffering oppressed, the “Beasts of England, Beasts of Ireland” the corollary inside the Nigerian Animal Farm cage, the, “Beasts of every land and clime” not to be downcast as “Soon or late the day is coming,//Tyrant Man shall be o’erthrown//And the fruitful fields of England//Shall be trod by beasts alone.” Rejoicing in a future of conquest of the system, Orwell also enjoined that, “Rings shall vanish from our noses//And the harness from our back//Bit and spur shall rust forever//Cruel whips no more shall crack.”
Are the Nigerian ruling elite who believe that the decadent order would continue ad infinitum listening?
You may like
-
OLOJO FESTIVAL: Nigeria bigger than all of us, Ooni tells politicians
-
Oseni celebrates Oluremi Tinubu at 66, hails commitment to Nigeria
-
Reps panel declares alleged Presidential council DG’s appointment letter fake
-
Beyond Deportations: What South Africa’s Immigration Crisis Reveals About Nationhood and Economic Frustration
Opinion
Re: Adekambi vs Alli: Dr. Olanrewaju’s Descent To Soliloquizing | Sola Abegunde
Published
1 week agoon
October 1, 2026By
Mega Icon
I have read Dr. Sulaimon Olanrewaju’s piece titled ” Adekambi vs Alli: Between Substance And Sensationalism” and it offers me a lot of entertainment.
Dr. Sulaimon Olanrewaju is a seasoned Journalist no doubt. Very brilliant mind, but, he needs a lecture on politics and governance.
No matter how educated or professional you could be, if you lack basic knowledge about raw politics and governance at different tiers of Government, you are bound to struggle like a fish out of the water each time you attempt to defend certain positions.
Very obviously, Dr. Olanrewaju doesn’t know how a Local Government should operate on a normal situation, even, before the Judgment of the Supreme Court obtained by president Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
I will refer Dr. Olanrewaju to a document titled ” Financial Memorandum for Local Governments”.
That document speaks to how funds belonging to the Local Governments could be legally spent.
It will also provide accurate information about the roles and powers of the Local Government Chairmen, Head of Local Government Administration, the Finance and General Purposes Committee, F&GPC, how approvals for funds, projects and how contracts are signed at the Local Government level.
Had it been that Dr. Olanrewaju had proper information, I am sure that he wouldn’t have advertised his ignorance the way he did, in the argument about Financial autonomy for Local Governments which Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is promising.
He would also have known that his Principal, Governor Seyi Makinde had been engaged in criminal activities in the manner he had been withdrawing and spending resources belonging to the 33 Local Governments illegally since 2019.
Perhaps I need to repeat this for emphasis sake. There is no Law that empowers a state Governor to withdraw money belonging to the Local Governments for the execution of projects on behalf of the Local Governments.
The fact that the monthly allocations for the 33 Local Governments would have to drop on a joint account does not confer any authority on a state Governor to illegally withdraw and spend same.
It is the responsibility of the F&GPC for each of the Local Governments to identify projects it wants to execute, approve funds for same and if the funds are beyond the approving limits of the F&GPC, it will seek approval from the Governor through the office of the Commissioner for Local Governments.
If the project would be executed as a contract, it is the sole responsibility of the HLGA to sign the contract agreement.
That is what Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is saying. That he would not make illegal withdrawals from the Local Governments funds. That he will allow the F&GPC for the 33 Local Governments to function without hinderance. That he will allow the Career officers to do their duties assigned to them by Law.
If Governor Seyi Makinde doesn’t believe in the existence of the Local Governments and he is not hiding this fact and Sarafa Alli is saying, I believe in a functional and free Local Government, where is the sensationalism in that?
Truth hurts. Dr. Olanrewaju can not, through his essay, which I consider an afterthought, rewrite the fact that, his Principal publicly declared that he doesn’t believe in the existence of the Local Governments, not to talk of allowing them to function freely.
I am surprised that Dr. Olanrewaju is of the opinion that Senator Sarafadeen Abiodun Alli is not saying what he would do differently.
I know that the Special Adviser on Media to Governor Seyi Makinde is not deaf. Neither is he blind or dumb. He is only being hypocritical.
How else does the Allied People’s Movement, APM and its Gubernatorial candidate want the All Progressives Congress, APC Gubernatorial candidate to say what he is going to do differently?
On this issue of Financial autonomy for Local Governments, Sarafadeen Alli is saying, contrary to the illegalities of the past seven years plus, he will not concern himself with the responsibilities that are ordinarily that of the Local Governments.
On Education, he has declared that he will ensure that we go back to the 30 Pupils per classroom policy of the former Governor, Senator Rasidi Adewolu Ladoja, now, H. I . M, Oba Senator Rasidi Adewolu Ladoja.
He said he will revive the Broadcasting Corporations of Oyo state, BCOS which is gasping for breath under Governor Seyi Makinde.
He was emphatic about the fact that he would set up a Committee to review the crisis created at the Circular Road by Governor Seyi Makinde within 72 hours when he is elected as the Governor of Oyo state.
He said he would review the sales and handing over of our Farm Settlements to Estate Developers amongst other promises.
On these issues, what are the clear positions taken by Adekambi?
If Dr. Olanrewaju wants us to believe his cock and bull stories about the performance of the 33 Local Governments under Seyi Makinde, I challenge him to ask his Principal to publish the statement of income and expenditures for the 33 Local Governments in the past seven years plus.
He should give us a breakdown of the total figure of the monthly allocations received on behalf of the 33 Local Governments, the breakdown of salaries and allowances paid, the number of projects executed, identities of the contractors who handled projects, the contract agreements, total figure of the Internally Generated Revenues, IGR received by the Local Governments and the VAT.
In the absence of these vital information, which I am certain they will never dare to make public, I want to humbly suggest that Dr. Olanrewaju should go and update his knowledge about how certain things are done.
Opinion
Ladoja @82: When the ladder becomes too tall and Makinde’s sin of ingratitude | By Ayinla Joseph
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 28, 2026The Yoruba say, when a man forgets the ladder that took him to the top of the iroko tree, the fall that awaits him will be narrated as a proverb.
On Thursday, Ibadan stood still for its king. Oba Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja clocked 82. Not 82 years of mere age, but 82 years of bruises, battles, betrayals and benediction. A former Senator. A former Governor. An elder statesman who, like Oduduwa, returned as king. The following day, Friday, Oba Ladoja also clocked one year on the throne of his forefathers.
Ibadan celebrated him. Nigeria celebrated him. The Presidency sent greetings. Former governors knelt. Serving governors bowed. The Alaafin of Oyo paid tribute. The Soun of Ogbomoso poured libation of words. Even the Aseyin, far in Iseyin, bought a full page in a national daily to say: our father lives.
But in Agodi Government House, there was silence. Cold, deliberate, imperial silence.
Governor Seyi Makinde did not felicitate his king. No advert. No statement. No courtesy of any sort extended. Nothing. His protégé, Bimbo Adekanmbi, toed the same line of contempt. For 48 hours, Ibadan people waited for a word that never came, until shame forced a whisper.
We must ask: what manner of politics is this?
In 2019, it was this same Ladoja who held Makinde’s hand when Makinde had no hand to hold. It was Ladoja who coordinated the coalition, who gathered the angry, the broken and the hopeful, and stitched them into a garment called victory for a man who had never won anything before. Without Ladoja, there would have been no Omituntun in 2019. And the man knows it.
Philosophers call it the Paradox of Power. Machiavelli warned about it in “The Prince”: that power acquired through the mercy of others must be sustained by gratitude, otherwise it consumes itself. Plato called such rulers philosopher-kings who failed philosophy. Men who know how to win power but not how to carry it.
History is littered with them.
Emperor Nero of Rome who burnt the city that made him emperor. King Rehoboam in the Bible who told the elders who made him king: “My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s waist.” Emperor Commodus who thought Rome was his father’s farm and turned the palace into a circus until the circus swallowed him.
Seyi Makinde governs like them — as an emperor, not as an Omoluabi. A man who believes loyalty must flow upwards to him, but must never flow downwards from him. He rides on the shoulders of giants and then complains that the giants are too tall.
Today it is Ladoja he snubs. Yesterday it was the Alaafin. The day before, the Soun. Tomorrow, which Oba will taste his disdain? He has transferred his personal hatred for the Olubadan stool into a war against all royal stools in Oyo State. That is not politics. That is poison.
And what shall we say of Bimbo Adekanmbi, his political son, who has learnt this ignoble art of ingratitude so perfectly? The Yoruba say, “the child who says his mother will not sleep, he too will not sleep.” To watch a man seeking to be governor practise contempt for the throne he seeks to govern is a disaster foretold.
Oyo people know Omituntun 2.0 for what it is — a poisonous pill coated with sweet advertisement. If 2.0 can openly humiliate an 82-year-old first-class monarch who made him, what will Omituntun 3.0, headed by his anointed, do? It will be the unkindest cut of all. It will be the complete desecration of the Omoluabi ethos that Ibadan and Oyo hold sacred.
Seyi Makinde will be remembered. Not for the roads that crack before commissioning. Not for the parks that lead to nowhere. He will be remembered as the governor who rode on the backs of eminent men and made every one of them regret that they ever lent him their shoulders.
Ladoja at 82 needs no advert from Agodi to be great. The king’s greatness is not conferred by the governor. But the governor’s smallness is exposed by how he treats his king.
Oyo people, shine your eyes. This affliction must not rise a second time.
Opinion
Makinde Deserves No Sympathy: He Brought His Present Predicament Upon Himself
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 23, 2026In response to my brother, Shuaib Idris, who wrote the piece titled “Seyi Makinde Deserves Our Sympathy,” I submit that Seyi Makinde does not deserve our sympathy. How do you sympathise with somebody who brought political calamity upon himself?
There is a point in every political journey when a leader must pause, look around and ask himself a difficult question: How did I get here? For Governor Seyi Makinde, that moment has long arrived.
Much has been written and said about the governor’s increasingly combative public interventions, his exchanges with political opponents and his determination to market the candidacy of his preferred successor. Some have interpreted these developments as signs of pressure surrounding him. But sympathy, in this circumstance, may be misplaced.
If Governor Makinde is under pressure today, much of that pressure is self-inflicted. If his administration is now being subjected to increasingly intense scrutiny, he cannot reasonably blame those asking the questions. And if political opponents have become emboldened enough to challenge his record openly, he should perhaps examine the decisions and conduct that have created the circumstances in which those challenges are now flourishing.
The governor’s recent political conduct provides ample illustration.
At the 70th birthday celebration of Bishop Francis Wale Oke, the governor reportedly used his appearance to introduce Bimbo Adekanmbi, the APM governorship candidate whom he supports. Adekanmbi’s emergence as the APM candidate is not in dispute; the party adopted him as its consensus candidate in May.
Two things continue to haunt him: his subpar performance in office and what critics describe as his imposition of Adekanmbi and Open Salawu, new entrants into his team, on his “first eleven.”
The question, therefore, is not whether Governor Makinde has the right to support a candidate. He does. The question is why a governor who repeatedly speaks of his administration’s achievements appears increasingly eager to make the 2027 succession contest a personal project.
A governor nearing the end of his tenure should ordinarily be concerned about preserving the dignity of the office, defending his record with facts and allowing his preferred candidate to present his own credentials. Indeed, Adekanmbi himself has publicly said he would not be a political stooge and that he would take responsibility for his own decisions if elected. That is political rhetoric. However, everything about Adekanmbi, according to his critics, points to the possibility of his being a stooge waiting to be planted to do Makinde’s bidding after the latter leaves office in 2027.
Yet Governor Makinde has increasingly inserted himself into the political conversation surrounding his successor. That creates an unavoidable question: if Adekanmbi is sufficiently qualified and politically prepared to succeed him, why does the governor so frequently feel compelled to fight the successor’s battles himself?
This is where the argument about pressure becomes particularly relevant. Political pressure does not simply descend from heaven. It can be generated by the choices of the politician himself.
Consider the recent exchange with Senator Sharafadeen Alli over the legal profession. Governor Makinde reportedly questioned Alli’s experience as a lawyer, arguing that he had never entered a courtroom. Alli’s campaign organisation subsequently responded by detailing his legal background and professional experience.
There is nothing wrong with political candidates examining one another’s records. That is part of democratic competition. But reducing a lawyer’s professional identity to courtroom appearances is a curious line of attack, particularly when the political argument ought ultimately to be about competence, experience, policy and public record.
A lawyer can practise in several areas of the profession without making litigation the centre of his career. Administrative work, corporate practice, legal consultancy, governance and institutional management are among the possible avenues available to members of the profession.
The larger point, however, is this: when an incumbent administration turns the professional credentials of an opponent into a central campaign issue, it invites its own record to be placed under the microscope. So, why does he need to be sympathised with over what he brought upon himself?
The response from Alli’s camp has shifted attention towards questions about Makinde’s own record as an engineer and governor, particularly the controversy surrounding diesel-powered streetlights and the renovation of the Lekan Salami Stadium. Those are now matters of public political debate, with competing claims about expenditure and performance. How do you sympathise with someone who threw a stone and received a Scud missile?
This is the unavoidable consequence of political combat: once you open the door to scrutiny of another man’s credentials, you should expect yours to be examined with equal intensity. Governor Makinde cannot reasonably demand immunity from the same standard he applies to others.
The same principle applies to his much-advertised “first eleven.” If the governor describes his administration as being driven by a carefully assembled team of exceptional people, the public is entitled to ask what became of that team when the question of succession arose. Why was the search for a successor extended beyond this celebrated first eleven?
A football coach who constantly boasts about his first eleven naturally invites the question of who among that eleven can step forward when the captain leaves the field. If none is selected, his team’s fans will ask why. That is not persecution. It is accountability.
There is another issue the governor should confront: political loyalty. Governor Makinde did not arrive at the Government House in 2019 in isolation. His political journey involved alliances with people and groups who contributed to the coalition that eventually produced his victory. The political history of that period is well known and should not be rewritten simply because former allies and associates are now on different sides of the political divide.
The problem with “use and discard” politics is that yesterday’s ally eventually becomes tomorrow’s witness. People who helped build a political structure do not disappear simply because their usefulness has expired. And when they begin speaking, the politician who once relied on them may find himself answering questions he never anticipated.
That appears to be part of the political atmosphere surrounding Governor Makinde today. His confrontation with traditional institutions is another matter that requires careful reflection. Whatever one’s political affiliation, Yoruba traditional institutions occupy a distinctive place in the cultural architecture of Oyo State. Political disagreement with individual traditional rulers is legitimate; treating the institution itself with disdain is entirely wrong, and it raises questions about Makinde’s Omoluabi values.
A governor may disagree with a monarch’s political preference. He may even believe traditional rulers should remain politically neutral. But the language employed in expressing that disagreement matters.
The office of governor carries enormous constitutional authority, but it also carries a moral obligation to exercise restraint. A governor should not need to be reminded that words spoken from Government House do not remain personal words. They acquire the weight of the office. That is why some of Governor Makinde’s recent public exchanges have generated such controversy.
The irony is that political power is temporary, while institutions and relationships often outlive individual office holders. The governor should know this better than most.
He is approaching the end of his constitutionally permitted tenure in Oyo State. The political question before him is therefore not how to remain governor indefinitely, but what legacy he will leave behind. Will he be remembered primarily for the projects executed under his administration? For the policies introduced? For the institutions strengthened? Or increasingly for the political battles fought during the final phase of his tenure? The last question is what will occupy people’s minds most after Makinde has left office.
The most consequential political mistake an incumbent can make is to interpret every criticism as persecution and every opponent as an enemy. Criticism is not necessarily hatred. Opposition is not necessarily sabotage. Questions about public expenditure are not necessarily attacks on a person. And scrutiny of an administration is not evidence of an organised conspiracy.
A mature government answers questions. A confident administration publishes records. A secure political movement allows its candidate to speak. And a governor who believes his record speaks for itself should have little reason to spend every available political moment speaking for his preferred successor.
That is why sympathy for Governor Makinde is evidently misplaced. The political pressure surrounding him today is not simply something that happened to him. It is also the product of political decisions, alliances, rhetoric and strategies that he and his political associates have consciously pursued.
He chose his successor. He chose his political platform. He chose to engage his opponents. He chose to make their records a subject of public debate. He chose to defend his administration through increasingly political exchanges. Those choices have consequences.
The electorate is now watching. And when the people begin to ask questions, the appropriate response from a governor is not to complain about pressure. It is to provide answers. Oyo people do not owe any politician sympathy for the consequences of his political choices. They owe themselves something far more important: a careful examination of every candidate, every record, every promise and every claim before making their decision in 2027.
MEGAICON TV
Oyo South: Oseni restates commitment to people-centred legislation
Oyo: Alli condemns attacks on wife, APC candidates, alleges APM involvement
Alli hails Tinubu, Uzodimma over rescue of 20 Oyo corps members
Trending
-
Politics2 weeks agoAPM Rally: APC Tackles Makinde Over Use of ‘CAF-Rejected’ ₦5.5bn Stadium
-
News4 weeks agoOyo South: Oseni Approves N100m for Ibadan Community Road Rehabilitation
-
Politics4 weeks agoOyo 2027: Alli appoints Oladele, Olaosebikan, Tunji media directors
-
Politics4 weeks agoOyo South: Ibadan security groups back Oseni’s senatorial bid