In addition to this, the hierarchy of the party has also decided that AD and Afenifere are the same ñ meaning that all
members of the Afenifere are enjoined to belong to only the AD and to no other political party.
How can a political party that engages in these three practices say it is progressive? The AD is a conservative party. Anyone
that says otherwise is either pretending or uninformed.
In most democracies, it is what the individual does that determines his political ideology and not the label he sticks to
himself. For instance, in Nigeria there are many people who had always called themselves progressives when Chief Awolowo was in charge, but who became military
apologists when Abacha assumed the reins of power. There are people in the South West who were wining and dining with the military who have becoming high
political office holders simply because they called themselves Afenifere. If General Abacha comes back to life today to become the Head of State, these
same people will join him in order to retain their offices.
Although years of military rule have not allowed the evolution of a mature political culture and the emergence of ideologies,
it is time we abandoned these meaningless labels and focused on individuals rather than the platforms on which they profess to stand. People should begin to
identify consistent politicians with integrity rather than allowing themselves to be deceived by labels. After this has been done, we should go to the next
level, which is aggregating along ideological lines.
The present political parties were not formed along ideological lines; they were simply platforms of convenience that people
who wanted to participate in politics were forced to climb. The process of people aggregating along truly ideological lines will be a gradual evolutionary
process. The first step is for people to decide on a political vehicle before deciding where to be in the vehicle, and in which direction the vehicle should
move, for it is the people in the vehicle who will determine its direction.
In a large party such as the PDP, certain people will be at the centre, others on the right and others on the left along the
ideological spectrum. Using the examples of the Democrats and the Republicans in the US for instance, persons with the same ideological leaning may be in two
different political parties say, left of a conservative party such as the Republican or right of a liberal party such as the Democratic Party.
Direction of the politics of the South-West
What then could have been responsible for Chief Anthony Enahoro not pitching his tent with his erstwhile allies?
There are two extremes that I see in the politics of the South-West. At one end is the politics of opportunism. I will not
mention names but everyone knows the practitioners of amala politics; we know the military apologists who will wine and dine with the demon for the sake
of money and political power.
At the other end, you have those I call the conservative self-isolationists who are more principled than the amala
politicians but believe wrongly and to the eternal detriment of the Yoruba that the best way to safeguard the interest of the Yoruba is for all of us to
mass inside one ethnic political enclave outside a national political party. There are historical precedents; the Action Group, Unity Party of Nigeria and now
Alliance for Democracy. A lot of people who today prefer to call themselves Awoists would tell you that, that is the political philosophy, which Chief Obafemi
Awolowo handed down.
Their first mistake is that Chief Awolowo, a highly intelligent and astute politician, adopted that philosophy and strategy
because he was operating under a true federal system where power was decentralised, the regions (federating units) truly autonomous and fiscal federalism at its
optimum. His political philosophy suited the political structure of the country. The West and other regions each had its constitution. The West had its own
crown agent in the UK who was as good as an Ambassador.
However, today we are operating an over-centralised federal system, and the failure of the leadership of the Yoruba to adapt or
modify its political philosophy and strategy to suit an over-centralised federal system by working within national parties and forging inter-ethnic alliances
within these parties has been responsible for the political isolation of the Yoruba nation.
That a Yoruba man is President of Nigeria today is not the direct result of the politics of Afenifere That Abiola won
the June 12 election is not the direct result of politics of Afenifere. It is a direct result of the very first and historic location of the Yoruba in a
national political party the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The first time a Yoruba man won a national election was the first time the Yoruba were in a national
political party. If Chief Abiola had not practised national politics, he would not have won the election and there would have been nothing for Afenifere
to fight for. That the whole of Nigeria decided that the candidates in the 1999 presidential election would be Yoruba is a direct result of the denial of
victory to M.K.O. Abiola.
Before then, all that had been happening was that the Yoruba were engaged in political self-isolation, and some people so much
got used to us being in opposition and isolation that when Chief Abiola won the election, they could not take it.
So the SDP and the victory of Chief Abiola exploded that myth that we must all mass into one ethnic political party outside a
national party to protect our interest. The young politicians in the Niger Delta have also exploded it. They are fighting for resource control, but are still in
the PDP where they are vigorously fighting for the interest of their people. They have not formed a Niger Delta party.
I say the present political philosophy is to the detriment of the Yoruba because, in spite of the educational and other
advancements the South-West has made, in the present political arrangement, the South-West is marginalised. For instance, most people in the South-West believe
that the present federal system should be decentralised. However, in order to effect the decentralisation, you need a constitutional amendment, which requires
two-thirds majority of not only the National Assembly but two-thirds, i.e. 24 out of the 36 state Houses of Assembly. How can a party like the AD with 15
senators out of 109 (14 per cent) or six Houses of Assembly out of 36 (16 per cent) effect the change that is required to dismantle the present over-centralised
system?
This is just another example of how we disable ourselves by sheer wrong strategy. How can a party that has found it difficult
to forge alliances or move outside its ethnic enclave convince others to come along with them? It is obvious that AD is a party that has boxed itself into a
corner, and with its factionalisation is busy shooting itself in the foot in that corner. This is why I say there has been a deterioration in the direction of
Yoruba politics.
The second serious mistake is that there has been a massive deterioration in the nature of Yoruba politics since Chief Awolowo
left the scene.
In the days of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, he was able to reach out to other ethnic groups to some extent. We had the Chief
Ajuluchukwus, the J.S. Tarkas, the Chief Enahoros, the Chief Rewanes, associates in the North, the NEPU, etc. Chief Awolowo used to send legal teams to various
parts of the country to assist those who were being politically oppressed.
Today, all that is gone; there are no Enahoros, no Rewanes, no Ajuluchukwus. Even principled politicians such as Dr. Ezeife
have had to excuse themselves. Edo and Delta that were traditional allies of the Yoruba political family have left. I have heard Yorubas say that it is the
fault of those who left us. It is not! The fault is squarely that of our outmoded and unsuited political strategy and philosophy. We have not only refused to
adapt but we have retrogressed.
Furthermore, let ask ourselves whether there is any AD Governor whose quality and content in governance is anywhere near to
that of Chief Awolowo? This is why I say that there has been a massive deterioration in the content of Yoruba politics. If things go on this way, I see the
Yoruba nation become an ancient but irrelevant civilisation in Nigeria.
The solution
The solution is for the Yorubas to move into a truly national party, become a major force within that party and forge
inter-ethnic alliances. (Those who do not share this view should not be compelled.) The only viable vehicle I see is the PDP. The AD is not only irreversibly
divided but has sown the seeds of its own decimation by its style and philosophy. APP is in limbo and confusion.
One party state
In view of the fact that AD and APP have failed to get their acts together, one may begin to entertain the fear of a one party
state. The ethnic diversity in Nigeria is unlikely to permit the operation of a one party state syndrome. This is confirmed by the paradox that the greatest
opposition to President Obasanjo has come from within his own party rather that the AD or APP.
I have spoken of two extreme positions; I believe that the majority of Yorubas who do not belong to these extremes should move
into PDP and locate themselves along the spectrum of what is essentially a rainbow coalition.
If the party is perceived as conservative, it is up to those of us in it to do what Tony Blair and others did in the UK with
the Labour Party: move it in the appropriate direction (to the centre) along with other progressive and liberal minded people from various parts of the country.
As one who fought alongside other pro-democracy groups, including taking part in the five million-man anti-Abacha march in Yaba
in 1998, I doff my hat for the principled and courageous leadership of the Afenifere in the fight against military tyranny. With persons like Senator
Abraham Adesanya, the younger generation cannot but appreciate his lesson in integrity.
However, apart from the fact that the leadership of the Yoruba has itself proved to be very conservative, it cannot be, and it
must not be that the Yoruba must be eternally sentenced to marginalisation and self-isolation in seeking the best for our people.
It is time for a change of direction and strategy!
November 2001