|
Election dilemmas for radicals By ABOUT three years ago, in the general preparation for the return to civil rule, I put out a small publication, Manifesto of Popular Democracy. Essentially, the exercise was part of my self-training exercise for my resumption of journalistic writing and popular political education, which I had suspended for about four years to absorb the "death of communism" triumphalism. The manifesto itself was a revised edition of a contribution I made at a seminar in Calabar about a year earlier. As part of this exercise I had distributed copies of the pamphlet to my friends, comrades, journalists, academics, working class activists, women, youths and the more political activists in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Calabar. I was "testing the waters," as the saying goes: the reactions I would receive were to help me assess my fitness to resume my work. As it turned out almost all the reactions I got were from readers praising the publication. Most of them were young people who, I feared, hardly appreciated the historical premises of my rejection of capitalist globalism and the new imperialism. I did not reject electoral politics. Since the youthful reactions taught me very little, I decided to move out to solicit for more "mature" reactions. I sent a short note to a (former) comrade of mine, an academic by profession and a Marxist in politics. He sent a reply, promising to find time to see me for a discussion. I responded, in a second note, that there was indeed much to discuss; but, in the interim, could he just send me even a one-sentence appreciation of the publication I sent to him. My friend persisted, but now promised to see me the following day. I waited. And he came.
It was a painful and frustrating discussion. My visitor went round and around as I relentlessly pursued him for a concrete comment on my Manifesto of Popular Democracy. After about two hours in his seemingly fruitless dialogue, my friend suddenly went silent. When he "woke up," he called me: "Comrade." I answered him: "yes comrade." He then gave it to me: "comrade, your manifesto is very correct. You did not disappoint me. But my problem is your frequent use of the word struggle." It was an anti-climax for I had expected the worst from him. Since he could not coherently or intelligibly explain his newly acquired opposition to struggle, and since I was determined to get something concrete from him, I had to change tactics. I asked whether the demands of the labour union in which he was an activist could be regarded as struggle. He replied in the affirmative, strong affirmative. But then he said: "A union demand is a struggle; a strike is a struggle; but this is different from what you mean by struggle. As a Marxist I know this." It was then I understood my friend: he had been "converted" to electoral politics; he upheld the need for industrial and professional demands, even strikes; but he was no longer in support of struggle in the sense of Marxism. His new position was for "tactical reasons," so that we would not be "crushed." Before we parted I managed to remind him that I was not categorically opposed to electoral politics, and had never been. But I stood for a dialectical combination of electoral and non-electoral politics, not for "tactical reasons," but for a strategic objective: popular democracy. It is non-electoral politics and its combination with electoral politics that my friend was seriously advising against.
The private discussion has now become a public one, as several prominent activists in pro-democracy and human rights movement and the legal profession announce their decision to enter electoral politics, not just as participants, but as candidates. Included in this category are radical leftist politicians who took part in previous political dispensations but who have now "marginalised" themselves or have been "marginalised" for reasons of principle. There is therefore nothing more to settle privately between my comrade and me. We are now obliged to integrate ourselves into the public debate, and try to settle the matter there. I avow that the leftist activists who have announced their decision to participate in future elections, as candidates, are among the most credible and eligible in Nigeria's political scene. Judged by the criteria of humanism, sensitivity, patriotism and national consciousness, they are among the best Nigerian politics can produce. Ordinarily, each of them should be able to defeat any non-radical politician contesting against him or her for any position. There would only be a problem if more than one radical vie for a position. In that case, again ordinarily, the competing radicals would be judged by criteria higher than the Nigerian average. But the Nigerian situation is not ordinary or normal. A radical politician aspiring to contest future elections in Nigeria faces several dilemmas.
The question of how radicals should prosecute electoral politics, once they decide on participation, is not new. When militant nationalism was suppressed, through a series of punitive actions between 1948 and 1950, most of the militants, mainly young Nigerians, decided to join the emergent political parties formed by the "native heirs" to the colonial throne. They could not do otherwise. They simply did not have the material means to form their own electoral parties capable of engaging the heirs on the grounds prepared by the departing colonial rulers and their potential successors; they suffered immense official prejudice; they were rejected by the traditional authorities in their communities ñ authorities largely created, empowered, maintained and protected by the colonial state. In their new parties the militants suffered additional disabilities; they discovered that the parties were "owned" by small groups of monied and "well-connected" people against whom they could not successfully compete for party positions and nominations; their militant credentials put them in the peripheries of the parties; even when nominated they discovered that to win elections, or even compete credibly, they had to comply with the unwritten but decisive requirements of bribery, thuggery, corrupt collusion with security and electoral institutions and election rigging. Contemporary radicals largely suffer these disabilities including the last one which presents the most serious moral, political and ideological dilemma. Beyond this, there is a new disability for the new generation of radicals: the labour movement and popular organisations of the civil society which historically have been the main base of radical politics are now constitutionally prevented from giving institutional support to radicals in electoral politics.
It is possible to draw some conclusions from what I have said so far. Although there cannot be a categorical opposition to radicals' participation in electoral politics, radical participants ought to be able to define their strategic objectives very clearly, and pursue them as they wade through the land mines, conflicting pressures and "temptations." It is necessary for radicals to study the history of election rejection and boycotts in general and the Nigerian segment of this history in particular. Why do politicians, especially radicals, reject or boycott elections? In particular why did Ken Saro-Wiwa advocate the boycott of the 1993 presidential election? Why did the liberation fighters in East Timor originally pledge not to seek political offices after victory? If radicals decide to participate in elections conducted by their ideological foes it is imperative that they present those in their ranks most suited for the battle. Financial capability and "connections" are not sufficient. Strength of character, staying power, eloquence and "mass appeal" are among the required criteria. They should be people who are capable of looking at a cold, hard situation and take a decision without trembling and without doubt. Although radical politicians are bound to reflect as the battle goes on, overall evaluation can only take place after the battle has been won or lost. If I may adapt one of the teachings of Jesus Christ: Anyone who puts his or her hand on the plow of electoral politics and looks back is not fit for the political kingdom we have set out to attain. Finally, and this is the point my friend rejected: The labour movement, student's movements, non-elitist professional associations, women's movements and other popular organisations and strata of the civil society are the base of radical politics ñ electoral and non-electoral. Radical politicians must maintain this link, against official prohibitions, and develop it. December 2001 |