Politics of issues
By
THIS, more than any other time in the last three years, is the time for political noises. With elections, or at least what we take for elections only a few months away, there is no better time for those aspiring to political office at all levels of government to attract the attention of the electorate and in Nigeria at least, they do this by making all kinds of noises. Politicians everywhere call attention to themselves like traders in crowded market place, struggling one against all others to be noticed by potential customers. The most successful of these are those, who for one reason or the other persuade their hearers of the superiority or desirability of their ware over all others. In many cases, their merchandise is no more worthy than the others, but because they put up a good show, they give the impression that what they have on offer is clearly the best. The process of putting their message across, true or otherwise is, in the language of market called advertisement. In many cases, it is mere noise, a fragile balloon boasting of nothing more substantial than hot air.
Politicians are usually no better than petty traders hawking their questionable wares along the highways and byways of the land. They are people who either have a natural flair for self-advertisement, or have taken the trouble to learn a great deal of what can be known about this delicate subject. In many parts of the world, politicians play the game according to set rules and their noises are made within the limits of these rules. In the first instance, there is usually an easily identifiable spectrum along which each politician occupies his own niche. This allows politicians who are identifiably related to each other by their position on certain key issues to come together to form political parties which are used as vehicles for the propagation of their ideas and of course for wooing the electorate. In truly democratic polities, at least in those who profess this status, the spectrum of political platforms is impressively broad. There are some parties such as the Greens and some right wing, or so called Nationalist parties which build their platforms on one issue whilst others have some deeply held philosophical position which determines their reaction to every issue.
Thus, parties on the right are reflexively support cuts in income tax, especially to the rich, as low level of public spending as possible to prevent the collapse of society as well as vastly increased military spending. They are the part of privilege and are unashamedly elitist. They are also more likely than not to be opposed to immigration, abortion and other issues related to personal choices, at least in the developed countries. The so called common man is likely to feel the sting of their policies which is why it is surprising that these parties are given access to power by the votes of the little men. Indeed, in certain countries, notably the United Kingdom, the Conservative party which stands very firmly on these issues is regarded as the ruling party, with Labour, the party which , nominally at least, is on the side of the common man only allowed a look in from time to time. Strange things are clearly no stranger to politics.
On the other side of the political divide are parties which canvass liberal policies; increased public spending as well as improved public services, increased access to education and welfare, reduced military spending, reduced level of privatization of public assets, respect for the environment, full employment and so on. These are the parties of the left as they espouse policies which are associated with abolishing social, economic and political inequalities within the society. At first sight, it would seem that the leadership of the parties of the right are reserved for aristocrats, those with the proverbial silver spoons clenched in their toothless infant gums, those who are destined to go through life with shoulders drooping under the prodigious weight of unearned income. Whilst this is largely true, there are some very significant exceptions. The perceived leader of the global right wing tendency was Margaret Thatcher, a grocer's daughter who handed over the leadership of the British Conservative party to John Major whose origins were no less obscure as hers, he being the son of a very undistinguished circus performer and who to all intents and purposes was a stranger to formal education.
On the other hand, Tony Benn who for many years was a very vocal member of the left wing of the Labour Party was qualified to take his place in the House of Lords. In stead he steadfastly remained plain. Mr. Benn stayed in the House of Commons, spouting the rhetoric of equality of opportunities for all on the Labour Front benches. These days, the examples within the Labour Party are legion and it can be said that New Labour as Blair's wing of the party are called is full of people who would, under normal circumstances be more familiarly associated with the Conservative Party.
This suggests that in that country at least, politics is as much about issues and ideas as the side of the railway tracks on which ones father was born. This scenario is replicated in virtually all advanced democracies and is only conspicuous by its absence in the less sophisticated or sham democracies such as Nigeria. One of the unfortunate aspects of Nigerian politics is the lack of an ideological focus for the competing parties, hence the equally unfortunate tendencies of making a great deal of irritating noises. What our politicians regard as an effective political campaign is to fire a formidable broadside of insults at their opponents who in these days of primaries are as likely to be in the same party as to be in another party. In their imagination, our politicians are surrounded by a ring of vicious political enemies and this leaves them with no room to think of constructive policies. Many of them are chasing each other with very sharp and in some cases, blood stained machetes; promising to return fire for fire, pulling out a couple of teeth for each tooth lost in combat, gouging out at least three eyes for each eye damaged, giving no quarter and asking for none.
These days, the field of vengeance has widened to include relatives, associates and all those who happen to claim descendancy from a particular village, clan or tribe. In other words, we are as close to anarchy as to make no difference. The tragedy of our situation is that there is so much that can be done and indeed must be done in order to make it possible for Nigerians to be committed to Nigeria, if there is the political will, that is. Our economy has all but collapsed, all forms of social infrastructure have sunk under the weight of malicious neglect, massive unemployment has become endemic and our healthcare delivery system, such as it is, is in chaos. In the meantime, our children are being prepared for a life of servitude because of the moribund state of our educational system. There must be people who are sufficiently concerned about these issues to attempt to provide some solutions to these problems. Being a democratic country such people are called politicians. They are those who aspire to political office in order to articulate progressive ideas, ideas which are supposed to ensure the progress of the country. It is unfortunate that in the midst of all these, our politicians for the main part are waxing lyrical about derivation, official tours to all parts of the globe, sharing the spoils of a spoilt office, atavistic tribal considerations, religious affiliations and of course, the most pertinent of them all at this point in time; the second term syndrome.
These are not what can lead us out of the impasse which has dogged the steps of our development or, indeed are the cause of our lack of development ever since we became a nation, an independent member of the comity of nations. Our situation in this respect is not likely to improve until the time when we would, in spite of current uncertainties develop a generation of politicians who are in politics because of their commitment to the politics of issues. There is no doubt that we would have been a lot closer to developing such politicians had we not taken that ruinous detour into sterile military dictatorship.
April 2003