“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t want to go, but ought to be” – Rosalynn Carter, former U.S. President First Lady
Does being non-violent as a leader tantamount to cowardice? An answer to this hypothetical question tends to address the bashing Labour Party (LP) standard bearer, Peter Obi, has been getting from some anxious Nigerians who want him to declare Armageddon on the failing political system in the country.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political school teaches that power is not served Al carte and that if you want it, you must be ready to grab it and run. In 2023, the President walked his talk, grabbed a power hook and crook and ran with it, and today, he is the President of Nigeria. Following that swashbuckling, many Nigerians now believe that the method, as undemocratic as it is, remains the only way out to get to the throne in this country.
For this bravado that yielded visible results, most political players now feel it’s the only path to follow, and all roads now lead to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) for tutorials on machismo politics. Violent-prone political leaders are seen as utility and strategic hands more than those who would want to go the way of propriety and the rule of law. This class of people continue to defend their actions, asking if there is anything like decency in the struggle for political power anywhere in the World.
As a result, the leading opposition political figure in Nigeria today, the Labour Party Presidential Candidate in 2023, Peter Obi, who is not of this grab-and-run school, is under intense pressure. His method of politics, as appropriate and decorous as it is, remains unpopular to some anxious persons as it does not fit into the swagger politics of today.
Some even feel that the LP standard-bearer, who remains the darling of the larger populace in Nigeria, may not get to the throne if he fails to embrace the grab-and-run model of damming it.
In truth, finding Obi’s method not result-oriented has not diminished their love for him. They are just expressing their desperation to see him there, even if through grab and run. They just want him there hook or crook so that he can create a new Nigeria of their dream.
They refused to be persuaded by Obi’ two marble statements that he is not desperate to be President but desperate to see Nigeria work and also that the process that brought one to power must be excellent for the person to merit and be addressed as his Excellency. Such a gentle disposition does not sink well with a lot of his supporters, who just want him there at all costs. To them, you have to get there first before you can make Nigeria work.
If we are all in unison that the political class holding power in Nigeria are criminal gangs, is it possible to dismantle and take power from criminals by being unadventurous and timid? But the question begging for answers remains: Is OBI’s person and style as the opposition leader the problem of Nigeria or the system and we the led?
Agreed that Peter OBI’s politics may not be the best, but it’s not the fundamental issue holding the county’s polity down. I think what is holding us down is the docility of the populace manured by religious and ethnic bigots.
If we love somebody for what we hear him say and for his antecedents, why should we bully him for being himself and not artificial? If Peter Obi decides today to be a Tinubu in his politics just to impress, his error is going to be more than we are seeing already because he will be acting as a borrowed character. Nigerians didn’t come to admire Obi because of his bullish character, but because of the issue-based politics he brought to the table for which he has verifiable evidence of its success.
When he entered the political fray in 2003 as a gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) in Anambra State, he didn’t come with the usual noise and swagger associated with Anambra politics. Instead, he took his campaigns door to door with a question: Is Anambra cursed, or are we the cause? His message caught up with the people, and they voted for him. But the then ruling party at the centre, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), took it from him. He didn’t go fighting as his supporters wanted. Instead, he approached the court and had the patience to wait for three years before justice came.
Luckily for him, there existed then judiciary operatives that had conscience, that were not transactional. In his turbulent eight-year tenure as Governor, Obi did not display any wimpish characteristics. Rather his stubbornness and frugality frustrated corrupt persons who left him alone to deliver good governance to the people.
So going by his antecedents, it may be an unverifiable fact to accuse him of displaying a wimpish character.
Although It might be argued correctly that Anambra is not Nigeria and, therefore, should have a varied operating template even at the national level, Obi has shown a lot of gut that took him thus far, refusing to be intimidated. If the argument is on his politics not suiting our jankara system and needs upgrading, yes, but not enough to describe or see him as a coward.
But going forward and acting on the balance of reason, we should not be oblivious to history that does not even support that brigands’ politics takes sway in our system. Except for Tinubu’s era whose case is an aberration in which a democratic Nigeria leader has gone to the throne by grabbing and running blatantly since 1999.
In 1999, General Olusegun Obasanjo, fresh from incarceration, was virtually begged to come by the then ruling class, who needed him to help douse the June 12 heat. Even when he said he did not forget anything in the Villa after serving as military Head of State to take him back, further delegation was sent to Ota to persuade him.
After him came the then Katsina State Governor Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who was unsure of his health and was planning to retire from the gubernatorial job to attend to his health when he was persuaded to go and buy a Presidential form, that the ticket was for him. Even during the campaigns, he could not be effective, yet he emerged and was honest enough to acknowledge that the process that brought him to power was faulty and needed reform, which he initiated before his death two years later.
The next to him, Goodluck Jonathan, got to power providentially. He was pressurized against his will by his late Ijaw brother, Diepreye Alamaieyesigha, to be his Deputy in BAYELSA State, but later, he became the Governor when the Governor was controversially impeached. Not long as Governor, he was fished out virtually unprepared to be the Vice President to Yar’Adua, who died after two years, and through the doctrine of necessity, he became the President.
President Jonathan continued on the electoral reform started by his boss, Yar’Adua and was consumed by it in the hope that our democracy was going to be deepened by it. But it never happened. The fact that those political hirelings who ganged up to chase Jonathan out of power are rooting for him to come back says a lot about our decadent political journey.
Then, after Jonathan came Muhammadu Buhari, who came to power courtesy of his predecessor’s electoral reform, not through grab and run. According to those records and analysis, it’s only the incumbent President of Nigeria who bulldozed his way to power, breaking all rules of engagement, providing no records of himself or his antecedents, and getting an INEC that could announce his desired result at 4am.
A leader is considered “wimpish” when he exhibits weaknesses or lacks the courage to make tough decisions, stand up for their convictions, or assert themselves in critical situations. These are scenarios where a leader might be perceived as wimpish. When dodging conflicts, difficult conversations, or tough decisions and failing to express oneself clearly. Shying away from responsibility for mistakes, errors, or poor decisions can erode trust and confidence in a leader. Also, poor articulation of vision, goals, or expectations clearly can lead to confusion, frustration, and perceptions of weakness.
What is apparent in all these about Obi that may lead to misinterpretation of his character in politics is his annoying frugality, scrimping and saving when money is involved. Ordinarily, politics is seen as the most lavish platform in terms of money spending. But Obi the banker, continues to see public funds as customers’ funds that should be guided and guarded jealously. This should be a plus, not a minus.
In all these, what is essential to note is that being a strong leader doesn’t mean being aggressive, confrontational, or autocratic. Effective leaders balance strength with empathy, humility, and a willingness to listen and adapt, which is where Obi rightly belongs.
What is apparent, which is the reason for all the bashing of the opposition politicians in the country, is their ineffective and disorganized platform. One of the main challenges they face is fragmentation, which makes it difficult for them to present a united front against an underperforming ruling party.
The perception of wimpishness among Nigeria’s opposition politicians is largely because they are often plagued by internal conflicts and power struggles, which undermine their ability to present a united challenge to the ruling party.
What the greater Nigerian populace is yearning for is a new generation of leadership in Nigerian politics, with many arguing that younger, more dynamic leaders are needed to revitalize the opposition and provide a more effective challenge to the ruling party.
This challenge is for all of us, politicians, non-politicians, civil society, media, young or old, to stand up and resolve to end the vicious circle of injustice that has kept the country down. God help us.
