Atiku and the PDP crisis

Road transport workers, popularly called “agbero” in some parts of Nigeria, are reputed to be some of the best fed Nigerians. It is said that, in one meal they may consume what an average Nigerian would eat in two days. And, this prepares them well for their esoteric type of transfer of power.

During the typical agbero “takeover”, those who can wield machetes would wield one or two, others would wield guns, local guns also called “oka” and foreign made guns, including Kalashnikovs also known as AK47 , yet others would wield logs of timber called “two by four”. Hence the typical transfer of power amongst Agberos is a Hobbesian survival of the fittest and meanest, without recourse to any constitutions or guidelines. It is simply what it is: “a takeover”.

So, when recently the Atiku-led group, left the PDP convention at the Eagle Square  in Abuja, and announced a “takeover” of the PDP, leaving behind a full convention of members, it was very tempting to search for people behind the group, carrying machetes, guns and “two by fours”,  because it would not be strange if such a takeover occurred in a meeting of agberos. But, a political party from what we know ought to be guided by rules on how they are formed and registered, how they elect officials and dismiss same. Thus, for the Atiku group to announce new officials, representatives of 37 administrative jurisdictions, within the period of moving from the Eagle Square to a new venue in the Abuja metropolis, under an hour, it is certainly akin to a “takeover” by “agberos”.

Perhaps in deference to the distinctions which we expect between the conduct of agberos and that of political leaders, the Atiku-led group decided to search for an office address after claiming to be a recognised political party. Still, the constitution requires a different standard. It expects a party seeking legitimization to meet some standards as enunciated in the constitution. Specifically, section 222a states; “No association by whatever name called shall function as a party, unless; (a) the names and addresses of its national officers are registered with the Independent National Electoral Commission”.

From the foregoing, it can be deduced that the regression to agbero tactics in the takeover of a political party, by a minority group within the PDP, with the name New PDP, which is unknown to the registration unit of INEC, is a new nadir in the development of party politics in Nigeria. Not only did they flout some important requisites for party formation, but as the American think-tank (CFR) objectively observed, it was blatantly regional in cast, a connotation that the constitution stringently frowns upon as part of the requirements for political party formation indicated in S. 222(e).

But, even more worrisome is the motivational similarities of an agbero “takeover” with the Atiku led “putsch”. In terms of motivation, the first criterion for an agbero “takeover” is the yearning to control the unaccounted “daily collection” of funds from drivers in a taxi park, from the rents collected by providing transport services to passengers. In the Atiku-led case, the rent seeking behaviour was clearly highlighted a few days later, when Governor Kwakwanso of Kano State bared his mind to his constituency of party followers.  To highlight what he told his listeners, one of the constituents explained to all the media agencies which reported the event that, Kano State has suffered a diminishing patronage, where appointments that should pass through the governor from the federal government, now passed through the “back door”.

The main objective of the group is therefore anchored upon the maximization of the extortion of the oil and gas rents accruing to the national treasury. Nevertheless, this public overstating of their political strength is rather unfortunate for political development in Nigeria, because it takes us back from democratic consolidation to the cognition of hegemony as articulated by Arrighi,  who in explaining the Gramscian understanding of power, contends that it rests on the premise of consent or domination, whereas consent relies on moral leadership, dominion stems from a dominant group’s power  based on domination, which rests on coercion and force. By stating that,  “we have decided to take over the party” there is the portent of the ability to coerce and dominate all others, by the Atiku group.

The type of “takeover” which the Atiku group displayed is a bare-faced taunt to the Nigerian public, that seemed to say “if the military boys can’t do it, we will teach them” . From our rather dismal experience of military rule and the extortionate regression which it offered, it is apolitical truancy that should be condemned in the strongest terms. When a politician or group of politicians find their political group ideologically incompatible with their goals, there are ample democratic options such as the formation of new parties, or merger with other parties, but those steps have institutionalized steps which they are guided by.

Of more concern to the public, however, are the policy differences which inform such breakaway, because ideally, political competition should be informed by contestation of ideas and policies which have a bearing on public welfare.

The demands of Governor Aliyu and others in the same boat have very little to do with how well or poorly the party has delivered healthcare, housing, infrastructure, education or other such issues. Instead, what the public is daily upbraided with is a litany of unstated injustices enforced by their party chairman.

It is instructive that when such prebendalism is compared with the ousting of Margaret Thatcher by John Major, Tony Blair by Gordon Brown, or Gillard by Rudd, we can see the policy issues such as Poll Tax, Iraq War, Carbon Tax and so forth which determined such regime changes, and we also note how the protagonist and antagonist subject themselves to party rules, a far contrast from the agbero-like takeover which the Nigerian public was unfortunately forced to witness recently.

Ocheme Eneoche writes from Abuja