Delivering the votes, big time

During the American presidential elections of 2000 AD, before the Florida imbroglio reared its head, I was watching the returns from various states throughout the night and in particular, the expert analysis of the results by CNN’s political analyst Bill Schneider. Democratic Party candidate Al Gore had just swept the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota as well as Pennsylvania. Schneider explained the decisive role played by labour unions in those industrial states. He showed the role Big Labour played in each of those states, deploying millions of dollars in ads, deploying thousands of volunteer workers who helped turn out the vote and millions of votes cast by “union families.” Schneider then looked at the rich tally of electoral college votes that Gore garnered in those states and said, “Labour has delivered to Al Gore.” With a vigorous nod of his head he added, “Big time.”

Two months to our own 2019 elections, I carefully gleaned field reports from newspaper and social media reporters to see which constituency is likely to deliver the vote to any candidate big time or even small time. Not labour; I haven’t seen any signs. In the weeks leading up to a general election, Nigeria’s labour leaders are huffing and puffing about the minimum wage and threatening a general strike unless government grants their demand. I was wondering; isn’t it more strategic at this time for labour to throw its weight behind a presidential candidate who makes a categorical promise to increase the minimum wage to any figure acceptable to it?

In fact, minimum wage should be only one issue on labour’s agenda. Programs that reduce cost of living, improve workers’ welfare, generate employment as well as improve the pensions’ regime should be among labour’s package of expectations from candidates. If labour had shown itself able to mobilise millions of voters to attend rallies, storm the streets for their favoured candidate, place ads in print and electronic media, erect bill boards and turn out the vote in, say, the major cities, all major candidates would have been forced to take a stand and make firm promises around labour’s package of demands.

Even though there is [or was] a Labour Party in Nigeria, which was ostensibly registered by the labour movement to promote its agenda electorally, it did not achieve any success in this regard. When it managed to elect a state governor [Olusegun Mimiko] on its platform in Ondo State in 2007, he promptly defected to PDP, whence he came from. In later years there was some altercation as to whether NLC owns the Labour Party. More recently, Mimiko has returned to the party that got him elected as governor, only to float a faction called Zenith Labour Party, whose electoral agenda is unknown.

Not only labour. I was looking out across the political field to see the agenda and political vehicle of women. Since 1999, the best known political demand of women has been to get at least one third of cabinet posts reserved for females. It is important to have women in leadership positions because women tend to see things differently from men. But to have women in key positions without a clear agenda to pursue to address the unique problems of women in the economy, polity and society is almost an exercise in futility.

Nigerian women do play important roles in election campaigns, mostly through the Women’s Wing of political parties. Wives of candidates also do a lot of mobilization, including sending agents from house to house to distribute sugar, salt, soap and souvenirs on behalf of their husbands. The only promises they make are however personal; to settle medical bills, allocate fertilizer or hajj seats when their husbands win the election. Issues such as girl child education, early marriage, rape, VVF, maternal health and polygyny are never mentioned in the campaigns. If the National Council of Women Societies, NCWS, for example, had demonstrated an ability to mobilise millions of women around a specific women’s agenda, shower the scene with leaflets and billboards, deploy thousands of women to go from door to door to mobilise voters and have spokespersons that articulately propound its agenda, by now each major candidate would have a robust agenda for women and children.

The same thing applies to the youths. Two years ago we had in Nigeria a vigorous campaign called Not Too Young To Run. It succeeded in getting the constitution amended to lower the age at which a person could run for high office. As with respect to women, I believe it is important to have young persons occupy some high offices. The question must however be asked, beyond the symbolic value, what is the benefit to youths just because a young person is appointed a minister? There must be an agenda that he is committed to pushing, e.g. in health, education, scholarships, employment, sports development etc. Otherwise it is another exercise in futility. If there is an elderly candidate who has a thoughtful agenda for young people, it is better to elect him or her than to elect a young person for the heck of it.

Again the matter boils down to mobilization and agenda setting. We have a National Youths Council of Nigeria, NYCN, which five years ago created headlines with its controversial national convention. But what is its political agenda? Unless this is properly articulated and millions of youths are mobilized to support it, lowering the eligible age for running for office will be in vain. Even now there are many young people in the National and state assemblies and as commissioners in many states. A young person could scale through the current political process on the wings of a godfather, such as his father or her husband. Yet, we haven’t seen the effect of that on the policy plane. Ishaq Modibbo Kawu often cites statistics showing the preponderance of young persons in our population. If only these youths would unite and mobilise behind an agenda, they will be unstoppable but for now, youths are content to be the political thugs of parties that engage other party youths in street brawls.

There are many other groups that, with mobilization and proper agenda articulation, could exercise a lot of influence in the political process and concentrate the minds of candidates to address their agenda. These include students, academics, small traders, market women, road transport workers, rural farmers, fishermen, hewers of firewood, herbalists and commercial motor cyclists, to mention a few. For example, I think a powerful body such as ASUU, with unmatched intellectual power, with members in every state and also able to mobilise money, could end its culture of strikes and instead wade into the political process. No candidate can ignore university lecturers if they unite behind an agenda and mobilise on the field to push for it.

I believe the stepping forward of these groups to push specific agendas will greatly sanitise Nigerian politics. For one it will make the candidates to sit up and think seriously about their programs. These groups will also be around after the election to ensure that a victorious candidate delivers on his pledge. Also, stepping forward of these groups will banish primordial sentiment that currently pervades the political space. In the last few weeks, I saw many big story headlines of Northern Elders Forum, Arewa Consultative Forum, Ohanaeze N’digbo, Middle Belt Forum and Afenifere declaring support for some candidates or withholding support from some candidates.

Why was it that in Bill Schneider’s all night analysis of the US election, I did not hear him mention the role played by the Eastern Seaboard Elders Forum, the Western Seaboard Caucus, Confederate States Consultative Forum or the Great Lakes Council of Elders in the election and how many votes they delivered to candidates? I never heard Bill Schneider say that the Irish Elders Forum of America delivered to a candidate big time, so which kind of democracy are we doing here?