i’ve been reading through the comments and i agree with your sentiments.
still, i have one concern. the “left” and the “right” can’t work as classifications for our political parties whether you consider that socially or economically, but i think any classifications we come up with should have on-the-ground effects on the citizens as evidence of their existence, not just in the pockets the leaders decide they want to line.
and aside from that, do we even need these classifications? we’re already split along tribalistic lines, do we really need ideological (considering tribalism as an ideology) ones too? should we not just pick who can do the job well each election season? (in an ideal nigeria where our votes matter, that is). it feels eerily western to seek fine lines in ideology, not that ideology is a western thing, but you get the point.
i’m not even old enough to vote, so i may not see the full picture, but i look forward to hearing what you have to say
Tribalism does have on-the-ground effects. Bad effects, of course.
As for the classifications, yes. There is a need. For one, it would create policy consistency. You know what you get if you elect a specific party. Not like Nigeria today where one president does one thing, and another comes and does something entirely different.
It would also check the disgusting behaviour of cross carpeting.
And finally, I'm a nationalist, and I do think that we need to strongly establish the nationalist imperative. Without it, Nigeria would fall apart. I also want to make it easy to demonise tribalists too. Because I personally feel that it is the root of Nigeria's problems.
yeah you’re right, i do see how tribalism can even affect policy.
and as for classifications, i’m still unsure about whether i agree with their usefulness. we have a basically two-party system like ours, and i can’t think of any other two-party democracies that are working quite well, and aren’t enduring some sort of strife. i’m still inclined towards agreeing with you though.
i’m also a nationalist, but i’m not sure there’s any party that is truly nationalist (even from my observation over the past 8 years). every figurehead from every party seems to lean into one sort of tribalism, and towards different tribes depending on who that leader is. i think by “on the ground effects” i meant noticeable differences between parties on the tribalism front. no matter who is where, someone somewhere will experience the short end of the tribalism stick.
and what will you say about state governors? and local government chairmen? does the party difference of who is tribalist vs who is not even exist at that level?
i remember observing edo state governorship elections and chai. the same people everywhere in different fonts.
i’m grateful you took the time to do these classsifications, have you considered anything along the lines of economics? because it seems social ideologies tend to make people feel othered. and that is speaking from observing a certain country. i use them as a case study, because they feel eerily familiar.
Yeah... The ideological divide between both parties is still quite nascent at the moment. So, the distinction isn't clear, unless you look more closely. For now, the parties are nearly indistinguishable.
For economics... Yes, I have considered that. I haven't seen any economic difference between both parties. But if there's an economic divide, it would be between industrialists and free tradists.
Because I thought it was a no-brainer that Nigeria needs to industrialise, but to my shock, some people in my circle(A whatsapp group for rubbing minds) oppose an industrialisation imperative in favour of leaving everything to the market.
Maybe there's room for socialism somewhere, but I doubt. Socialism never picked up steam in Nigeria during the cold war. Everyone wants to cash out.
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made for the political ideologies of Nigerian politicians. The parties were not founded with any ideologies in mind. They were founded with political ambition in mind. There is no difference between the APC and the PDP. That is why it's been easy for them to switch at will. More than half of the current APC were in PDP. And, as soon as APC loses its grip on power, they will switch back to whichever is the ruling party at the time. The motivation is greed, not ideology. You only need to look at the bills they pass in the Senate to understand that they are not intellectual enough to have actual political ideologies
Unless you think tribalism and nationalism aren't ideologies?
Because you can clearly see that in how both parties operate. Most of the PDP members who formed the APC ran back to the PDP.
Obasanjo shunned the AD and was shunned by them in turn because he was nationalist and they were tribalist. The AD is where Tinubu came from, and it's analog in the north was the ANPP, where Buhari came from.
Tribalism isn't a real political ideology. It's more of a broader social dynamic. Obasanjo does not understand the first thing about nationalism. Nationalism isn't about which side to choose during elections.
Obasanjo, like all the other Nigerian politicians, chose sides based on where they thought their allegiances would best be rewarded.
Political ideology goes beyond electoral motive. It's a way of life. What would you say the likes of Tinubu, Obasanjo, Buhari and the rest have in common? Nothing except corruption and nepotism and tribalism.
Their decisions outside of elections are not backed by ideology. That would be clear to see if it was. They don't make appointments based on ideology. They do based on nepotism. Their manifesto isn't based on an ideology. It's based on poverty politics.
Those are not real political ideologies. Those are whims
Tribalism is a social dynamic. It's an ideology as well, but it's not one in the true, political sense of things. Saying tribalism is a political ideology on the level of the likes of fascism, nationalism, communism, etc., is like saying feminism and racism are political ideals. Ionno if you get my meaning. But that's just a matter of semantics.
I never said Tinubu/Buhari don't make appointments based on tribalism. I mean that tribalism isn't a political ideology. It's a negative social dynamic and cannot be seen as a real political ideology. That's like saying nepotism is a political ideology.
With a political party with clear ideals, we can see clear-cut policies and the motivations behind the actions. That is not present in the Nigerian political scene.
That's why I say you can't assess Nigerian politics within the framework of the left-right political spectrum. Politicians who understand politics in that spectrum will be speaking about their ideals, rather than their experiences. All the Nigerian politician ever talks about is their political ambition. Political ambition is very different from politics. Our entire politics starts and ends with canvassing for elections. Once they're there, there's no predicting what they'll do.
With regards to Obasanjo, he's just as bad as all the rest. I find this Nigerian comparative politics strange, where they see the most recent ruler as worse than the preceding one, not considering that there's time context too. In 2002, things were worse than it was in 1992. But, if we were in 2002 right now, it would be seen as the worst so far.
The point is that Obasanjo is just as corrupt and unfit for leadership as the rest. He has no ideology. Like all the rest, his politics is motivated by ambition and nothing else. Have you forgotten that it was under Obasanjo that Idris Abdulkareem sang "Jaga Jaga"
Nigeria has never had a good leader before. It seems to be our curse. If we have just ONE, the impact would be such that EVERYONE would admit it. Not EVERYONE agrees Obasanjo was a good leader.
Nigeria is such a terrible place rn that if we had a ruler who looted like Babangida or Abacha, but whose ONLY achievement was 24-hour power supply nationwide, 365 days a year, such a ruler would be the undisputed best we've ever had. But it speaks volumes that we've never even had one leader to give us that BARE MINIMUM.
So, Obasanjo is not one for ideals. He couldn't even fix the road to his mother's hometown (my hometown btw), in 8 full years in power. That's not a man motivated by ideals.
That's just a corrupt, non-chalant politician no better than Tinubu, Buhari and the rest.
Comparing Obasanjo to Tinubu, Buhari, GEJ and the rest is like comparing brown poop to yellowish poop. It's all poop
>That's why I say you can't assess Nigerian politics within the framework of the left-right political spectrum.
This is where the problem lies. You're looking at it through the left-right political spectrum. That spectrum is a Western one and it isn't relevant to our reality. What is relevant to us is nationalism versus tribalism. Left and right not our reality.
> So, Obasanjo is not one for ideals. He couldn't even fix the road to his mother's hometown (my hometown btw), in 8 full years in power. That's not a man motivated by ideals.
Lol. Is this not the nepotism you're complaining about?
If all the leaders we've had since 1999 were in the same caliber as Obasanjo, we would be very far from where we currently are today.
I for one do not really like the left and right split in the US, but I can't deny that it makes it easier to decide. One thing I would have liked for you to point out is how the Tribalist V. Nationalist sentiments in the APC and PDP respectively affect their policies on the ground, because they promise the same things and mostly under deliver. it is hard to point to the one administration that ran us into the quagmire we are as is.
i’ve been reading through the comments and i agree with your sentiments.
still, i have one concern. the “left” and the “right” can’t work as classifications for our political parties whether you consider that socially or economically, but i think any classifications we come up with should have on-the-ground effects on the citizens as evidence of their existence, not just in the pockets the leaders decide they want to line.
and aside from that, do we even need these classifications? we’re already split along tribalistic lines, do we really need ideological (considering tribalism as an ideology) ones too? should we not just pick who can do the job well each election season? (in an ideal nigeria where our votes matter, that is). it feels eerily western to seek fine lines in ideology, not that ideology is a western thing, but you get the point.
i’m not even old enough to vote, so i may not see the full picture, but i look forward to hearing what you have to say
Tribalism does have on-the-ground effects. Bad effects, of course.
As for the classifications, yes. There is a need. For one, it would create policy consistency. You know what you get if you elect a specific party. Not like Nigeria today where one president does one thing, and another comes and does something entirely different.
It would also check the disgusting behaviour of cross carpeting.
And finally, I'm a nationalist, and I do think that we need to strongly establish the nationalist imperative. Without it, Nigeria would fall apart. I also want to make it easy to demonise tribalists too. Because I personally feel that it is the root of Nigeria's problems.
yeah you’re right, i do see how tribalism can even affect policy.
and as for classifications, i’m still unsure about whether i agree with their usefulness. we have a basically two-party system like ours, and i can’t think of any other two-party democracies that are working quite well, and aren’t enduring some sort of strife. i’m still inclined towards agreeing with you though.
i’m also a nationalist, but i’m not sure there’s any party that is truly nationalist (even from my observation over the past 8 years). every figurehead from every party seems to lean into one sort of tribalism, and towards different tribes depending on who that leader is. i think by “on the ground effects” i meant noticeable differences between parties on the tribalism front. no matter who is where, someone somewhere will experience the short end of the tribalism stick.
and what will you say about state governors? and local government chairmen? does the party difference of who is tribalist vs who is not even exist at that level?
i remember observing edo state governorship elections and chai. the same people everywhere in different fonts.
i’m grateful you took the time to do these classsifications, have you considered anything along the lines of economics? because it seems social ideologies tend to make people feel othered. and that is speaking from observing a certain country. i use them as a case study, because they feel eerily familiar.
Yeah... The ideological divide between both parties is still quite nascent at the moment. So, the distinction isn't clear, unless you look more closely. For now, the parties are nearly indistinguishable.
For economics... Yes, I have considered that. I haven't seen any economic difference between both parties. But if there's an economic divide, it would be between industrialists and free tradists.
Because I thought it was a no-brainer that Nigeria needs to industrialise, but to my shock, some people in my circle(A whatsapp group for rubbing minds) oppose an industrialisation imperative in favour of leaving everything to the market.
Maybe there's room for socialism somewhere, but I doubt. Socialism never picked up steam in Nigeria during the cold war. Everyone wants to cash out.
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made for the political ideologies of Nigerian politicians. The parties were not founded with any ideologies in mind. They were founded with political ambition in mind. There is no difference between the APC and the PDP. That is why it's been easy for them to switch at will. More than half of the current APC were in PDP. And, as soon as APC loses its grip on power, they will switch back to whichever is the ruling party at the time. The motivation is greed, not ideology. You only need to look at the bills they pass in the Senate to understand that they are not intellectual enough to have actual political ideologies
Unless you think tribalism and nationalism aren't ideologies?
Because you can clearly see that in how both parties operate. Most of the PDP members who formed the APC ran back to the PDP.
Obasanjo shunned the AD and was shunned by them in turn because he was nationalist and they were tribalist. The AD is where Tinubu came from, and it's analog in the north was the ANPP, where Buhari came from.
Tribalism isn't a real political ideology. It's more of a broader social dynamic. Obasanjo does not understand the first thing about nationalism. Nationalism isn't about which side to choose during elections.
Obasanjo, like all the other Nigerian politicians, chose sides based on where they thought their allegiances would best be rewarded.
Political ideology goes beyond electoral motive. It's a way of life. What would you say the likes of Tinubu, Obasanjo, Buhari and the rest have in common? Nothing except corruption and nepotism and tribalism.
Their decisions outside of elections are not backed by ideology. That would be clear to see if it was. They don't make appointments based on ideology. They do based on nepotism. Their manifesto isn't based on an ideology. It's based on poverty politics.
Those are not real political ideologies. Those are whims
Why do you think tribalism isn't a political ideology? Because it isn't an ideology that white people exhibit?
How can you say Tinubu/Buhari don't make appointments based on tribalism?
Buhari?
Tinubu?
And how can you even say that Obasanjo doesn't know the first thing about nationalism?
Obasanjo?
Tribalism is a social dynamic. It's an ideology as well, but it's not one in the true, political sense of things. Saying tribalism is a political ideology on the level of the likes of fascism, nationalism, communism, etc., is like saying feminism and racism are political ideals. Ionno if you get my meaning. But that's just a matter of semantics.
I never said Tinubu/Buhari don't make appointments based on tribalism. I mean that tribalism isn't a political ideology. It's a negative social dynamic and cannot be seen as a real political ideology. That's like saying nepotism is a political ideology.
With a political party with clear ideals, we can see clear-cut policies and the motivations behind the actions. That is not present in the Nigerian political scene.
That's why I say you can't assess Nigerian politics within the framework of the left-right political spectrum. Politicians who understand politics in that spectrum will be speaking about their ideals, rather than their experiences. All the Nigerian politician ever talks about is their political ambition. Political ambition is very different from politics. Our entire politics starts and ends with canvassing for elections. Once they're there, there's no predicting what they'll do.
With regards to Obasanjo, he's just as bad as all the rest. I find this Nigerian comparative politics strange, where they see the most recent ruler as worse than the preceding one, not considering that there's time context too. In 2002, things were worse than it was in 1992. But, if we were in 2002 right now, it would be seen as the worst so far.
The point is that Obasanjo is just as corrupt and unfit for leadership as the rest. He has no ideology. Like all the rest, his politics is motivated by ambition and nothing else. Have you forgotten that it was under Obasanjo that Idris Abdulkareem sang "Jaga Jaga"
Nigeria has never had a good leader before. It seems to be our curse. If we have just ONE, the impact would be such that EVERYONE would admit it. Not EVERYONE agrees Obasanjo was a good leader.
Nigeria is such a terrible place rn that if we had a ruler who looted like Babangida or Abacha, but whose ONLY achievement was 24-hour power supply nationwide, 365 days a year, such a ruler would be the undisputed best we've ever had. But it speaks volumes that we've never even had one leader to give us that BARE MINIMUM.
So, Obasanjo is not one for ideals. He couldn't even fix the road to his mother's hometown (my hometown btw), in 8 full years in power. That's not a man motivated by ideals.
That's just a corrupt, non-chalant politician no better than Tinubu, Buhari and the rest.
Comparing Obasanjo to Tinubu, Buhari, GEJ and the rest is like comparing brown poop to yellowish poop. It's all poop
>That's why I say you can't assess Nigerian politics within the framework of the left-right political spectrum.
This is where the problem lies. You're looking at it through the left-right political spectrum. That spectrum is a Western one and it isn't relevant to our reality. What is relevant to us is nationalism versus tribalism. Left and right not our reality.
> So, Obasanjo is not one for ideals. He couldn't even fix the road to his mother's hometown (my hometown btw), in 8 full years in power. That's not a man motivated by ideals.
Lol. Is this not the nepotism you're complaining about?
If all the leaders we've had since 1999 were in the same caliber as Obasanjo, we would be very far from where we currently are today.
Very far.
A fantastic piece!
I for one do not really like the left and right split in the US, but I can't deny that it makes it easier to decide. One thing I would have liked for you to point out is how the Tribalist V. Nationalist sentiments in the APC and PDP respectively affect their policies on the ground, because they promise the same things and mostly under deliver. it is hard to point to the one administration that ran us into the quagmire we are as is.
Yeah... Nigerians trying to sugar coat ourselves into the left-right split is cringe inducing.
As for the administration that run us into our quagmire, I think it's evidently clear that it's the APC under Buhari.