Now, Who is a Progressive?

Pix: Tony Anenih and Adams Oshomole

Whatever happened to progressive politics in Nigeria? Or put in another way, has the political movement of progressivism any content in the Nigerian context? The puzzle created by the migration of politicians from one party to the other could hardly be explained without finding answers to these posers.

Some political cynics say glibly that Nigeria has provided the political laboratory to prove the thesis that politics can be played without principle. They casually proclaim the death of ideology without even bothering to examine the full import of what they imply which is that politics could do without ideas.  Yet, no one has been able to refute in theory or practice the dictum of the Indian sage, Mahatma Gandhi, who said that  “politics without principle” is one of the “seven social sins” he philosophically identified. 

No matter how elastic you like to go in political analysis, it is principle, ideology or programme that would draw the organisational boundaries for politicians that are predisposed to migrate among political parties. If there is no distinguishing ideology, passion-generating principle or sanctity of programme of action, it would be difficult to interrogate the back and forth movement of politicians into and from political parties.  There is the urgent need to recast the discussion in the public sphere to clarify these issues in the interest of political development of the nation. 

Given the political history of Nigeria, the onus seems to be on the progressive movement to draw the ideological line. This is because it is the elements in the progressive end of the political spectrum that should be struggling for a change of the Nigerian condition. As for the conservatives (viewed in a broad sense), it is safe to assume that they have no historical duty to push for a change.

They have little or no problem with the status quo. The failure of the progressives to clearly define progressivism in organisational and ideological terms is, therefore, the cause of all interlopers straying into a supposed progressive formation and sometimes seizing the leadership for retrogressive ends. You cannot play progressive politics without reserving a central place for principle in the scheme of things.

The game of “politics without principle” is most eloquently illustrated by an anecdote once told by Alhaji Ishayku Ibrahim, a politician who could tell you of his involvement in the politics of this country since the Second Republic.

  The story goes like this: During the first term of President Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim had become one of the greatest critics of the government even though he was a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from Nasarawa.  Such people were, of course, branded “enemies” of the President by the political jobbers around him. While Ibrahim was perceived as Obasanjo’s enemy, Chief Tony Anenih, a chieftain of PDP was the Minister of Works and later Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the party.

So as at the time Ibrahim was telling his story, Anenih (who Obasanjo fondly called Tony) could be regarded as one of the most valued political friends of the President. However, a few years before then Obasanjo was in jail and General Sani Abacha was in power as the maximum ruler.  One day, both Anenih and Ibrahim were on the opposite ends in Geneva, Switzerland, the headquarters of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights. Anenih was there to defend the regime of Abacha responsible for the incarceration of Obasanjo and other prisoners as well as the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his other eight Ogoni brothers.

As a counter, Ibrahim and other pro-democracy activists were there to put the plight of Obasanjo and others into the global human rights spotlight. If you like, Ibrahim then was Obasanjo’s “friend” and Anenih was his “enemy”. The reversal of roles in later years could not be more obvious. It is even more instructive that Bashorun Moshood Abiola, the winner of the 1993 presidential election, was also in detention at this time. He was the symbol of the pro-democracy campaign.

He won the election on the platform of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) while Anenih was the party chairman. Meanwhile, SDP was defined as a party that was  “a little to the left” by the administration of President Ibrahim Babangida which decreed the party into existence. In the political taxonomy of 1993 Nigeria, SDP would be classified as the progressive party with Anenih as the leader! Anenih is never on record to have even issued a statement condemning the annulment of the election won by his party! Soon after the election he became a supporter of the brutal dictator who put the winner of the election in detention and truncated the march to democracy.

  And a few years   later, Anenih emerged as the leading trustee of another party having the adjective “democratic” in its name. It is also worth remarking that a lot of progressive energy went into to the formation of the PDP. After all, Uncle Bola Ige, who reportedly wrote the constitutions of the first three registered parties  (including PDP) in this dispensation was an avowed progressive. In fact, until he was murdered the man ideologically referred to himself as a “socialist”. 

The point at issue in the foregoing narrative of Ibrahim is that Anenih in 21 years has moved from being an SDP chairman, to being a supporter of Abacha and now PDP’s Chairman of Board of Trustees.  This movement has not been defined by any principle. The principles that could be invoked here include commitment to democracy and programmes of political parties. Freedom (not roads or bridges!)  is the greatest dividend of democracy and any one who supported Abacha was certainly anti-freedom. The leader of a progressive party should be the last person to support such a grand assault on human freedom and progress.

To be sure, Anenih could be described as a metaphor for politics without principle. However, in this discussion on progressivism his name is used generically. Not a few politicians have embarked on political journeys similar to that of Anenih in the last 20 years or so. For there are many politicians of the Anenih typology in all political parties including the unregistered ones? The tragic consequence of dispensing with principle in politics is the ultimate decline of politics itself regardless of how each party brand itself in the contest for power.

If only for nomenclatural reasons, this is why the All Progressives Congress (APC) comes in for proper scrutiny. Come to think of it, there is the word” progressive” in its name. For clarity, the fortunes of the party would not be determined by any person leaving the party or defecting into it from another party. Its future will be determined by the principle that binds its members together and the progressive content of the programme with which it can mobilise the people for a change. 

Next year’s election would be more qualitative if APC and PDP put a greater premium on their principles and programmes instead of toying dangerously with the fault lines of religion and regionalism.  In words and action, the APC, in particular, should put the principled politics of progressivism on the national agenda.  It has its job squarely cut out for it in the enormous social question posed by the decay in the education and health sectors. There is also the possibility of crafting a progressive alternative approach to end the Boko Haram crisis with its debilitating effects.  That is what progressive do elsewhere.

In the west the progressive movement blossomed evolutionarily to ward off the spectre of socialist revolution.  For example, the history of progressive politics in the United States has been defined by milestones of progress of the country. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was a progressive package. Even amidst the rough edges of capitalism, the progressives never succumbed to the doctrine of the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who infamously said: “There is no such thing like the society”. They also believe that government policies should be the instruments   to intervene in the interest of the poor. Progressives in the west don’t glorify or ideologically rationalise social inequality and poverty as market fundamentalists do with relish. They devise policies to at least “alleviate” poverty as they say. 

It is remarkable that the national chairman of APC, Chief Odigie Oyegun, is a professed progressive.  It is safe to say he has a full comprehension of progressivism in theory and practice. He is on record to have articulated progressivism in the Nigerian context. As the SDP governor of Edo State he also faced the challenge of implementing progressive policies on the platform of a presumed progressive party.

In many ways he is a round peg in a round hole. Certainly, he is better suited to lead APC than Chief Tom Ikimi, the former chairman of the National Republic Convention (NRC), the party that its military creators said was “a little to the right”. No matter his grudges, Ikimi does not have more suitable ideological credentials than Oyegun to lead APC. In the first place, it is precisely because APC has not made itself distinguishable in principle, ideology or programme that it is attractive to Ikimi, Senator Modu Sheriff and their ideological and political types. The challenge is to give APC the content that would turn off those who are averse to progressive ideology.

In a most perceptive essay on this progressive question recently, Professor Niyi Akinnaso, observed that “…political philosophy or ideology in Nigerian politics is not located in particular political parties but in individual politicians”. However, the problem with such propositions is that politicians go into elections as candidates of political parties that are supposed to articulate programmes based on ideas attractive to the parties. This is a matter to be pursued further in reflecting on the question: who is a progressive in the politics of Nigeria today?

Meanwhile, the challenge of the ideologues of APC is to construct it as a truly progressive organisation. The need for ideological delineation in the political landscape is very urgent.