It is ironic, and
unfortunate that the sole measurement for judging most State governments nowadays is
payment of staff salary, especially to local government employees, even though
the State governments are not directly responsible for staff salary at that
level of governance.
The important lesson from
this, is that administrations at State level need to allow some degree of
independence to the local government level, particularly free hand in the
choice of political officers at that level. When this is done, the people will
become part of the administration at that level and the political office
holders could be held accountable for their actions and performance in office.
The beauty of democracy is
that it allows those who seek political offices to mobilize the people through
campaigns towards their envisaged programmes and policies when in office. There
is joy in campaigning with or for a candidate who then goes through seemingly
free and fair nomination and elections processes. Democracy is all about participation and free
choices by constituents.
In a thoroughgoing
society, it is not uncommon for party leaders to support candidates. But that
does not preclude the candidates from going through the rigours of mobilizing
the people to support their agenda. All that is needed is for the leaders to
campaign alongside the candidate of their choice.
As it is today across the
country, people at the grassroots and the villages no longer see local
governments as a level of governance. Until the present political dispensation,
which began in 1999, our people did not look up to State governments to solve every
of their developmental challenges and needs. When they had a need for
government attention, they looked first to the councils.
But with the present
democratic dispensation and the culture of imposition of candidates, the local
government level of governance lost its relevance and significance, because
elected officials became only responsible to the cabal that imposed them.
Today, most State governments are suffering the consequences of imposition. As
they cannot extricate themselves from whatever challenges that face that level
of governance.
When the dispensary or
primary health centre at Orogun has problem, the people blame it on the State
government. When erosion takes over a street in Agbor the people look up to the
State government. When a culvert collapses in Oproza the people look up to the
State government. In other words, every development challenge, no matter how
minor has become the responsibility of the State government.
The imposition of
candidates has generally excluded the people from the processes of democracy,
as voters are castrated of the power of choice and control over their
representatives. The truth is that imposition is an indication that a political
party has lost its appeal and its grips in mobilizing the people towards its
activities. And it occurs when a political party is underperforming. A major
danger here is that as time go by the political party assume more authoritarian
tendencies, which may destroy the party or destroy society.
A cursory look at the
history of the PDP reflects this, during the time of Jonathan as President, the
party became so authoritarian. Changes were made to party constitution at the
whims and caprices of certain party “chieftains” and ‘’cabal’’. Till date the
party is yet to recover from the penalty for disregarding the people. In the
same vein the failure of Hilary Clinton at the last United States general
elections could also be ascribed partly to penalty for imposition.
Comments
Post a Comment