New Telegraph

The travails of Nigerian political godfathers (1)

Political godfatherism is a bad ‘business’ in Nigeria. Perhaps, the ‘badness’ of ‘godfatherism flows from its essence defined by Chambers Dictionary as “the head of a criminal group, especially in the mafia.” So godfatherism relates to nefarious acts even if not a crime.

This imputed element of criminality should be kept in view. Yet, it is difficult to stop the practice as Nigerian politicians seem helplessly wired to it, being as it were that the magnetic pull appears irresistible and overpowering. Godfatherism is a political act whereby an individual who by reason of socio-political and economic resources assumes leadership position on or around which subordinates congregate and find their bearings and relevance. Godfatherism as a concept and a political act is commonly found in all societies; especially in unequal and therefore uncompetitive societies. When this situation arises a godfather has emerged to the advantage of lucky beneficiaries and damnation of the underdogs outside its concentric circles or penumbras of influence and operation.

The godfather is he who must be obeyed in all circumstances. Being an incident of autocracy and personal rule, godfatherism kills creativity and competition in politics and governance and invariably endangers democracy. Godfatherism is a culture that cut across political cultures and national boundaries. The British had it during the reign of the absolutist monarchs who controlled the feudal system that ensured rigid class differentiation and function within the orbit of the accepted usage.

With the 1680s’ Glorious Revolution that overthrew the absolutist monarchy and abolished feudalism which were replaced with democracy, rule of law and capitalism centred on creativity, freedom and competition. In America, godfatherism berthed with post-Second World War political culture founded on mass-appeal and vote-catching as ultimate desideratum. America’s growth from a quiet republic and democratic polity to an imperial world power after 1945 ensured the emergence of this vile political culture that depended on the vote-catching machines of wily politicians who provided this system, maintained it and managed the patronage.

From New York to Chicago and several other states and cities there emerged a culture of godfatherism that threw up amoral politicians whose sole aim in politics was winning elections, installing themselves or their protégés in governments and controlling the patronage system.

These politicians were derogatively called the ‘robber-barons.’ These ‘robber-barons’ provided the requisite funds, political structure and the organisation that assured their faction the successful electoral conquests and consequent seizures of political positions and governments.

In the history of the United States, there were many of these types of political godfathers but the most notorious was the ‘Chicago Political Machine’ created and controlled by Richard J. Daley between 1955 and 1976. Richard J. Daley served as the mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976 during which he created one of the most effective political machines in American history and controlled enormous political influence within his party, the Democratic Party.

Mr. Daley transformed Chicago to a bustling city but bad policies led to the building of one of the worst public housing projects. Above all, Mr. Daley was an autocrat who deployed sharp practices to achieve his political goals and was notoriously nicknamed “American Pharaoh” who created the vote-catchers nicknamed the “Precinct Captains” similar to political stalwarts under President Olusegun Obasanjo called the “garrison commanders” in states especially Oyo State where Lamidi Adedibu was the most famous in godfathering Governor Rashidi Ladoja. Godfatherism has a chequered history in Nigeria and the godfathers, without exception have reaped humongous gains but suffered incalculable misfortunes in godfatherism business hence the title of this essay “The Travails of Nigeria Political Godfathers” borrowing from Awolowo’s account of his political odyssey that chronicled his travails in relations with his godson, Chief SL Akintola. Dr. Azikiwe was the first political godfather who suffered serial betrayals from his godsons and never recovered from his travails.

The political relationship between Sardauna Ahmadu Bello and his protégé, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa did not manifest due to the intervening constitutional and political crises that bedevilled Nigeria and consumed them in the process thereby saving them the ordeal of a full scale political rivalry that was already budding between them when Sir Balewa was chosen by the British colonial officers, groomed, promoted and elevated above Sir Ahmadu Bello to become Nigerian Prime Minister to the consternation of Sir Bello who obviously was not happy with that British subterfuge and deception. The first case of godfatherism problem started with Dr. Azikiwe who had in 1951 installed Prof. Eyo Ita as the Leader of Government Business in the Eastern Region.

The godfather relationship between Dr. Azikiwe and Prof. Ita got soured when Azikiwe was betrayed by his NCNC-allied legislator-colleagues who won seats in the Western Region Assembly in 1951 but somehow those allies (Meredith Akinloye, Richard Akinjide, Ayo Rosiji, Adedoyin, etc.) failed to support Azikiwe to become the Premier of Western Region. Azikiwe being a party leader out of the triumvirate (Azikiwe/ Ahmadu Bello-Balewa /Awolowo) that lost opportunity of heading a government under 1951 Constitution would have endured but his godson, Prof. Ita, as leader of Government Business in Eastern Region allegedly failed to accord Azikiwe ‘rights’ and privileges due him as godfather. In particular, Prof. Ita’s refusal to channel government funds into Azikiwe’s bank, the ACB to enable it qualify for licence under colonial law in 1952 was a slight too many.

So, Azikiwe sought to occupy government for the purpose and other political considerations. Without an executive position Azikiwe ‘floated’ in Nigeria’s political space and his party, NCNC, henchmen wanted some relevance for him. So they tried to get Ita to step down from office in order to create an avenue for Azikiwe to step in as the Eastern Region Premier but Prof. Ita refused which was not acceptable to the party henchmen. They plotted to bring down Ita’s government.

The Azikiwe NCNC loyalists against the already scheduled party convention in December 1951 in Aba hurriedly scheduled another convention in November 1951 in Jos. Expectedly, Prof. Ita and loyalists boycotted the Jos Convention. The sole object of the Jos Convention was to ask Prof. Ita and all NCNC ministers in Federal and Eastern Region governments to resign their positions. A resolution was passed to this effect but the concerned ministers and Prof. Ita ignored it.

To the Azikiwe loyalists Ita and loyalists’ action was anti-party activity and disloyalty to party supremacy. There was commotion in Eastern Region Assembly as Azikiwe’s loyal legislators made legislative business impossible after the plan to get Ita’s ministers to resign failed. Factionalization of the NCNC started with this political subterfuge by Azikiwe. Meanwhile, seeing that the NCNC Jos Convention resolution was fruitless, Azikiwe pretended to call a ‘reconciliation’ meeting of NCNC at Enugu where the recalcitrant-ministers were cajoled to obey party position as reached in Jos promising that they will be reappointed by the Leader, Azikiwe once they comply with party directives. Based on this understanding, the recalcitrant-ministers signed a prepared ‘letters of resignation’ presented by Azikiwe bearing the date of that meeting which was January 28, 1952.

Almost immediately, Azikiwe proposed a list of ministers for Eastern Region with KO Mbadiwe as leader of Government Business and virtually all the recalcitrant-minister dropped in the new list. Consequently, the recalcitrant-ministers repudiated their letters of resignation by immediately writing to the colonial lieutenant-governor withdrawing their letters of resignation as having been obtained by false preference, misrepresentation and therefore fraudulent.

TO BE CONTINUED

Read Previous

CAF’s restart guide and impact on women football

Read Next

COVID-19: Forgotten past of history

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *