Edo Politics And The Ethnicization Of Democracy Or Democratization Of Ethnicity -By Timothy Dokpesi Adidi

The politics of ethnicity is so loud and clear in the political atmosphere of Edo State. Yet, in everything we do, there are advantages and disadvantages. There are advantages and disadvantages in playing ethnic politics; but to what end? Is it for a particular benefit and interest or the common good? The politics of ethnicity have kept authentic democracy and good governance far away from the integral development of the Edo people. The question of ‘who should rule’ seems to be elusive from the inception of democracy as a form of government in the State; and the questions that steadily come to mind are; to what extent are we satisfied with the poor living conditions of our people despite the fact Edo State produces crude oil and other mineral resources like limestone and quarry? In Edo, we have a cement factory and a flour mill at Ewu; however, the latter is not functional. Human trafficking is prevalent in Edo, with young girls being manipulated and forced into slavery, forced labor, sex trafficking, and organ sales.

How best can we say did the previous and current policies in the State help to reduce or ameliorate the past and current situation we are in the State?  Is it possible for the people of Edo to understand that ethnic politics does not translate into good governance? What is the benefit of ethnic politics in Edo? Is the emphasis on ethnicization of democracy the ground for ‘who should rule’ a threat or opportunity for good governance and authentic democracy in the State? Hence, how do we translate these ethnic groups in the state into a viable portfolio for enriching governance in the State? Can we give credit to the political parties in their various forms and representation to have translated power into bread for the Edo people? What do we understand to be politics? What is the purpose and function of politics and power? The article calls for a critical reflection on the nature of democracy and the question of good governance in Edo State.

Politics and democracy do not go together in every circumstance; but, it depends on the players and what they intend to achieve in the long run. Hence, politics is politics and democracy is democracy. Democracy in its purest form does not necessarily have to do with numbers. In defining what politics is, it is important not to be carried away with definitions that subvert what is and what ought to be. The definition of politics as what is (descriptive) can be misleading and erroneous as defined by Harold Lasswell, an American political scientist, who defined politics as “who gets what, when, and how”.  I would rather subscribe to the definition of politics in the descriptive sense and prescriptive sense. There is so much of the influence of Harold Lasswell’s thought on the political stakeholders in defining what politics is without recourse to the depth of his thought. As such, it has garnered the ethnic politicization of democracy in the political life and behaviour of the people in Edo. This is the reason why ethnic politics prevail over the fundamental essence and purpose of politics.

The influence of Harold Lasswell’s thought suggests a competition for resources, power, and influence. In this sense, politics is about the distribution of resources: who gets access to wealth, funding, or benefits? The truth is that everyone should be given the enabling environment to get access to wealth, funding, or benefits irrespective of ethnic background or political affiliation. To again infer from Lasswell’s thought we can say that politics is about the allocation of power; this means who holds decision-making authority and influence? To this question again, I posit that everyone irrespective of the ethnic front should have access to the decision-making authority and influence and should not be on a turn-by-turn basis. This is because politics ought to deliver good governance to the people and not a selected few of a particular interest group. Leaders chosen by the people should reach out beyond their ethnic ties and extend governance to the Edo people.

Let me advance further to infer the thought of Lasswell to imply that his concept of politics can be inferred to be who should benefit from policy choices, and who is impacted by them. Again, everyone should be beneficiaries of good policies and everyone must be impacted. As such, a particular ethnic group in power should not make policies to benefit his/her ethnic coverage to the detriment of others due to power shifts or power rotation. The problem of ethnic politics is the fact that numbers do not necessarily translate into value. Democracy is indeed all about numbers, but the number intended by democracy is quality number as against quantity. A lot of ignorance is playing out in the politics of ethnicity. This ignorance is indeed a setback to our democratic consolidation. The basic problem is to understand what democracy is. The danger with numbers is the fact that these numbers might not necessarily be informed numbers. These numbers are most likely to be dangerous numbers who may not be well guided and trusted with decision-making as to who should rule. We must be familiar with the history of democracy in Athens and why Plato was really against democracy.

Plato in his book “The Republic” was very critical of democracy for very obvious reasons. He saw the lack of wisdom and the extent of inadequate knowledge people possess and their minimal capacity for abstraction will reduce the possibility for them to make informed decisions about governance. He (Plato) thought that democratic decision–making is often driven by emotions and personal interests rather than reason and the common good. This again reflects the Edo condition. Most political analysts, politicians, media men, and women are driven by personal interest and what they can get from the ruling party or the anticipated ruling party. Political analysts most times are guided by their stomach and expect to be beneficiaries of juicy contracts in the present or the future. Reason is swept under the carpet just because of greed (this is exactly why many are comfortable with the Lasswellian definition without a critical reflection on the definition).

Furthermore, Plato raised the issue of expertise. He believed that rulers should be chosen based on their wisdom, expertise, and merit, rather than popularity and wealth. This is exactly where money politics comes in politics in Edo and the emphasis on ethnicity to the detriment of meritocracy, competence, and capacity. When a candidate is produced from within a particular ethnic group to lead the State; what are the criteria reached for the candidate to emerge? Does popular demand necessarily translate into competence? Does the candidate brought forward at the level of primaries represent the competence and expectations of those who desire genuine change? There is a sense in which tyranny plays a very significant role at the primaries in the process of emerging a candidate to lead the people of Edo all in the name of democracy. Indeed, there is more to be desired in Edo than just the ethnicization of democracy. We rather expect the democratization of ethnicity as a process of enshrining the democratic fundamentals, principles, and tenets. Despite his criticism of democracy which is popularly upheld in high esteem, Plato’s ideas have had a significant impact on political theory and political philosophy with the continuous debate, conversations, and discussions by scholars and political theorists.

Politics is not a full-time profession and as such, political stakeholders should try as much as possible not to get use to the utilization of politics for a means to an end. This will enhance their political thinking and correctness for a much balance analysis than to always look out for personal gains or a particular community development or project as the case may be. The unprecedented party migration, cross carpeting, and political prostitution in Edo have much we should be conversing about. Nonetheless, it is a reflection of National politicking at work due to the lack of ideological depth visible in political parties in Nigeria.  We must brace up for better politics in Edo in a truly representative nature to put the people’s interest’s first, not just special and ethnic interests.

Politics in Edo should be open and transparent in decision–making processes and policy–making. Hence, let’s not shy away from accountability as we also hold our leaders in Edo accountable for their actions and inactions. Representatives of diverse perspectives, opinions, and demographics should be all-inclusive; guided by a strong moral compass and unwavering commitment to ethical principles. More so, beyond the election and partisan politics, there is a need to foster bipartisanship, cooperation, and constructive debate imploring evidence–based grounded in facts, data, and scientific research. The people of Edo need a leader who is attentive, proactive, and visionary, addressing future challenges and opportunities; and also, empowering communities for a better tomorrow.