The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared Governor Obaseki as the winner of Saturday’s gubernatorial election in Edo state. The All Progressives Congress (APC) polled 223619 votes while Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) polled 307955 votes. The atmosphere before and after the election was saturated with   discourse on godfatherism. Political news headlines over the weekend featured godfatherism as the key word – victory over godfatherism, triumph over godfatherism, New dawn; it is the end of godfatherism in Nigerian politics, etc. Paraded in different forms the major takeaway dominating the news was that the battle against godfatherism has been won in Nigeria politics following the victory of Governor Obaseki of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) at the just concluded governorship polls in Edo state. 

The political phenomenon of godfatherism is a concern for all and sundry. The term “godfathers” originated from Chicago gangsters in the United States led by Al Capone before the World War II period. Discussions about it becomes heightened towards elections even though it is not a new phenomenon in the Nigerian political arena. There is no consensus as to the definition of the word but in simple terms it is a situation whereby an influential individual hand-picks someone to attain leadership in order to exert authority or influence.  The end result of the process is satisfying the political ego of the so-called godfathers. They are called godfathers despite the fact that they do not possess the intrinsic characteristics of a god. Chris Uba, one of the foremost godfathers in the fourth republic’s godfatherism, once acclaimed that “I am the greatest godfather in Nigeria”. His statement followed the 2003 general elections which he claimed was the first time an individual single-handedly put in position every politician in the state. 

Godfatherism in Nigeria dates back to the 1960s when the first set of Nigerian politicians fought for the Independence of the country. The key figures – Obafemi Awolowo Nnamdi Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello – cultivated the habit of raising political sons from each region of the country. But there seems to be a different motivation to the initiative of the founding fathers to what we see today. The key motivator in the first republic’s godfatherism was to develop and guide the aspiration of the upcoming generation of politicians. It was a mentorship in the political arena. This is in distinct contrast to the fourth republic’s godfatherism. 

The godfathers wield influence across different strata of government. The overwhelming influence of the political godfathers on the office seekers strips them of their independence in governance. It is slavery based on manipulations of their surrogates for selfish agenda. The question that lingers is why do godfathers act through their surrogates  rather than running for the positions themselves. There are many possibilities. Oftentimes, they are not qualified for the position. They do not possess the scaling ability to be sold to the voters and they are obsessed with their “good” names. Godfathers do not want to get their names into liabilities that come with holding public offices.  

When considered critically the problem of godfatherism is an issue for the political elites. Even though the ripple effects of it splay on the masses there is a greater concern for the masses. What’s the motivation of the fighters and defenders of godfatherism? Is the interest of the public the ultimate motivation? Or a mere continual hunger for political power and massaging of their ego while the masses become the instrument of war? Since the inception of the fourth republic in 1999 the political actors in the major political arena have been largely the same. The notable change is transference from one political arena to another. If juxtaposed the political actors in the two leading political parties have been at the other side at certain times. In fact, sometimes, the players of a party might have rained curses upon their current party while away in the opposition party. There are several examples and the just concluded Edo election exemplifies it. 2015 positioned Obaseki (APC) vs Ize-Iyamu (PDP) while in 2020 there was a switch. Same players under different clubs. This should be of concern for Nigerians than fighting or defending godfatherism with the elites in the political game.  

At the top, it is a tiny fraction of people who dictate the political tone of elections. They play on the minds of the public whom they acknowledge when elections are knocking. More than godfatherism we should be concerned about the power elite theory in play. The theory proposes that only a small minority, consisting of individuals of the economic and political networks, holds the most power and that is independent of democratic elections. Nigeria has various routes for citizens interested in governance. This is only true on paper. When considered critically the governance structure has been made to allow only a minority. The country runs on an elite theory of government in contrast to the pluralist theory of government which says that political power rests with competing interest groups in government. 

Vildredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels were the cofounders of the Italian school of elitism which became a template for subsequent schools of elitism. The basic ideas of the theory are:

1. Power lies in position of authority in key economic and political institutions, 
2. The psychological difference that sets elites apart is that they have personal resources and vested interest in the government. For Pareto, there are two kinds of elites – the governing elites and non-governing elites. Michels later developed his iron law of oligarchy politics. He asserted that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an iron law within any democratic organization. In simple terms, any organization eventually becomes dominated by the ruling class.

There are three classes of people in the political game. The tiny elites who have been changing teams to dominate the political arena, the relatively small middle group and the masses at the bottom who are used every four year to fulfil the ambition of the tiny elites. The governing elites come largely from the leading politicians, major corporate owners and high ranking military officers. The major powers wielded by the masses are expressing public opinions, voting every four year and being instruments in the hands of the power driven elites.

There is greater concern for the public than joining the political elites in rejoicing the triumph of godfatherism. The political elites understand the game. They know the mechanism of getting through to themselves. History shows this vividly. It seems this is the time to change the political actors of Nigerian politics. It is the only way we can begin to enjoy the fruits of democracy. 

Nicholas Aderinto is a young Nigerian who believes in the transforming power of written words in creating lasting changes in the society. 

I stumbled upon the story of Theodore Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, the lone wolf that terrorised America for 17 years. As I read his story from different sources, I couldn’t help wondering what went wrong. Ted was notorious for mailing home-made bombs to random unsuspecting victims and eluded the authority for almost two decades until luck ran out of him. In fact, if not for his elder brother that “snitched” on him, maybe he would have still been reigning till date. The only thing The Unabomber wanted was for technological development to be stopped. He believed that technology is destroying the world and the only way he could call attention to his message was by killing and maiming with technology. What an irony.

But what is spectacular about The Unabomber was that he is a PhD holder. In fact, Ted is a product of Harvard University, where he obtained his degree in Mathematics. After earning his PhD from University of Michigan, he became an instructor with the University of California, Berkeley. But barely two years after starting this promising job, he resigned for unknown reasons, went into the woods, and lived as a hermit in a small cabin he constructed by himself. It was in this cabin that had no electricity, water, telephone, or any basic amenity, that The Unabomber began to terrorise the world.

Thinking about this promising young man deciding to leave a promising life for a terror-filled one will make a lot of us wonder if he was crazy. But from what the psychologist that tested him during his trials said, Ted had a sound mind. Nobody can actually tell what went wrong, but it is suspected that an experiment he was subjected to while in Harvard must have triggered something that turned him into a radical. But then, he was not the only student that was used for this experiment. So why was he the only person that became a terrorist?

References to his background showed that he grew up in a community composed of people from different races. There is nothing odd about that except that each race lived in their “colonies” kind of. Ted was said to be very brilliant and so he did not mix up properly with his peers in his neighbourhood (he was the nerd that must be bullied). But then, other isolated youngsters did not turn into terrorists as well.

The essence of pointing out all these is that the true causes of terrorism are yet unknown. Most of us believed that it was poverty. For instance, I have heard a lot of people saying that the reason Boko Haram recruits people in Nigeria is because of the economic situation of the country. After reading up The Unabomber story, I changed that ideology. There is a lot more to terrorism than poverty.

The only thing I can still point an accusing finger on as the cause of terrorism is the society. Radicals are not born; they are made. Some people may have reservations about a particular thing but it takes his personal experiences to become a radical. At the same time, it takes an extreme experience to become a terrorist. Sometimes terrorists are bred from information they were fed by others. I can bet you that the reason we have more of religious terrorism than any other one in Nigeria is because religious leaders twist what they tell their followers and push them into radicalism. This has nothing to do with poverty; neither does it have anything to do with education. Remember that The Unabomber was an ex lecturer in Mathematics.

I am not saying that the economic condition of the country is not a contributory factor, but its effect is minor. People are obviously not recruited by terrorists because they are poor, as we were meant to believe. They were recruited because they have been radicalised. What causes this extremism in them is the only thing we need to find out. Until it is known and uprooted, I am afraid we are heading nowhere.