THERE is a disturbing trend in our political discourse: the elevation of sentiment over substance, and the active shielding of political figures from the very scrutiny that defines the journalistic profession.
My recent article on the structural deficiencies of political nomadism has clearly struck a nerve, not because it was inaccurate, but because it dared to pierce the carefully constructed veneer of “sainthood” that surrounds Peter Obi.
To those who believe that a political figure is immune from criticism simply because they occupy the mantle of “opposition,” let us be clear: Journalism is not public relations. My role is to interrogate, not to deify.
The Litmus Test of Capacity
The core of the argument is simple, yet critics refuse to engage with it: Governance is the art of holding disparate, often conflicting, interests together. If a politician lacks the institutional tenacity to stabilize a single political party—if they view the inevitable friction of party politics as a cue to pack their bags and “snake” their way to the next platform—by what metric are we to believe they possess the temperament to manage a multi-ethnic, fractious nation of over 230 million people?
This is not a petty critique; it is a fundamental question of administrative capacity. A President does not have the luxury of resigning from the country when the political weather turns foul. The “serpentile” hopping from one party to another is not “principled independence”; it is a failure of character and a deficit of the grit required for statesmanship.
The “Atiku Democratic Congress” Fallacy
I have been criticized for pointing out the obvious. If Peter Obi left the ADC because it was being converted into the “Atiku Democratic Congress”—the precursor of dollarized primaries and transactional politics—why is the reaction always to flee?
There is a distinct difference between being “allergic” to corruption and being incapable of fighting it. To run from a battlefield because the enemy is entrenched is not a virtue; it is a retreat. If Obi cannot exert the political will to sanitize a single political structure, the idea that he will somehow “reconfigure” the entire Nigerian state is a fantasy born of desperate hope, not empirical reality.
The Dangerous Cult of Sainthood
We are currently witnessing a dangerous deification of the individual. My critics argue that we should be “helping” Obi build his “castles in the air.” I refuse to participate in this delusion. When we treat a politician as a saint, we excuse their errors, ignore their incoherence, and silence the dissent necessary for a healthy democracy.
Those who label any critique of Obi as “banal politics” or “demagoguery” are, in fact, the ones engaging in the very behavior they accuse others of: they are putting a person before the principles of national progress. They want a mascot, not a leader.
They want to be told that the system can be saved by a single “messiah,” rather than confronting the cold, hard truth that Nigeria’s rot requires a level of institutional building that a political nomad is temperamentally incapable of performing.
The Verdict
If you cannot manage the pinpricks of party politics, you cannot navigate the minefield of national governance. The riotous political acrobatics we are witnessing are not the movements of a savior; they are the movements of someone who has yet to learn that in a jungle, you do not survive by running—you survive by standing your ground.
I do not write to please the sycophants. I write to hold a mirror to our political reality. If the reflection is ugly, do not blame the mirror.
Erasmus Ikhide contributed this piece via: ikhideluckyerasmus@gmail.com
