Are we forgetting that this is participatory democracy? How effective will the governor of any state be, if he is the only one elected from his party without other party members getting any elective office? What type of government would that governor form? Would he always be able to call the bluff of hostile non-party members of his administration? Or can we hope as we have recently seen, that once elections are done and won, all other elected members of government who are not of the same party as the governor, will defect to the party of the ruling governor, to make everyone's life easier in the state and truly develop the state? This logic is warped.
Don't forget that there are three arms of government; none can be efficient without the other. Will a governor get co-operation from a hostile State House of Assembly for instance? Have we not witnessed how a state's legislature can hold any governor to ransom, just to fulfill some inordinate desires? Have we not seen a State House of Assembly closed for so many months in a state where both the executive and legislators were/are of the same party? What manner of relationship could we then hope for where legislators and executors are from opposing camps?
Nevertheless, one totally understands why these people are jittery: they rationalise that since a party's leadership decided to 'impose' candidates and admittedly so, then the people also have a right to NOT vote for those seemingly selected and imposed. The illogical argument conveniently forgets that Babatunde Fashola himself was imposed ab initio by this same party; so why are they now insisting on backing this old "imposed" and not the new? If it is because they feel Governor Fashola has 'performed' so well to justify a second term, how do they know that the new set of people imposed by the same party, won't do as well or better? After all, if the party got it right with Mr.Fashola, why can't the party also get it right for the leader's wife, son or in-law? Is one less efficient because one is related to the boss?
I suppose that is why Mr. Fashola's fans are behaving as if he is an independent candidate. They even recommend what party to vote for in place of ACN. But think about how this democracy works for a minute: ours is not built on the collective will of the elected to do good things or deliver dividends, as we say locally. How will Mr. Fashola push his manifesto without his party's elected? Ours is not an environment where politicking stops and governance begins; the difference is blurred. Our politicians NEVER allow the politics to end, never mind beginning the process of governing. In fact, if a party's candidate is elected as governor, after displacing an incumbent whose party has majority seats in the State Assembly, the new governor will know no peace.
Assemblymen often see it as their duty to rile the chief executive of a state, especially if he is not from their party. And the truth is, if they have a good relationship with the governor, people will say they've been bought over; If they don't, the governor's camp will say members of the Assembly don't want progress for the state, and are 'only' being selfishly hostile to the executive because they want some goodies.
We've even seen states where the governor's opponents from within his party, don't want him to achieve anything even if it affects their party's fortunes in providing deliverables. If a governor and president for that matter can be so opposed from within their own camps, is it another party that will embrace them more? If one votes Mr. Fashola alone from the ACN, then members of other political parties to the National and State Assemblies, will the governor enjoy support unhindered by party differences? Will they all look beyond party affiliation and agree to Mr. Fashola's ideas especially if the ideas are good? Or will they choose, after winning, to play politics with people's lives?
Source: Click the link below»
http://234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/Opinion/5688266-184/story.csp
No comments:
Post a Comment