By Dr. Ugoji Egbujo

In the last few days, two of Nigeria’s best music maestros have locked horns. And since the jibes have spared no indecency, sentimental mobs have queued up behind the gladiators, throwing tribal firewood into the inferno. What started as a clash of political ideas has lost its innocence and degenerated into a tribal tug-of-war. And rather than resist the temptation to recede into primitivity and egocentrism, some otherwise noble people have joined the carnival of ethnic chauvinism. 

Yet the grains of this conflict must be carefully sifted from the chaff of bigotry and political intolerance. An objective reading of Seun Kuti will lead to the inexorable conclusion that politics in Nigeria is fundamentally and almost irredeemably flawed. Therefore, every suggestion of messianism must be banished because it is invariably naive. The political culture from which the politicians have emerged and the path through which they must thread to success leave no chance for moral rectitude. So those politicians who, having passed through this contaminated crucible yet find the guts to march around as saints, must be blooming hypocrites, or in Kuti’s words, “opportunists.” But by dwelling on Peter Obi, and because of Peter Obi’s acceptance by his supporters as exceptional, even a curious audience could catch the impression that Seun Kuti was specifically laying into Peter Obi to deflate his momentum with the youths, to the advantage of another politician. But If the Peter Obi contamination of Seun’s assertions is cured, then Seun Kuti could be understood to mean that the political process we are undertaking is absolutely futile. Kuti, perhaps seeking that innocent interpretation, later, clarified that he had become disappointed with, and abandoned, Tinubu, whom he had once supported staunchly. Kuti’s central idea would then be that the nation must fashion a new method of leadership recruitment outside of the current system that recycles privileged ineptitude. It has to be because Kuti hinted at “a movement”. But let’s leave Seun Kuti for a while and turn to Peter Okoye’s bone of contention.

Peter Okoye went irate because Seun described Okoye’s favourite, PeterObi, as an opportunist and dismissed his ambition as unrealistic. The term ‘opportunist’ went viral the very next day. Seun is entitled to his opinion but that can’t amount to immunity from scrutiny.  Peter Okoye’s fury which later congealed into a cold disgust flowed from Seun’s blanket condemnation of all politicians in a manner that hurt Peter Obi more than the other politicians who haven’t sought to occupy the moral high ground. The idea that Obi stood no chance which means the overflowing optimism of his supporters is fantastical must have made Kuti sound unaltruistic to Okoye. But if we rid Peter Okoye’s outburst of all emotions and attachment to Peter Obi, we might find an interesting argument. His position would be that rather than throw a blanket condemnation of Nigeria’s politics and politicians and generate mass apathy, every conscientious youth should bend down and pick the best of the lot. In other words, instead of refuging in ineffectual idealism that could breed mass apathy in the immediate term, the path to follow must be a careful calibration of all options and the choice of the candidate that offers the best hope. 

Reading the conflict like this, both distinguished musicians have solid arguments which should attract public participation. Seun Kuti would say he had assessed all politicians and chosen the best fit in the past. But after trying pragmatism many times, the national political and economic situation has deteriorated because the system needs to be overhauled. Perhaps he could argue that the exorbitant presidential system of government, in a wretched country filled with illiterate and impoverished voters, can never yield the benefits of the Western-style liberal multiparty democracy. So we borrow and perpetuate an ill-fitting system. He could say that when role models like Peter Okoye refuse to see the big picture and promote the interests of a big politician as he once did, they sell false hopes to the people. 

Seun is neither a nihilist nor a romantic. Okoye is not a sycophant. Both are patriotic Nigerians. Their levels of optimism with the current system might vary for a multitude of good reasons. Apparently, Seun’s pessimism has driven him to idealism. The concentration on lofty ideas rather than the practical consequences of choices or lack of choices in a given reality isn’t altogether nonsensical. Seun could argue that Peter Okoye’s current position is where he was when he was a devotee of Tinubu in the early days of the 4th republic. He has learnt from Okoye’s mistake. So he could urge Okoye to interrogate the system and its history and reach rational, unemotional conclusions on its workability. But Seun has no clear way forward. 

So back to Peter Okoye. Okoye could counter by asking what Kuti would have the youths looking up to him for leadership to do on February 25 since there are no saints on the ballot. Should they shun the presidential elections and concede the space to scoundrels to choose the new leader? Would sitting at home and dreaming of a revolution delegitimize the election or magically produce the fantasized alternatives? Peter Okoye could say that he was for many years apathetic too, held captive by idealism. But he has since realized that choices, including apathy, have practical consequences. And if the youth hadn’t embraced idealism but turned out en masse to decide elections with their superior numbers, bad leadership would have long been banished. So Okoye could then ask Kuti to dislodge himself from pessimism and reinstate his faith in the ability of a sufficient mass of awakened youths charting a new course at the elections to begin the rebuilding process brick by brick. He could point at the huge percentage of those that have PVCs but don’t vote and ask Seun Kuti to help urge the youths to turn out.

These arguments are not weak. And to make progress, and approach a synthesis, advocates of both sides of the dialectics, must dig in and push harder. Idealism isn’t wishful thinking. It keeps the country actively aware of where it ought to be, so it doesn’t lose focus and dwell on celebrating small things. Enlightened pragmatism even if it entails a measure of moral permissiveness must not be dismissed as an unconscionable compromise. For if all tankers in society opted for pious aloofness or garrulously judgmental idealism and avoided realpolitik like a plague, charlatans and their thugs will inherit the government and run the nation aground. There is a great need for some good people to fold up their sleeves and go into the mud of dirty politics, and with the support and encouragement of a suffering population, who understand that good and bad exist in degrees, help the country stem the drift. 

Peter Okoye and Seun Kuti must forsake egocentrism and focus on the missed debate for the good of the country.