I haven’t been able to conduct a conversation around the forthcoming elections without the question of godfatherism popping up. I think most Nigerians have an apathy to “godfathers”. However, on the other side of what is a very bitter divide, I see new entrants into the political arena constantly on the lookout for prospective “godfathers”. In the ensuing discussions, I have heard folks try to differentiate between “political sponsors” and “political godfathers”, with most preferring the former categorisation as it seems a little more positive and doesn’t portray the beneficiary as a stooge.
I checked dictionaries, and both nouns really mean the same thing.
I then asked myself if there is really anything wrong with having a “political sponsor”. I think not. Although people use the terms “sponsor” and “godfather” interchangeably, I don’t think they mean for both words to mean the same thing. Do people really mean to say “sponsor” but yet use the word “godfather”? I think so, for in Nigeria’s case, there are many “sponsors” and “mini-godfathers”. But there is a big “Godfather and King Maker”. It is a title Nigerians love to bear.
At a recent meeting, one of the candidates for Lagos State governor addressed a room full of business men and women. He was quite impressive as he marshalled out his plans for the State. I was particularly keen to hear him out on education, employment, security and the environment (roads, traffic management and waste disposal). He addressed three areas satisfactorily, save for security. I think that security is such a big deal, and that it should command serious attention from all the candidates. Indeed, a cross-party consensus might just be necessary to drive the changes to legislation required to support reforms in this space.
I was really pleased, and I think many others were too. Then came the question and answer session. I was going to ask him about accountability and a performance monitoring framework for the public sector. But I changed my mind, as I am not sure that the Nigerian political landscape is ready for these yet. Now, there were several questions, but the one that caught my attention and indeed informed this piece was: “Is a vote for you, a vote for your godfather?” There were very loud mutterings in the room after the question.
We waited for the candidate to catch his breath, gulp some water and then respond. Again, I was impressed by his response. In essence, he wanted us to know that a vote for his candidacy was nothing more than a vote for a man who has achieved quite a bit in the private and public sectors; and that man was standing before us. I cannot tell if he’d rehearsed his response. If he did, then he did a very good job. He came out looking brighter and sharper. He reeled out his achievements and described his pedigree. He spoke about how he achieved so much even whilst under his “godfather” — as a “little man”. He said all of this, to help us understand that whilst he had so much respect for his “sponsor”, he really was capable. So how much more is he capable of achieving when and if he becomes a “big man”.
His deputy then came on stage and addressed that question too. He spoke about how this “godfather” invited him to come and serve his country after he had made a presentation to an audience including the “godfather” — the first time both were meeting. Again, I was impressed. It was then that I started to look at the difference between a “godfather” and a “sponsor”. The deputy spoke very eloquently and almost impartially of the “godfather” and how this man is more focussed on results and ensuring that the work was done by the most competent. He spoke very well. I saw heads nodding in agreement. I also saw faces looking like a veil had been removed or rather like new facts had just emerged. That weighty question was answered very well.
The follow-up question then — although this wasn’t asked at the meeting — is why have we, in this part of the world, concluded that “godfatherism” is negative? I personally don’t think that people can rise to the top without sponsors — in other words, “godfathers”. From birth, children have their parents as “sponsors” and mentors, through to the university, where lecturers serve as “sponsors” and mentors. In the workplace, many persons have “sponsors” and “godfathers”. What then is wrong with having a “political godfather?
Perhaps it is because of the way “godfathers” and “sponsors” emerge in this part of the world? Plus, many of them, having attained this status, do not want to relinquish power or operate from behind the scenes. For many such “sponsors”, they always want the people to know that they call the shots. I wonder who is behind Trump or Macron or May? I am sure they have “sponsors” or “godfathers”. But these persons are not very well known. They walk in the shadows. From what I think I know, I don’t believe Nigerians are really against “sponsors” or “godfathers”. They are more against the indirect rule of the “sponsors” and “godfathers” who refuse to allow our elected leaders to function; but interfere so terribly that these leaders turn out poorly.
Like it or not, we have very strong patriarchal cultural values, and so we will always have space for “godfathers” and “sponsors”. The central challenge will always be to have all persons abide by the rules of good governance and principles of equity and fairness. So, I don’t think that candidates should be dismissed just because they have strong “godfathers”. Rather, I think that we should be asking them to show evidence of competence, capability and capacity to take on the mantle of leadership.
Maybe I should have asked my question around accountability and how performance will be measured, that should have given me more pointers!
But, hey! Like I keep saying, I, on the other hand, am just an ordinary everyday girl.
Credit: Lande Omo Oba