Should we have candidates for public offices gather and tell us their vision? This has been an issue for a long time now, and the debate has continued to go forth and back. The hosting of the presidential debate last weekend and the issues that came out of it have made the matter a frontline issue and that is very good.
Debates are good and that is because we are in the knowledge driven age. We will either adopt the culture or continue to take the backward position we have assumed of our own accord for decades running.
I can hear some people say we have challenges and therefore not ripe for such a move, but the truth is that identification of the challenges ought to be a precursor to the next inevitable move. It should be a clear reminder that we of this generation have a mission and by that we have a responsibility to frontally confront all obstacles and ensure we get things done. The task of moving every obstacle out of the way becomes very urgent in view of the fact that our society is rich both in natural and human resources. We have good brains that can take this country farther than even the developed countries have gone; the constraining factor has always been lack of vision and resolve. We have a responsibility to get over that and place our country on a path of sustainable progress.
Like observed earlier, political debate and its relevance in our development stride has gained ascendency, and we must be glad it is on a positive note. From what we have seen we do not need any empirical research to reach the conclusion that the populace need it and that they want it institutionalized. The argument now is more about approach, processes and response, and those are critical variables that should require our attention and action. We have been having political debates in recent times, and the height of it has been what the organizers term as presidential debate. Unfortunately some of the other debates have gone well, except for the presidential debate, which has always been marred by one controversy or the other. Chief among them has always been the issue of boycott by leading presidential candidates, particularly incumbent presidents.
We will come to that later, but it is important to observe that the presidential debate held on January 19th, 2019, did not only end well but was a huge success, and this is irrespective of the fact that two key players on the present political stage, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, did not make appearance at all, and the main opposition candidate, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, showed up and disappeared before the commencement of the event. Those were obvious minuses that were made up for by the participation of very brilliant opposition candidates in the persons of Dr. Kingsley Moghalu of the Young Peoples’ Party (YPP), Dr. Oby Ezekwesili of Allied Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN) and Fela Durotoye of Alliance for New Nigeria (ANN). They were brilliant and their expositions reaffirmed a need for a working document by aspirants to backup their ambitions.
One of the problems of our nation and Dr. Moghalu captured it very clearly, is the absence of an ideology, so most times candidates prescribe solutions that are in themselves self contradictory. In one breath they want government to do some things, at another end they are mounting the neo-colonial slogan that government has no right to be in any business at all. The conflict in this world view has left the country the way it is. These candidates held their forte and acquitted themselves very creditably, their appearance confirmed what we need urgently on the political front, and that is a paradigm shift. Forget every argument, what we need are leaders who are very knowledgeable, exposed, global in thinking and disposition, young and energetic. It is time we retire the old brigade; they need time to rest and nurture their families.
President Buhari’s men have spoken from different angles, giving explanation why their principal was not at the event. Prof. Itse Sagay, the president’s aide on corruption interloped and said the president could not debate with political Lilliputians, and the other said the president did not have time, or had participated in a similar programme on Nigerian Television Authority, The Candidate. The more ridiculous one was the excuse that other past presidents particularly of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) boycotted past debates. One deduction from the above reaction is about dissonance in the Federal government. If this were not so Prof. Sagay has nothing to do with an issue that belongs strictly to the publicity and public relations department of the presidency and All Progressives Congress (APC), the president’s party. The president’s reasons are not tenable because what the past leaders did was bad, we all agree, and that is a settled matter. The president ran on a philosophy of change, which if we understood properly is to do things differently from the old order. The question is “Why walk again on the old discredited path?”