Is Politics Primarily Local or Personal?

By Nasir Aminu

The saying "All politics is local" is a common adage linked to Tip O’Neill, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. This statement resonates profoundly within a democratic, multi-party framework.

Indeed, political parties are beginning to realize that addressing significant policy challenges is often best achieved at the local level. As the upcoming elections approach, it appears that the classic saying may be utilized more strategically than ever before.

Our adoption of American-style governance—federalism and democracy—is intended to produce desired outcomes by empowering local decision-making among citizens. The founding fathers of America envisioned a system where local communities take charge, even if their decisions might be less effective than those made by seasoned bureaucrats.

This system was meant to ensure that towns select representatives from their own circles. These representatives would meet to elect a state-level representative who would then participate in the Electoral College tasked with electing the president.

Such a process emphasizes face-to-face interaction, allowing community members to choose individuals they had a long-standing familiarity with. This setup promotes a more localized form of democracy, fostering distinct styles of communication.

Discussions within this framework often focus on immediate concerns like insecurity, poverty, and socio-economic difficulties. Additionally, they involve commitments to develop infrastructure and invite investments that facilitate growth. The structure prioritizes voters, holding politicians accountable to their constituencies, requiring them to justify their competencies.

During election periods, politicians tend to return to their local areas, a time when they often remember the pressing local issues that require their attention as they strive to connect with constituents experiencing these challenges.

Skeptics may contend that as soon as the electoral cycle concludes, voters pursue their elected officials, reminding them of local political principles. When attempts to be heard fall short, voters respond at polling stations, often resulting in the selection of opposing candidates. Thus, while theoretically valid, the assertion that all politics is local holds true in practice.

It is essential to recognize that politics is not universally a local enterprise; it frequently transcends geographical boundaries. Politicians can be manipulative, and in Nigeria, political actions, whether at the local or national level, are predominantly personal.

Factors such as loyalty, betrayal, political maneuvering, and various forms of favoritism are influenced by individual interests. Each political decision, favor, or burden taken on by a politician is often rooted in self-serving objectives. They may present these actions as public service, but fundamentally, they are driven by personal gain.

The discussion links to how our political and democratic structures have been adjusted by certain influential groups, sometimes referred to as the "old guard." However, it is crucial not to confuse the old guard with Nigeria's founding fathers, who remain above reproach.

The old guard understands that political power relies on recognizing that every misstep, loss, or missed opportunity has tangible political repercussions. Events do not occur randomly, nor are they neutral considerations for these political leaders. This is a key reason they have navigated various political cycles since 1999, taking every occurrence personally. Should a rival gain traction within their jurisdiction, it becomes essential to identify the source of this challenge, often avoiding accountability for their failures.

Defections are seen as acts of treachery, though exceptions are made for defectors from their ranks. Newer politicians operate under immense pressure to avoid errors, expecting that those who join their ranks will be nearly flawless. A mere glance towards an opposing camp is treated as a grave breach of loyalty. Leaders fall into the categories of "cats with nine lives," master tacticians, or political godfathers, displaying a distinct survivalist mentality.

A current example emerged from a recent factional convention in Abuja, where political figures convened to choose a new leadership for a fraction of their party—once a dominant opposition force in Nigeria. Many had previously governed for 16 years and the party will have spent 12 years out of power by 2027. Ideally, the party should be preparing to challenge the ruling party in the forthcoming elections; nonetheless, the convention appeared to be structured to facilitate the current leader’s re-election.

The political godfathers are aware of the underlying plans, and consensus seems to prevail among them. Now back in their constituencies, they will urge voters to ignore the events in Abuja, pushing them to vigorously contest local elections under dubious circumstances. While they realize this endeavor is likely to fail, it aligns with their self-interest. If candidates behaved as they did nationally, they would face scorn, being labeled as hypocrites or traitors.

This manipulation of our democratic system by these individuals has commodified politics into a personal venture, drawing every occurrence into the web of their vested interests. They maintain the former largest political party in the nation for their benefit, rather than for the greater good.

While the political class is certainly aware of democratic principles and the notion that all politics is local, they adeptly use the system to further their personal goals. It's as straightforward as that.