I check out a thread expecting to read a convincing, logical argument that I can learn from, only to read about who? Omisore?

*shakes head, exits thread*

HNosegbe: I check out a thread expecting to read a convincing, logical argument that I can learn from, only to read about who? Omisore?

*shakes head, exits thread*

You be correct guy ojare.

isale_gan2:

What we have here (in the bolded) is a dilemma, a catch-22, if you will.

On one hand, the advice to not self-isolate, is sound. No group should limit itself where political participation and influence is concerned.

On the other hand, in an environment where one party predominates in a larger area, having a wider tent, or BEING PERCEIVED to have a wider tent. . . does hitching your wagon to that party tacitly endorse turning the country into a one-party system?

Which is more dangerous for the masses in the long run?

I see this as a real dilemma. Others may not.

The simplest and most accessible example is the USA. We all know that, at the national, regional, state, and local levels, the USA is a 2-party state. There are exceptions, in minor (Green Party and Libertarian party in MN and some parts) or short-term (Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura) cases, but the Republican vs Democrat party apparatus are the predominant and consistent vehicle to any form of political power or activity in the USA. Anyone who wants to partake in politics or even, any regular person who wants his vote to count, knows from childhood that you are either one or the other. Even registered Independents are forced to choose one or the other in almost all elections - at any level - from Sheriff elections to State Representatives to, of course, Governors/President.

So, this 2-party system is already established there over many years. I personally detest this (especially as it is in the USA where the written ideologies of the 2 parties and their foreign policies are practically indistinguishable), but that is the way it is there - the way their electoral system has evolved.

But, going by the contentions of the subject of the opening post, if we decide to follow his advice and start supporting this other party in large numbers, is there not a risk of strengthening an already strong and overly-influential entity?

What happens to the balance of power, what happens to the adversarial system in legislature where the partisan competition and challenges can often serve as a check on the majority party?

There are so many issues one could bring into the discussion. . .

But, overall, Yes, it is a good proposal that no region wants to put all its egg in one political party (again, think of USA Blacks and their 90% enslavement to Democrats), but, there is a risk of creating a stronger dominating, and ultimately, totalitarian one-party system.

The happy medium would be an emergence of more diverse party affiliations in all regions. A good representation of various ideologies and political movement wouldn't hurt and may bring more competition and ensure wider voter participation with better candidates.

I am sure, for many, this debate is not over by a long shot.

Smart, nuanced contribution as usual and as expected.


This is a much broader explanation of what I wrote earlier: Omisore is indirectly asking us all to belong to one party, in this case PDP.

IMO, His suggestion is not the main problem per-se but the intent behind it. His own selfish benefit

Let me put this out first, I'm biased. I detest PDP for several reasons. A major reason is the fact that they've had 13 years to fix many of the problems we faced during our military mis-adventure. Despite the fact that most of PDP's prominent members and leaders over the years were witnesses to these events participants even. They are elites of the Nigerian society across all fields with enough political and financial influence to fix things and give us leadership. But they've failed to think about my people's interests and as a result, they further pushed this country towards disaster. I so want them to be punished for that, if not for anything but at least as a deterrent. That is the summary of my beef with PDP.

Ok. Now that I've laid bare my bias, let me try to address the "dilemma" you referred to.

. . does hitching your wagon to that party tacitly endorse turning the country into a one-party system?

In this case, yes it does if we all vote PDP and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but I will be deceving myself if i think PDP won't take over everywhere after that.

A one party system can lead to group-think, oppression, suppression of ideas, and all that China-effect, but there are benefits also, which can include positive continuity, (yes it can be positive sometimes) in essence a progressive and uninterrupted developmental agenda.

Which is more dangerous for the masses in the long run?

For me and for a multi-ethnic society like ours, I'm not sure a one party state will work, we have too much diversity for us to limit ourselves like that, actually on the long run, I think society loses -any society.


Your USA example is very apt, the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are narrower than most casual watchers think and ultimately the people lose due to the absence of alternatives and a strong opposition. In a pure one party system, it is even worse because most democratic activities will be limited to internal party apparatus. They fail, we all fail.

But, going by the contentions of the subject of the opening post, if we decide to follow his advice and start supporting this other party in large numbers, is there not a risk of strengthening an already strong and overly-influential entity?

What happens to the balance of power, what happens to the adversarial system in legislature where the partisan competition and challenges can often serve as a check on the majority party?

There are so many issues one could bring into the discussion . . .

Good points, great questions here.

There are huge risks, more so in this case where we have a party with poorly articulated ideologies and no record of performance.


The adversarial system and balance of power you mentioned are principles of a well oiled western democratic system, we had similar principles in ancient times, but presently, we have no emotional connection to these well intentioned, but in our own case, ultimately copy and paste democratic principles. That further shows how dangerous a visionless a one party system will be at this time if they are just copying stuff with no direction.

But, overall, Yes, it is a good proposal that no region wants to put all its egg in one political party (again, think of USA Blacks and their 90% enslavement to Democrats), but, there is a risk of creating a stronger dominating, and ultimately, totalitarian one-party system.

The happy medium would be an emergence of more diverse party affiliations in all regions. A good representation of various ideologies and political movement wouldn't hurt and may bring more competition and ensure wider voter participation with better candidates.

I am sure, for many, this debate is not over by a long shot.

I quite agree with this. Like I said, a one party region or country is not the main problem per se, vision goal, track record; ideology must be a part of the mix and must be well articulated.


Your second point is one reason why I want ACN to slow down on the Mimiko issue. If the man is not opposed to a regional developmental agenda, I see no reason why he should be coerced into ACN; rather they should work with him to further the broader agenda. I don’t think forcing him into ACN is the only political strategy they can employ in that regard.

From this interview and other political commentaries of late, it is clear Oodua Republic will turn into a beggar country if Nigeria disintegrates. In addition, the republic will be the first to start a war by attempting to grab some crude oil producing areas and will eventually get serious beat down. In the interview, the dude named Senator Iyiola Omisore kicked against the idea regional integration because the weakened center will mean saying goodbye to the “Oil Money”.

Dede1: From this interview and other political commentaries of late, it is clear Oodua Republic will turn into a beggar country if Nigeria disintegrates. In addition, the republic will be the first to start a war by attempting to grab some crude oil producing areas and will eventually get serious beat down. . .

That is some funny stuff. I get a kick out of Dede1, I must confess.

Best quote ever:
https://www.nairaland.com/553304/lies-awolowo-igbos/4#8818215