The recent psephological presentations after the just concluded elections in the Nigerian political landscape have generated a lot of crossfire which is termed "gbas gbos" in our local parlance.

Different conflicting reports, arguments, different analysis and counter analysis, interviews and counter interviews, and one of these interviews is that of the vice presidential candidate of the labour party, Dr Datti Baba Ahmed on Arise TV where he fervently stated among other things that President Mohammedu Buhari and the Chief Justice of Nigeria should not swear in the INEC’s declared president elect, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the APC on may29 as that would mean the end of democracy in Nigeria because Tinubu does not meet the constitutional requirements to be sworn in.

Datti's assertive statements have generated some reactions from the media airwaves, two of which are the reactions of the Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka and the critically acclaimed award winning author, Chimamanda Adichie.

The interesting similitudes between Soyinka and Adichie is that both of them are internationally renowned writers with inspiring poetic prowess, both of them have their voices in the international sphere of influence, both of them didn't vote in the just concluded elections as they were not present in the country during the elections, but both of them as citizens of the country have rights to comment or react on the electoral process and conducts.

However, the contrast between both of them as regarding Datti's statement is that Soyinka's reaction is on the opposing side while Adichie's reaction is on the supporting side of Datti's interview statements, so the crux of my article is to give an encapsulated analysis on both reactions vis-à-vis Datti's statements, pointing out my observations on the different misconstrues, misinterpretations and misrepresentations flying across the divides.
Starting with the great Nobel laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka, who requested a debate with Dr. Datti Baba Ahmed over his interview statements, but the challenge was resisted by Datti who gave instances as to why he would not debate him, and one of it is that the Nobel laureate should nominate his "preferred candidate" to debate him instead.

I see a pyrotechnics of misrepresentations and misinterpretations from both Soyinka and Datti. For instance, Datti referring to Bola Tinubu as Soyinka's "preferred candidate" just because he has an opposing view against his statements is an ideological misrepresentation of Soyinka by Datti, because I personally watched Soyinka's interview where he made some unequivocal statements such as:

* The presidency going to the South East for healing of the nation's Civil War.
* Advocating the infusion of young political blood in the helm of affairs, where he stated that he was against both Tinubu and Atiku leading because they are old.
* The decentralization and devolution of power among the 3 tiers of government.
My objective view especially from the above statements is that Soyinka never endorsed Tinubu, he was just criticizing what he considered "strong" statements from Datti in that interview.

Charitably speaking, what I ideally feel the Nobel laureate was saying by his criticism against Datti's statement is:
* Don't heat up the polity by using strong language of incitements, menace, threats, etc.
* Moderate what you say in the public space.
* Case is already in court, wait for the court to decide and stop using language of intimidation to the Supreme arbiter.
Now, the big question is, just as Datti and his sympathizers misinterpreted and misrepresented Soyinka as endorsing Tinubu's presidency, is the Nobel laureate not also guilty of misrepresenting Datti and misinterpreting his statements as inciting and fascistic?
The Britannica dictionary defines Fascism as a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
Fascism is a system of government led by a dictator who typically rules by forcefully and often violently suppressing opposition and criticism, controlling all industry and commerce, and promoting nationalism and often racism.

As far as I'm concerned, Fascism is more than dictatorship, it is complete authoritarianism – an anti-democratic government by a strongman or small elite – with a dominant bureaucracy and economic/political control favoring or enforcing strict obedience to a ruling class or system at the expense of personal freedom.

I feel the Nobel laureate's criticism against Datti's statements is prejudicial to the labour party's vice presidential candidate, who was just being fervently assertive in those statements with reflective confidence in the robustness of their case before the court, as he responds to questions from the presenter.
I believe Soyinka is not being fair to have labeled Datti as fascist based on statements which are common in Nigeria's political history.

I think there's also smell of a case of what I would call a SELECTIVE CRITICISM or SELECTIVE ASSESSMENT at play as the Nobel laureate talked about psychological projecting but left the issue of ethnic profiling obvious in the electoral process. Soyinka talked about threats and intimidation of the Supreme arbiter from his assessment of Datti's statements but left the issue of voters' suppression and intimidation seen throughout the just concluded elections. He left these other important issues only to focus more on Datti's statements.

If we are to go by Soyinka's usage of Fascism, then it would mean that the Nigerian polity over the years has been full of fascists. In 2014/15 elections, the APC campaign arms said worse things than Datti have said. Statements like "Democracy would die should PDP is declared winner", "APC would form a parallel government if PDP is declared winner". "Nigeria will burn if I lose the election", "this election is do or die affair", etc.
The Nigerian political landscape has always been littered with these kind of statements by politicians especially the opposition parties.
What is the definition of fascist again? In a very simple term, fascism is someone or something that is UNDEMOCRATIC, so how democratic was a 31yrs old Wole Soyinka who in 1965 “invaded” a radio station in Ibadan and refused the announcement of Akintola as the winner of the election?

How democratic was the just concluded elections amidst voters suppression and intimidation?

Chimamanda Adichie wrote a letter to the US government about how the just concluded election is the most fundamentally flawed in the history of Nigeria's elections, and also pointed out the hypocrisy of the US government when it comes to Africa's electoral process.

This act by the critically acclaimed award winning author generated different reactions from the Nigerian polity, some vilified her while some praised her.
Some have accused her of being tribalistic because she supported the labour party's presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, that it her tribalistic bias that prompted the letter, but I'd like to state that I don't see Adichie's reaction from a tribalistic angle, but from a point of objective perspective especially as regarding the integrity of INEC and the credibility of the elections.
There are electoral laws and format created by the electoral body to ensure a free, fair and credible election; BVAS (Bimodal Voters Accreditation System) was to read the permanent voters card (PVC) in order to ensure that there are no multiple voting or ghost voters, while the IReV (INEC Result Viewing) is a portal connected to the bvas, and to ensure that the accredited voters' votes are uploaded and seen in real time.
What this simply mean is that BVAS and IReV must work for an election to be credible, otherwise the credibility of the election would be questionable.
Although, the INEC came up with reasons of technical glitches as excuse but there was a plethora of mutilated election sheets, polling units agents reports on the difference in their records from what INEC announced, and why was it possible to upload results of other federal elections except for the presidential despite the technical glitch?
So, the questions that beg for answers which are debatable are:
Was it really case of technical glitch or a case of deliberate manipulation?
Did INEC deliver on her electoral promises?
Are the elections credible?
Can INEC be seen as a symbol of national integrity?
Is INEC fascistic?
Afolabi Dollars
#Author
#InternationalPublicSpeaker
#NationBuilding

Let's let it slide

Iyamehi:
Let's let it slide

What did you smoke?