Anthony Obi Ogbo
Why APC and PDP are hopeless and politically dangerous
“PDP was set up to defraud Nigeria; APC was set up to remove Jonathan. Both parties have since accomplished their objectives and might not offer anything new,” ―Anthony Obi Ogbo
______
In November 2016, almost 18 months into the regime of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Professor Hassan Saliu, a former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ilorin, stated during a media interview that the APC’s sole change agenda was removing the incumbent, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. He may have been right, because in April 2017, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu expressed similar thoughts, and even bragged that he would “write a book to reveal how Jonathan was removed.” At the time, he was the APC’s national leader, and he is now the party’s presidential candidate for the upcoming election.
Political trends over the years suggest that the acquisitive monopoly of power is the only constructive agenda of both the APC and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). This has been proven, because both parties have operated with no detectible policy agenda and no system structural ideology—instead, they have engaged in increasing the recycling of members to exploit the system. For instance, in February 2021, Nigeria’s Senate President, Ahmad Lawan, vowed that his party, the APC, would surpass the PDP’s record by dominating the central government for more than 16 years. The PDP ruled Nigeria for 16 years after the return of democracy in 1999, until it was removed by the APC in 2015.
Surprisingly, Lawan’s comment has been replicated by most staunch members of the APC, who believe that tenure-sharing between the two major parties should outline the basis for making choices in the upcoming 2023 elections. Alternatively, the PDP wants Nigerians to ignore its 16‑year disastrous stewardship and focus on APC’s catastrophic 7-year regime.
The originations of both parties should remind Nigerians that their much-awaited milk and honey will never come from either party. For instance, the PDP was conceived to defraud this country and enrich a selected political upper-class—largely, those connected with second republic politicians and their allies in the defense sector. Consequently, the APC was established with one major motive—to remove Jonathan, who became a distraction and a pain to the elite and the draconian political godfathers. In essence, the APC and the PDP parties have accomplished their objectives and will never offer anything new. Both parties are essentially hopeless and politically dangerous in building any path to Nigeria’s democracy.
The formation of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in 1998 was convenient because Nigerians were struggling under the protracted military dictatorship of Gen. Sani Abacha, who vowed to stay put. Abacha’s untimely death in June 1998 signaled the end of 16 years of military rule; the interim government proposed holding an election the following year.
The PDP won the people’s hearts because it was primarily formed by members of numerous groups and organizations who were very vocal about the outgoing junta regime. The party also floated an ideology that reflected a broader political base, supported economic deregulation and human rights, and advocated greater funding for health care and education.
It didn’t stop there; the PDP boosted its favorability when it created an unofficial policy of rotating the presidency between candidates from the predominantly Christian south and the Muslim north. They actually lived up to that promise. After the regime of Olusegun Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar, the party candidates were Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, a Muslim and the governor of the northern state of Katsina, and Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian and the governor of the southern state of Bayelsa.
Jonathan’s first misstep was boldly alienating some of his political godfathers, including a former President who was somehow instrumental in his rise to the presidency, retired Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo. Obasanjo went after Jonathan in sheer retaliation and fired off an 18-page public letter in 2013 containing lacerating criticism of his regime. He also categorically stated that it would be “morally flawed” for Jonathan to run for re-election in 2015.
A massive growing antagonism over Jonathan led to the unification of Nigeria’s three biggest opposition parties, and ultimately a merger; the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), and the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) became the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The APC executed two campaign strategies. The first was concocting and infiltrating the system with a collection of conspiracy theories to derail Jonathan’s popularity and suppress PDP’s control. Then they showcased a fabricated campaign agenda and wooed the vulnerable masses with thousands of inconceivable campaign promises. In addition to deceiving the youth with fake promises of education and employment opportunities, the desperate APC campaigned on complete system restructuring, total obliteration of terrorist insurgencies within months, and transforming the country’s currency, Naira, to have equal value with the dollar. This is how Nigeria got to its present governance uncertainty.
The political implications of the dysfunctional power control by the APC and the PDP is that the nation of Nigeria is in trouble. Here is why—for over 23 years, the PDP and the APC have been the epicenters of the downfall of Nigeria at all levels of governance. Today, after almost seven years of ruling, the APC has dragged Nigeria into a near economic depression. The bad news is that the same APC is scheming to remain in power without any blueprint to fix the system failure it has been facilitating.
The good news is that the suffering Nigerian masses have the chance to elect a new regime. However, the question is whether these voters are sincere enough to reject the gangs of predatory candidates and parties that triggered the current predicament at the polls. Are Nigerians ready to ignore the current APC-PDP ruthless power-sharing culture to embrace something entirely new?
Listen to Dino Melaye, a former lawmaker who represented Kogi West Senatorial District, as he addressed Peter Obi, the Labour Party presidential candidate: “By the grace of God, you have the potential of being the president in the nearest future. I celebrate you and I celebrate your movement for a new Nigeria. While I celebrate you, I want to advise you that your time is not now. You have to wait for your time.”
Melaye’s mentality harmonizes with the same culture that has kept this country in bondage under a ruthless mob of political elites; they believe that a selected few are entitled to democratic governance. The elitist political cliques decide who will lead the central government, then impose their will on the vulnerable masses.
Nigerian voters have been very hypocritical when making electoral decisions in the past.
The electorates are also part of the problem. Nigerian voters have been very hypocritical when making electoral decisions in the past. Their voting habits have been stupid and self-destructive. Yet it is apparent that Nigeria can never survive under the APC or the PDP, because those parties can only cause more miseries and hardship.
The third ballot option is Peter Obi and his Labour Party (LP). There is no doubt that ushering in such a novice party and candidate with minimal legislative backup would create bumpy decision-making pathways and slow down tough legislative proposals. Frankly, with the LP option, there might be an uphill battle between the executive and the opposition legislative branches. The former would be struggling to overhaul the structures, whereas the latter would be fighting tooth-and-nail to maintain an oppressive status quo.
But those are core challenges associated with the change process―the fear and resistance of the anti-change agents regarding something entirely new. Those opposed to the change process could go to every length to retain a malfunctioned prevailing culture. Nevertheless, in the democratic process, such differences can be negotiated.
Regardless of the nature of the campaign, at this time it may be necessary to put emotions, ethnic connectivity, and personal interests aside in order to impartially accept the fact that Nigeria will never survive as a nation under either the APC or the PDP. Any other party, any other candidate, stands a better chance to pull this great nation out of its current deadly slumber―but definitely not the APC, and not the PDP.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Journalism and RTF Professor, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
“In just two years, this court has rearranged America’s system and dragged it back to the 40s by systematically undoing major legislation..“ —Anthony Ogbo
________________________
President Joe Biden has been very outspoken about his thoughts that the Supreme Court dominated by rightwing justices, cannot be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. In June 2022 for instance, after this Court overturned Roe v. Wade, he said, “Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.”
In a typical democratic process, the three arms of government play a crucial role in ensuring a balance of power and upholding the principles of justice, accountability, and transparency. These three branches – the executive, legislative, and judiciary – work together to ensure the smooth functioning of a democratic system.
However, the current political trends in the American system might suggest otherwise. SCOTUS, conservative to the bone marrow, appears to be the only overbearing arm in the system, indirectly changing the existing rules, and dictating or interpreting them to suit their radical interests.
The key recent rulings of this far-right Supreme Court have been trending. These rulings have a serious impact on various issues, ranging from civil rights to environmental regulations. Indeed, SCOTUS is overly focused on destructively conservative ideology and this has drastically affected the rights of marginalized communities, such as women, racial and ethnic minorities, and the LGBTQ+ community.
Recent rulings so far are posing serious consequences for the lives and well-being of millions of Americans and could undermine the progress that has been made toward a more equitable and just society.
In just two years, this court has rearranged America’s system and dragged it back to the 40s by systematically undoing major legislation. For instance, in June 2022, in a historic and far-reaching decision, this court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half-century, no longer exists.
Another surprising but historic decision came around June 2023 when this court effectively ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities nationwide. In a decision divided along ideological lines, the six-justice conservative supermajority invalidated admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Now, most other colleges are following that precedent.
We can go all day recalling very daring policies bastardized by the conservative majority of this court. For instance, the striking down of President Biden’s groundbreaking plan to forgive some or all federal student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans; and a controversial ruling against the LGBTQ protections in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections.
But their mission is not over. In just this week alone, this court agreed to hear an appeal brought by a man charged with offenses relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol in a case that could have a major impact on the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. That was not enough. It further handed the Texas Republicans a huge win when it ruled that the map in GOP-run Galveston County could be used, despite concerns that it was discriminatory against minority voters because it took away the only district dominated by Black and Latino voters.
The latest show of power by the Supreme Court has exposed the porosity of the democratic process. In addition, appointing politicians radicalized by dire social ideologies and party extremists to the Supreme Court raises questions about its objectivity and impartiality.
Here is a feasible remedy. While voters whine about immigration, abortion, gun control, etc., voters must take seriously the power of this court and its capacity to shape the future direction of the United States. Thus, curtailing their excesses requires a Democratic-led House and Senate to push through a more objective legislative agenda without objections. Giving the system another chance to induct more right extremists into this Court might be self-destructive.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Journalism and RTF Professor, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
“He can equally argue that a presidential candidate in a forthcoming election must be exonerated from legal indictments to avoid “election interference” or “weaponization of the justice system” by the regime.“ —Anthony Ogbo
________________________
In the realms of political governance, the power of setting precedence cannot be underestimated. When a precedent is created, it becomes a guiding principle or standard for future actions or decisions. It establishes a framework for how similar situations should be handled, and it holds individuals accountable for their actions. Whether in law, politics, or personal relationships, setting precedence can shape and influence future outcomes.
Since last year, the former president, Donald Trump has been at loggerheads with the law, playing hide-and-seek with the Justice Department over his surmounting legal predicament. The major contention was that a presidential candidate in a forthcoming election must be exonerated from legal indictments to avoid “election interference” or “weaponization of the justice system” by the regime.
Some media analysts and legal scholars with political interests have argued similarly, that the “candidate” Trump should be immune from charges over offenses he committed because he is a candidate.
A few days ago however, the Department of Justice filed new criminal charges against President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, accusing him of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes while spending millions of dollars on a lavish lifestyle. He faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted. Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, defended his client accusing U.S. Special Counsel David Weiss, who is leading the probe, of political bias.
Since this announcement, President Biden’s Republican critics and the right-wing media communities have been celebrating. They have a reason to. For instance, this derisive federal indictment has provided a boost to House Republicans for their impeachment inquiry against President Biden – yet there was no mention of Biden in the indictment. So far, their efforts to prove serious wrongdoing on Biden’s part have come up blank.
But there is another dimension to Hunter’s case. As we know, Trump accumulated his legal woes before he quickly declared to run for President on November 15, 2022. He made it clear that no verdict or sentence would halt his campaign and bragged that he would carry on running for president from behind bars if he had to. And that if elected, he would use the power of his office to either quash any ongoing prosecutions or pardon himself for any convictions.
He posted personally identifiable information about court officials, including a photo of a judge’s daughter; warned of “potential death and destruction” if he is charged; and vowed, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.” Trump’s lawyers argue he is a political candidate exercising his First Amendment rights.
In Georgia, grand jurors’ names, addresses, and images were released online by Trump allies and a racist death threat against the judge presiding over the federal Jan. 6 case. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law published a display of Trump’s troubling pattern of attacking judges and the courts for rulings he disagrees with. In addition, Rolling Stone (July 2022) reported how Trump told his team, he needed to be president again to save himself from criminal probes.
Trump has intentionally derailed proceedings by frivolously requesting delays and unwarranted extensions on pre-trial issues. These are just strategies to aimlessly continue dragging these cases with unjustified delays.
But his antics so far are paying off. Besides the delay tactics, Trump and his cronies believe that his cases would be strategically dragged to the extremely right-leaning Supreme Court, where the judges he appointed could be of great help.
There are also congressional efforts to save Trump from his dilemma. Recall that on March 30, a grand jury in Manhattan indicted him on 34 counts of falsification of business records. Shockingly, the response of congressional Republicans created an ugly pattern of defense for Trump. Before the indictment, Republican congressional committee chairs threatened to subpoena confidential records from the investigation and withhold federal funding in retaliation for any indictment.
These are all dangerous precedents that can stall the democratic process and destroy the scepter that guides the rule of law. In a democracy, setting a precedence may not be a written law, but remains a fundamental aspect of the legal system. In other words, when a court decides on a particular case; congress undertakes an unusual process, or the system condones a certain tradition, it becomes a binding precedent that must be followed in similar cases in the future. This ensures consistency and predictability in the system.
The danger of all these trends is that a line of legal patterns has already been created, and more are on the way. In the meantime, Hunter Biden could take advantage of these privileges by simply declaring to run for election as an independent. He could follow Trump’s playbook and equally enjoy the privileges already set in the political and legal system.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Journalism and RTF Professor, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
“They had the opportunity to bring level-headed representatives into Congress during the Midterm but blew it. They ignored all the warnings and stubbornly supported, voted, and cheered the most destructive political vandals into Congress. Today, they are getting exactly what they bargained for—insanity” —Anthony Ogbo
________________________
Currently, the Congress is made up of three political organizations – the Republicans, the Democrats, and a psychotic gang called MAGA. By the way, MAGA named after Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” is a xenophobic political movement that emerged during that period. Trump remains their undisputed gang leader.
During the last Midterm, at least 80 people who have questioned the 2020 election results won seats in the House— reinforcing a sizable MAGA caucus. Analysts then warned that this trend could impact the 2024 presidential election, reshape congressional priorities, and weaken institutional leaders.
Even before these elections, there were stern warnings about these vandals – that if elected, they would wield influence first in choosing the caucus’ leadership — and those leaders would have to make deals, either with them or with Democrats, to pass any bill. Most Americans blatantly refused to listen, especially some independents and other voters leaning right. Today, the entire country is suffering the wrath of what was predicted before and after the 2022 Midterm election.
This was how we got here.
Just a few hours ago, MAGA Republicans in the House rejected a bill proposed by their leader, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, to temporarily fund the government, making it all but certain that federal agencies will partially shut down beginning on Sunday.
In a 232-198 vote, the House defeated a measure that would extend government funding by 30 days and avert a shutdown.
Embattled President Joe Biden called them an “extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy”. Biden said that, while not all Republicans adhere to the movement, the party is currently “driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists”.
MAGA’s gang leader, Trump is having a field day. He shut down the government once as a president and this time, he had ordered his disciples in the House to do it again. He convinced them that a shutdown would stop the federal and state trials he faces in D.C., New York City, Florida, and Georgia. Here’s how he posted this on his Truth Social site.
“Republicans in Congress can and must defund all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized Government,” the former Republican White House occupant bleated. Doing so would be “the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots.”
Do not forget that the last time Trump shut down the government, for 35 days, was to unsuccessfully force lawmakers to fund his xenophobic Mexican Wall.
Without going any further, let me go straight to the main point – the political implications of the choices voters make, especially in very crucial elections. It is wrong to continually blame elected officials for dire political advances. The two major stakeholders of the election process are voters and the candidates they elect. Voters who elect unintelligent destructive radicals into office should equally be blamed for self-damaging electoral choices.
Voters had the opportunity to bring level-headed representatives into Congress during the Midterm but blew it. They ignored all the warnings and stubbornly supported, voted, and cheered the most destructive political vandals into Congress. Today, they are getting exactly what they bargained for—insanity.
Those who stupidly elected or reelected the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Jim Banks, and a lineup of other moronic hardliners should be ashamed of their voting choices.
The greatest threat to America’s democracy today is no longer the communist foes. Also, those who, this time, believe or argue that America’s top problems are inflation, healthcare affordability, drug addiction, and gun violence must stop deceiving themselves. From the rule of law to the governance structure and culture, Trump and his MAGA group remain the nation’s greatest political test. The survival of America’s democracy depends on how voters can reject these demons.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Journalism and RTF Professor, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us
-
Column22 hours agoNavigating Bias and Ethics in AI-Powered Cybersecurity: The BRACE Framework Approach
-
News3 weeks agoSenator Cory Booker Leads a Congressional Delegation to Nigeria
-
News2 days agoTrump trial update: Trump rebuked by judge for speaking during jury selection — and 7 jurors are seated
-
Education2 days ago11 Communication Students Awarded Scholarships at TSU’s Commweek
-
Lifestyle2 days agoBody of O.J. Simpson to be cremated this week; brain will not be studied for CTE
-
Africa2 days agoDonors raise more than 2 billion euros for Sudan aid a year into war
-
News2 days agoNigeria suspends permit of 3 private jet operators
-
News2 days agoNigeria: chibok abduction anniversary spurs demands for justice