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
- JD Vance breaks polling records in the worst way - July 25, 2024
- Donald Trump’s Losing Election Poll for First Time in Over a Month - July 25, 2024
- FBI Is Not Fully Convinced Trump Was Struck by a Bullet - July 25, 2024
“Running an election alongside his mentees might be seen as a selfish but insatiable appetite for office.“ —Anthony Ogbo
Former Mayor Sylvester Turner has expressed serious interest in running for the late Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s congressional seat. In an interview with KHOU, Turner stated that the passing of his friend (Sheila) has prompted him to consider coming out of retirement for this critical opportunity. A decision from the former mayor is expected in the coming days.
74-year Jackson Lee, a prominent figure in Houston politics, passed away last week after revealing her battle with pancreatic cancer earlier this year. She had represented the 18th Congressional District since 1995, earning a reputation for her unwavering dedication and frequent presence at community events within the district.
Among other declared and potential Democratic candidates vying for Jackson Lee’s seat are state Rep. Jarvis Johnson, Houston Councilwoman Letitia Plummer, and Amanda Edwards, who placed second in the district’s original primary.
The news of Turner’s potential consideration for a congressional position has sparked surprise among Houstonians, particularly his community supporters. However, there is a noticeable silence surrounding the topic, with many engaging in hushed conversations and speculation. The mere idea of transitioning to a fast-paced congressional role raises concerns about the potential impact on the community and his supporters, who are unsure about his physical well-being.
At 69 years old, Turner is a seasoned attorney, activist, and politician who recently concluded a tumultuous 8-year term in office. But his departure in January was marked by health concerns. He had battled bone cancer in his jaw, undergoing surgery and six weeks of radiation therapy in 2022. This ailment not only forced him to cancel an official trip to France but also led to his absence from City Council meetings for several weeks.
There is currently a discussion surrounding the potential for Turner to assume a new role in Congress because his health issues cast doubt on his capacity to fulfill the responsibilities of this position. This has elicited a range of emotions among observers, with some expressing concern about his ability to effectively manage the demands of the role. Despite his experience and dedication to public service, concerns linger about his physical stability and capacity, to effectively represent constituents in a more demanding political arena.
Turner’s consideration to vie for Sheila Jackson Lee’s congressional seat also reveals a poignant irony. Jackson Lee tragically passed away while juggling the demands of her congressional responsibilities and battling a deadly form of cancer. Despite undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer, she tirelessly worked to support her constituents during the aftermath of Hurricane Beryl. For over two weeks, Jackson Lee stood up for the thousands of individuals in her district who were left vulnerable without power.
Some members of the community believed that Jackson-Lee should have retired after her cancer diagnosis. However, her passing could serve as a lesson to other long-serving public officials who would neglect their health in pursuit of power and public service.
The impact of politics on physical, psychological, and social health is a reality that cannot be denied. Recently, President Joe Biden decided to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race after facing intense pressure, speculation, and internal turmoil within his own Democratic Party. Concerns about his health, both physical and cognitive, have been a constant focus in recent weeks, especially his lackluster performance at the June 27 presidential debate. This situation highlights the toll that politics can take on individuals at the highest levels of government.
Public officials need to prioritize their health and well-being, as neglecting it can have serious consequences. Serving the public is a noble calling, but it should not come at the expense of one’s own health. Jackson-Lee’s passing should remind all public servants of the importance of retirement. It serves as a sobering reminder that life is precious and unpredictable and that it is essential to prioritize self-care and well-being to enjoy a fulfilling retirement after years of dedicated service.
Ultimately, Jackson-Lee’s passing should inspire Turner to take proactive steps toward sustaining his happy and healthy retirement. He should reconsider his bid for Jackson Lee’s Congressional Seat. At this point in his career, it may be more beneficial for him to contemplate retirement and offer his support to other candidates who have long been supporters of his campaign during his political career. Running an election alongside those mentees might be seen as a selfish but insatiable appetite for office.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo,PhD, 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
- JD Vance breaks polling records in the worst way - July 25, 2024
- Donald Trump’s Losing Election Poll for First Time in Over a Month - July 25, 2024
- FBI Is Not Fully Convinced Trump Was Struck by a Bullet - July 25, 2024
“It is worth considering whether Trump’s assassin would have been treated differently if he were Black.“ —Anthony Ogbo
On Saturday, July 13, a gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, brazenly carried his killer weapon to the rooftop from a short distance to the podium where the former President, Donald Trump was addressing a political rally. Unchallenged, he fired up to eight shots toward the stage, with one shot hitting Trump’s right ear. Tragically, one rally-goer died, and two others were critically injured before the assailant was taken down by a Secret Service sniper. The shooter was identified as white.
Just a few days later, on Tuesday, five Columbus police officers in Milwaukee shot and killed a homeless man outside the security perimeter of the Republican convention. The man was waving knives at others, and residents reported that he had been living in a tent. To be precise, this incident took place about 1 mile from the convention in a residential neighborhood that included a large homeless encampment. The homeless man was Black.
Since the incident involving Trump, investigators have been diligently working to determine the cause of the attack and prevent future occurrences. They have explored various theories and possibilities as they come to terms with how the individual was able to conveniently carry out such a heinous act.
Attendees at the event had alerted local police about the shooter heading towards the rooftop. However, authorities failed to communicate this information to security personnel, potentially jeopardizing the safety of the former President. A Homeland Security law enforcement memo revealed that the shooter had recently purchased ammunition, received hazardous material shipments, and had improvised explosive devices in his car and home.
It was also reported that before the would-be assassin aimed at Trump, attendees reported they saw him pacing and behaving strangely. Crooks was not shot, rather, local police officers began pursuing him on foot. During the pursuit, the U.S. official said, local police told the Secret Service they were looking for a suspicious person near the event. Furthermore, the U.S. official said the Secret Service was told of a suspicious person before local police discovered Crooks on the roof of a nearby glass research company’s building. That discovery occurred shortly before Crooks opened fire, according to law enforcement sources.
The timing of these events raises concerns about whether additional precautions could have been implemented to prevent Crook’s actions. It is worth considering whether this assassin would have been treated differently if he had been Black. Comparing both events can provide insight into potential biases and disparities in treatment based on race.
The fact that the suspect in Trump’s assassination attempt in Pennsylvania was White and was handled with such reluctance and oversight, while the Black homeless man in Milwaukee was shot and killed instantly by police, highlights the disparities in how individuals of different races are treated by law enforcement. This raises questions about whether race played a role in how both incidents were handled and whether there are underlying biases that need to be addressed within the criminal justice system.
Authorities claimed that the fatal shooting in Milwaukee was not connected to the convention. However, this incident sheds light on larger concerns regarding the use of external law enforcement for events such as conventions. Furthermore, it is important to examine these cases closely and consider how systemic racism may be influencing outcomes in similar situations. By acknowledging these disparities, we can work towards creating a more just and equitable society for all individuals, regardless of their race.
Despite efforts to address systemic racism and improve police-community relations, recent events such as the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Daunte Wright have highlighted the ongoing challenges and injustices faced by Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement. These incidents serve as a stark reminder that there is still much work to be done to achieve true equality and justice for all individuals, regardless of race. It is clear that while progress has been made in some areas, the reality on the ground continues to show that racial disparities and police brutality remain pervasive issues in America.
♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo,PhD, 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
- JD Vance breaks polling records in the worst way - July 25, 2024
- Donald Trump’s Losing Election Poll for First Time in Over a Month - July 25, 2024
- FBI Is Not Fully Convinced Trump Was Struck by a Bullet - July 25, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current leadership crisis can be likened to the principles of General George S. Patton Jr., who famously said that one can either lead him, follow him, or “get the hell” out of his way. General Patton was a no-nonsense United States Army general who led troops in World War II, and his quote has become a cornerstone for understanding the complicated art of leading. Besides other fundamental competencies in leadership, taking responsibility is crucial as it builds trust and respect, and promotes honesty, transparency, and accountability for both successes and failures. Accepting responsibility thus demonstrates integrity, humility, and a commitment to personal growth and development.
Following a devastating attack by Hamas terrorists on October 7, Israeli officials have taken responsibility for their failures in preventing the violence that led to the current conflict. However, Netanyahu has refused to accept responsibility for the situation. The attack was a horrific display of violence, with Hamas terrorists killing innocent civilians, including women and children, and taking hostages. Since the start of this conflict, Netanyahu has struggled to define his clear goals and strategies. He has been confused about dealing with his cabinet, the public, and Israeli allies – shifting blame onto others, and prioritizing his political survival over the needs of the nation.
Last week, he publicly criticized his strongest ally, the United States, for withholding weapons needed for the war. Directing sharp criticisms at President Joe Biden, he suggested that this delay was hindering Israel’s offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where ongoing fighting has worsened the already dire humanitarian situation for Palestinians. In reality, Biden had postponed the delivery of certain heavy bombs since May due to concerns about Israel’s actions resulting in civilian casualties in Gaza. However, Netanyahu conveniently omitted the fact that he had outright rejected the U.S. request to reconsider a full-scale invasion of Rafah, where over 1 million people are seeking refuge. Defiantly, he asserted that Israel would continue its mission to eradicate Hamas, with or without U.S. support.
Netanyahu’s uncompromising stance on challenging policy issues persisted as he dissolved his war Cabinet last week to consolidate his authority over military decisions. Before this move, his main political rival, Benny Gantz, a retired general and member of parliament known for his moderate views, withdrew from the three-member war Cabinet. This means that major war strategies will now be exclusively approved by Netanyahu’s security Cabinet, a larger body dominated by hard-liners who oppose the U.S.-backed cease-fire proposal and advocate for continuing the conflict.
Israel is currently facing a political dilemma with Netanyahu at the helm. The political landscape has been turbulent, with Netanyahu facing a growing opposition. This was exemplified by the recent passing of a controversial judicial overhaul bill in the Israeli parliament, sparking civil resistance. The situation escalated when reservists, including F-16 pilots, refused to fly under Netanyahu’s leadership until the anti-democratic bill was revoked. These actions not only impact military readiness but also underscore internal threats to Israel’s democracy.
In March, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for new elections in Israel, criticizing Netanyahu as an impediment to peace. Schumer, a long-time supporter of Israel and the highest-ranking U.S. Jewish elected official expressed concerns about Netanyahu’s government and highlighted the need for change in leadership, especially during a war that began with attacks on Israel by Hamas militants.
Schumer’s sentiments are shared by many, as Netanyahu’s prolonged tenure has raised concerns about stagnation and a lack of fresh ideas. The Prime Minister’s multiple corruption charges have also tarnished his leadership, contributing to increased polarization within Israeli society. A new leader could potentially bring innovative approaches to address pressing issues and bridge divisions within the country.
There are significant policy issues at play in Israel, particularly under Netanyahu’s leadership. His policies on settlements, security, and the peace process have sparked controversy and debate. Critics argue that his stance on settlements has impeded the possibility of a two-state solution by expanding Israeli presence in the West Bank. Furthermore, his approach to security, including military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, has been criticized as heavy-handed and counterproductive to peace efforts. The peace process itself has stagnated under his leadership, with many accusing him of prioritizing Israeli interests over finding a resolution with the Palestinians. Overall, Netanyahu’s policies have created division both domestically and internationally.
Looking ahead, the question arises: what is his strategy to effectively lead Israel? Is Netanyahu prepared to develop a comprehensive plan that combines diplomatic efforts, security measures, and economic policies? Will he prioritize strengthening relationships with key allies, such as the United States, while also working to improve ties with neighboring countries in the Middle East? Is he committed to implementing initiatives to boost Israel’s economy and address social issues within the country? Would he be open to spearheading a multifaceted plan aimed at ensuring Israel’s security and prosperity in the years ahead? Ultimately, is Netanyahu prepared to lead, follow, or step aside for the greater good?
♦Publisher and Professor, Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo, 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
- JD Vance breaks polling records in the worst way - July 25, 2024
- Donald Trump’s Losing Election Poll for First Time in Over a Month - July 25, 2024
- FBI Is Not Fully Convinced Trump Was Struck by a Bullet - July 25, 2024
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo2 days agoSylvester Turner Should Cancel His Bid for Late Jackson Lee’s Congressional Seat
-
Anthony Obi Ogbo1 week agoWas Trump’s Assassin unstoppable because he was White?
-
Column2 days agoAdvocating for Reviving the 1960s Constitution Toward Creating a United Region of Nigeria
-
News2 weeks agoOMG: Donald Trump Shooter Was a Registered Republican
-
Lifestyle2 weeks agoEddie Murphy and Paige Butcher Are Married! Inside Their Private Caribbean Wedding
-
News2 weeks agoDonald Trump survives assassination attempt; FBI identifies shooter
-
Houston2 weeks agoHurricane Beryl: Wazobia postpones family fanfare slated for this weekend
-
Lifestyle2 weeks agoYale honors a young Black scientist after a neighbor falsely reported the 9-year-old to the police
