They Are Not Heading for Political Perdition; They Are Abandoning a Sinking Ship: A Rejoinder to Sola Abegunde piece By Owonikoniran Ishola
I have read Sola Abegunde’s article, “From APC to the Fire: Before You Cut Your Nose to Spite Your Face,” and I find its central argument not just unconvincing, but intellectually curious.
To describe those reconsidering their political affiliation and contemplating a move from the APC to the APM as people embarking on a journey of “political perdition” is to mistake a political realignment for political suicide.
There is a fundamental question Abegunde’s intervention conspicuously avoids: Why are these people leaving in the first place?
In politics, the movement of people is rarely the problem. The more revealing question is what makes them move.
Rather than interrogating the circumstances responsible for the exodus, Abegunde has chosen to attack the travellers. Instead of asking why experienced political actors are reconsidering their affiliation, he focuses on condemning their decision to leave. That may make for a dramatic headline, but it does not make for a compelling political argument.
Political loyalty is not political slavery
Let us establish one basic principle: no political party owns the conscience, the ambition, or the democratic choices of its members.
Parties are vehicles for pursuing political objectives. They are not permanent prisons from which members require permission to escape.
A politician who changes his platform is not automatically a traitor. A supporter who reassesses his allegiance is not necessarily confused. And a group of political actors seeking a new platform cannot reasonably be dismissed as suffering from political blindness.
Sometimes, the most intelligent political decision is to recognise that the vehicle you entered yesterday is no longer taking you where you intended to go.
That is not perdition.
That is political judgement.
The sinking-ship analogy
Abegunde appears to suggest that leaving the APC is equivalent to cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face.
I respectfully disagree.
You do not accuse passengers of destroying a ship because they chose to leave a vessel that is taking in water. You ask why the vessel is sinking.
The people he is attacking may not be abandoning politics; they may simply be abandoning a political arrangement they no longer consider capable of accommodating their aspirations.
And there is a significant difference.
If a political house is losing occupants, the intellectually honest response is not to stand at the doorway shouting at those leaving. The intelligent response is to inspect the foundation.
What grievances have accumulated?
What promises have remained unfulfilled?
What political interests have been ignored?
What internal contradictions have become impossible to reconcile?
What has changed between the APC that attracted these people and the APC they now find themselves reconsidering?
These are the questions that deserve serious engagement.
The arrogance of assuming that everyone who leaves is politically misguided.
There is also an uncomfortable arrogance in the assumption that those making this move lack the political sophistication to understand their own interests.
Some of these individuals have spent decades in Nigerian politics. They have participated in elections, built structures, mobilised communities and experienced the consequences of political decisions.
To simply declare them victims of political perdition because they have reached a different conclusion is to substitute political condescension for political persuasion.
If the APC is indeed the superior political platform, then its strongest defence is not name-calling or alarmism.
Let its strength speak.
Let the APC demonstrate inclusion.
Let it demonstrate fairness.
Let it demonstrate internal democracy.
Let it demonstrate that political loyalty is rewarded with respect rather than demanded as an entitlement.
Let it convince those leaving that they have more to gain by staying than by going.
That is how serious political organisations retain members.
APM is not “fire” simply because it is not APC
Another weakness in Abegunde’s argument is the attempt to portray the APM as some political inferno into which misguided politicians are about to throw themselves.
That is political rhetoric, not political analysis.
The APM is a political platform. Whether it succeeds electorally, expands its influence or becomes a major force in the emerging political realignment is a matter for political strategy and, ultimately, the electorate.
But dismissing the platform without engaging the reasons people are attracted to it amounts to shooting at the messenger while ignoring the message.
The political marketplace is open.
If the APC is confident in its popularity, structure and acceptance, it should have no reason to panic because some of its members are exploring another platform.
Indeed, a confident political party persuades; an insecure political party threatens.
The real political danger
There is a deeper lesson here that Abegunde’s intervention inadvertently exposes.
The greatest danger to a political organisation is not necessarily the departure of its members.
The greater danger is when an organisation becomes so convinced of its own indispensability that it stops listening to those who are leaving.
History repeatedly demonstrates that political fortunes can change with astonishing speed.
People who appear politically irrelevant today can become decisive tomorrow.
Those dismissed as “political liabilities” today may become the architects of tomorrow’s political coalition.
And those who appear politically invincible today may discover, sometimes painfully, that political dominance is never a permanent inheritance.
Therefore, those who have chosen to explore the APM should not be lectured about political perdition.
They should be judged by the wisdom of their decisions, the credibility of their leadership, the strength of the structure they build and, ultimately, the verdict of the people.
The final question
If Abegunde truly believes that these political actors are making a disastrous decision, then he should do more than warn them about “fire.”
He should tell them what exactly they are abandoning and why they should remain.
He should demonstrate that the APC has addressed the grievances that triggered their reconsideration.
He should show them a compelling political future within the party.
He should persuade—not intimidate.
Because politics is not sustained by emotional blackmail.
It is sustained by confidence, competence, inclusion, negotiation and results.
So, no, they are not necessarily on a journey of political perdition.
They may simply have reached the point where they have decided that remaining on a troubled political vessel merely because they boarded it yesterday is not evidence of loyalty; it may be evidence of political complacency.
And if the ship is indeed sinking, the real act of political folly would not be abandoning it.
The real folly would be standing on its deck, watching the water rise, while shouting at those who have found another boat.
*Owonikoniran Ishola writes from Bodija, Ibadan*
...For the latest news update, Subscribe to our Whatsapp Channel (Click Here) and join our Telegram Update Group (Click Here)
You can also advertise your Product and Services on our page for more patronage
Contact us today by sending your Stories, Articles, Events, and Eyewitness Reports for publications as well as products and services for advertisement to westerndailies2018@gmail.com or WhatsApp (+2348058448531) for more information
