Rising intolerance in politics

The country is in chains. Everybody appears to be aware of this fact, but nobody is ready to talk. Politicking appears to be dragging Nigeria into the precipice.

The rising level of intolerance in the polity is stunning. Every political party in the country sees the other as an intolerable irritant. It is a direct offshoot of winner takes all style of politics in Nigeria, which has succeeded in making politicians bad losers. What we see today is akin to a pitched battle where the two dominant political parties in the country hurl invectives at each other at whim.

While the ruling party believes it is all-knowing and needn’t no suggestions from any other quarters, the opposition parties on the other hand are not charitable enough to give constructive advice on issues they think should be urgently addressed. Sometimes, innocent observations from the public are being misunderstood as they are branded ill-motivated and flowing from jaundiced mind. 

A country where those who mean well for it by virtue of their campaign to correct certain anomalies in society are branded as enemies of government is in a dangerous development. Those who speak out about government’s actions and inactions are also being accused of seeking relevance.

In the eyes of the powers that be, whenever an argument is not in support of government, it is termed a calculated attempt to pull down the government. We are certain that the current state of affairs in the country, if sustained, will not promote the much-needed peace, progress and unity.

We note with dismay that administrations in Nigeria have always seen the country as a conquered territory where everybody outside the party in government must not be heard and must hide their faces. It must be stated that politics expires as soon as an election is over and winners declared. Every politician, irrespective of party affiliation must join efforts for the interest of the country. 

In the first term of Bill Clinton as president of America, the Republicans criticised his government to no end. Issues were made out of the taxes, crime rates in the country, budgets and others. Rather than demonise the opposition, Clinton gave a listening ear by incorporating the issues raised and paying attention to them all. While running his campaign for the second tenure, he had told the Americans that if returned, he would address the issues raised by the opposition.  

Again, instead of seeing every criticism and genuine requests from citizens from the myopic prism, or reading meanings to opposition’s candid views, Clinton was able to sift the people’s cries for good governance from mere campaign of calumny. This, unfortunately, is a line our leaders have consistently refused to draw in their dealings with either the opposition or members of the public.

Clinton noted that both Democrats and Republicans had to work together to meet the challenges of the country. During his re-election campaign he canvassed for putting “aside the politics of division and [building] America’s community together. It’s time to put country ahead of party.” Clinton’s victory was, in fact, a victory for his rivals because on taxes, a balanced budget and crime he adopted Republican ideas. 

It is our belief that country stands to benefit from a healthy debate between the ruling government and the opposition, if both cultivate the habit of an open mind. We are convinced that criticisms can be made without being ad hominem, ad nauseam.