As the curtain closed on what unarguably was a dress rehearsal for the 2015 general election, the outcome of the gubernatorial election that saw Ayo Fayose of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defeat incumbent Governor Kayode Fayemi of the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC), one major concern was what the change of baton portended for Ekiti state. Though Fayose in his maiden speech said there was no victor, no vanquished, one thing is certain: the defeat of the APC in Ekiti marks the end of an era and the dawn of a new but uncertain one; given that it is Fayose’s second stint as governor of the state. Happily, Fayose appears to have taken over the baton with gusto and with aplomb. His statements since his shock victory have been measured and assuring. God’s speed!
In a high stakes election adjudged to be the freest and fairest in recent times, Fayemi was roundly defeated by Fayose in all 16 councils in the state with a wide margin; polling 203, 090 votes against Fayemi’s 120,433. The Labor Party (LP) candidate Opeyemi Bamidele got 18,135 votes. Most opinion polls within and outside Ekiti had predicted a landslide for the incumbent, but shockingly, they were all proved wrong. Fayemi, in a rare display of political maturity, called and congratulated Fayose on his victory, just as the governor-elect promised to sustain Fayemi’s legacy. But building on Fayemi’s achievements and good performance, not only in terms of fiscal discipline, but also in the careful deployment of state resources for infrastructural development and human security needs of the people of Ekiti state, comes with its own challenges.
That notwithstanding, the defeat of the APC in Ekiti raises other fundamental questions of leadership in the face of abusive patronage and clientelism with political warlords and rent-seekers holding sway to the detriment of the people. It is common knowledge that Fayemi was reputed to be prudent with the use of state funds and exemplary in his ascetic personal lifestyle. When most of his counterparts were not satisfied even with ostentatious living and had to notch it up to obscene levels, his modesty and conduct put a shame to the splendor other governors advertised so gleefully. For a governor whose scorecard was to say the least, impressive; Fayemi’s defeat depicts a total disconnect between the government and the people. It was a protest vote of sorts against Fayemi for not catering to what in Nigeria’s political lexicon is called “stomach infrastructure.”
The elections showed that performance in office is not enough to win elections; at least not in Ekiti. To the average Ekiti citizen, building an ultra-modern pavilion or reconstructing roads mean nothing to their personal survival. Even laying fiber optic cable to digitalize and open Ekiti to new information and communication technology was inconsequential. Put differently, Fayemi was not a “good” politician, because he refused to spread political largess. Although he did well in implementing the Social Security Scheme and by empowering various associations in the state, his critics and detractors accuse him of being too stingy and “chopping” alone. Quite predictably, to reassure his supporters that he knew what they wanted, Fayose at his acceptance speech declared that his priority was not to industrialize the state now, but to “take good care of the people by awarding contracts to them.” The governor-elect must reconsider this standpoint. Fayose must distance himself and his administration from such materialistic woolliness and self-centered pedestrianism.
But the defeat of Fayemi ought not to have surprised pundits, including the ex-governor himself. The mistrust between the people and Fayemi began with the composition of his cabinet. Most of his cabinet members were mainly technocrats, not rooted in grassroots politics, and failed to translate the dividends of democracy to the people outside the corridors of power. The reason, many of them could not deliver their constituencies. Be that as it may, the administration gradually came to be viewed as elitist, with scant regard for the political consequence of major government policies, and how it affected the average Ekiti citizen. The civil service re-organization, computerization of Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) and introduction of e-payment, put the government on a collision course against powerful bureaucrats who called the shots and determined the political direction of Ekiti. The state has about 53,000 workers, who dictate which party occupies Government House.
Also, the Teachers Development Needs Assessment (TDNA) introduced by the Fayemi administration to test teachers’ competence put the government and the workforce on collision course. Fayemi tried to compel teachers to sit for the examinations thrice, but failed because they embarked on strike each time a date was fixed for the test. Despite various welfare programs; including Fayemi promising during the campaign to cancel the test, the teachers were not convinced. And they based their fears on what was going on in Edo State, another APC-controlled state where teachers are still in a running battle with the government over a similar test.
Above all, Fayemi committed political suicide by antagonizing a core constituency – students. Ekiti State University (EKSU) students waged a serious war of attrition against Fayemi over his October 16, 2010, inauguration promise to slash tuition to N50,000 from an average of N120,000. Though the government pegged tuition at N50,000 as promised, school authorities hiked administrative charges – library fees, medical fees among others to the tune of N50,000. As if that was not enough, EKSU directed students to pay all charges with their tuition at once, leading to the closure of the university twice. With the broken promise to reduce tuition to the N25,000 paid in Adekunle Ajasin University (AAU), Akungba, (Ondo State), the students overwhelmingly voted against Fayemi. To avoid protest votes from the students, EKSU was closed two weeks to the election, for “mid semester vacation” but the students refused to travel out of Ado Ekiti in order to vote out Fayemi.
Given that Ekiti has peculiar developmental challenges, Fayemi’s predilection to “cater to the people” should, however, not compromise the hope and euphoria and aspirations of the people of Ekiti state. There is an inevitable high level of pressure to deliver and match, if not surpass, his predecessor, and the least expectation seems to be that Fayose would follow in the steps of his predecessor and possibly surpass his performance. These expectations are legitimate for, as someone coming into the job with credentials as a former governor, it is only proper to expect the new “new-old” governor to bring some sobriety and decency into the governance of the state; and avoid repeating his past mistakes.
It is, however, important to underscore the fact that the task of bringing development to Ekiti is not the sole responsibility of the government. It is a collective responsibility of all citizens and is, therefore, incumbent upon all, especially the political parties, civil society and the private sector to join hands with the Fayose government in taking Ekiti to greater heights. Fayose’s second coming should rekindle hope in the possibility of a new Ekiti of inspiring and self-sacrificing leaders; a new Ekiti dominated by men and women who appreciate in their private and public affairs, the dynamics of deferred gratification and sacrificial leadership, which in turn promotes good governance. With these, the new government can definitely move Ekiti to higher levels on the scale of development. This way, the new government can consolidate and build on the good legacies of its predecessor.
