| Summary: | In this study, I have examined the pro et contra arguments on the role of political godfathers
in the political process of Anambra State, Nigeria, during the period 1999 to 2006. I have used
extensive interviews and a small survey in addition to existing texts in this regard. In the process,
two broad camps of arguers are discovered, namely, the anti- and pro-godfather camps. While
the pro-godfathers argue in pro, using the concepts of social philanthropy and political pedagogy
as a rhetorical framework to describe political godfatherism as patriotic, democratic and prodevelopment
that should be promoted and permanently embedded in the Nigerian constitution,
the anti-godfathers argue in contra, using the concepts of electoral manipulation, candidate
imposition and political violence as a rhetorical framework to depict it as unpatriotic,
undemocratic and anti-development that should be criminalized and abolished in Nigeria.
To deepen analysis and put this study in its specific methodological perspective, I have used
political theory and its sub-category, rhetorical theory, inspired mainly by Robert Michels, Pekka
Korhonen, Chaim Perelman, and Roderick Hart, among others.
In the end, I discovered that while some of the respective claims of the anti- and progodfathers
have been true, some others have been overtly or covertly exaggerated, or are outright
lies. For instance, while it seems true that some political godfathers do indulge, or may have
indulged, in political pedagogy and social philanthropy to assist the poor, especially poor
politicians, naive political aspirants or political dilettantes, they and/or some others sometimes
appear to do so for hidden or outright selfish agenda, namely, financial and political interests,
which it has been argued, often exploit the political and economic structures of Anambra State to
the detriment of the people. Because of this, I distinguish between two kinds of political
godfatherism, namely, patriotic and parasitic. I then propose that to promote and sustain the
former, as well as discourage and uproot the latter, in the political process, a legalistic solution is
inevitable. That is to say, a law would need to be enacted to specify formal guidelines for
political godfathers and punishments for any defaulter(s) in Nigeria.
|
|---|