_The danger of turning political opposition into personality attacks and inconsequential symbolism_
By Abdulkarim Abdulmalik
Nigeria is approaching another politically consequential period, and the country desperately needs a national conversation capable of matching the gravity of its challenges. Yet, once again, there are signs that political rhetoric may be drifting away from the kitchen-table issues that affect ordinary Nigerians towards the theatre of personalities, symbolism and insinuation.
The latest example is the intervention of Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, the former Labour Party vice-presidential candidate, concerning Vice President Kashim Shettima’s choice of traditional headwear.
Baba-Ahmed questioned why Shettima does not wear the style of cap popularly associated with President Bola Tinubu and some APC leaders. He reportedly suggested on _Mic On Podcast_ that “his marabout said he should not wear it,” while calling on Nigerians to ask the Vice President why he does not wear the “Asiwaju cap.”
It may have been intended as political humour.
It may have been intended as sarcasm.
It may even have been intended to provoke a response.
But whatever the intention, the episode illustrates an unfortunate feature of contemporary Nigerian politics: the tendency to convert almost anything about an opponent into political ammunition. And that should concern everyone who cares about the quality of Nigerian democracy.
*Politics should Be about Consequences*
The fundamental purpose of political competition is to give citizens meaningful choices.
A voter should be able to look at competing candidates and ask: Who has the better economic plan? Who has the stronger security strategy? Who understands the country’s institutional weaknesses? Who has demonstrated competence? Who can unite a deeply divided society?
These are serious questions that should be asked; not the colour or style of a politician’s cap.
Nigeria’s challenges are too enormous to permit political discourse to be reduced to appearances.
Nigeria is wrestling with insecurity in several parts of the cointry. Families are under pressure from the cost of living. Young people continue to search for meaningful opportunities. Businesses face difficult operating conditions. Educational institutions require investment. Healthcare needs strengthening. Infrastructure gaps remain substantial.
These are the issues that should take the centre stage of political debate.
If an opposition politician believes the Vice President has failed, Nigerians deserve to hear precisely how and why.
If there are policy failures, identify them.
If there are governance failures, document them.
If there are economic alternatives, explain them.
If there are security shortcomings, provide evidence and propose solutions.
That is how opposition becomes constructive.
*From Accountability to Insinuation*
The marabout allegation—or suggestion—is particularly problematic because the available account provides no evidence that Shettima’s clothing preference is connected to advice from a marabout.
There is a significant difference between saying, “I wonder why he does not wear the cap,” and suggesting that a spiritual adviser instructed him not to wear it.
The first is an observation, while the second is an allegation. Do, public figures need to understand that distinction.
Nigeria’s information environment is already saturated with rumours, conspiracy theories, manipulated videos and unverified claims. Once an allegation is made by a prominent politician, it could be repeated thousands of times until many people begin to accept it as established fact. And this explains why political speech should be laced with caution.
The electorate deserves facts, not insinuations dressed up as political analysis.
*The Temptation of Unhealthy Politicking*
There is an old temptation in politics: when you cannot defeat an opponent’s argument, attack the opponent.
Sometimes the attack is personal.
Sometimes it is cultural.
Sometimes it is religious.
Sometimes it is simply ridiculous.
The objective is not necessarily to prove anything but to create a narrative around the opponent.
The danger is that this style of politics could gradually weaken the quality of public discourse.
Instead of discussing policies, politicians discuss personalities.
Instead of examining records, they examine wardrobes.
Instead of debating ideas, they trade insinuations.
Instead of presenting alternatives, they celebrate controversies.
That may be effective political entertainment, but it is antithetical to democratic practice.
*From the Archives*
Jokes and wits have always been part of Politicking. In the 1950s, Nigeria’s pre-independence electioneering, when Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (“Zik”) traveled to Helsinki, a prominent Western Region Action Group (AG) rival, Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola wrote in his party’s media outlet, interpreting the trip a “Zik going to hell sinking.”
Akintola who has prominent Yoruba tribal facial marks was widely celebrated in Nigerian political history for his devastating wit and linguistic acrobatics.
When Dr. Zik returned from his trip, his political camp hit back with no less sharp and pun-filled counter-attack.
Zik’s party newspaper, the West African Pilot, representing the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) responded by targeting Akintola’s famous facial marks when they published a report stating that “a zebra had passed through the city,” apparently mocking the prominent linear scars on Akintola’s face as a counter-punch to his “hell sinking” joke.
This back-and-forth media encounter remains one of the most famous examples of the fierce, highly intellectual, and deeply sarcastic media wars between the NCNC and the AG in pre-independence Nigeria.
*A Joke Carried too Far?*
Perhaps the fairest interpretation is that Baba-Ahmed was simply being humorous. After all, political discourse without humour would be unbearably dull. Nigerians themselves have a remarkable ability to laugh at the absurdities of political life.
However, there is a point at which a joke carried too far becomes harmful. When humour invokes religion, spirituality or alleged secret influences, it could produce consequences that extend beyond the intended punchline.
For instance, when the person making the remark is a former vice-presidential candidate, the standard should arguably be higher. Hence, someone who has stood before Nigerians asking for their votes should understand the enormous influence political statements can have.
*Nigerians are Not Asking about Caps*
The Nigerian voter has more urgent questions.
A trader wants to know why the cost of restocking goods keeps rising.
A graduate wants to know where the next job will come from.
A farmer wants security on the road and at the farm.
A parent wants affordable and quality education.
A commuter wants reliable infrastructure.
A business owner wants electricity and a stable economic environment.
A citizen wants to sleep without fear.
These Nigerians are not asking whether the Vice President’s cap reflects loyalty to the President. They are asking whether government is working.
Therefore, those seeking to govern them should provide answers to those questions.
*The 2027 Debate Must be Different*
If Nigeria’s emerging political contest is to be meaningful, the country must resist the temptation to allow trivial controversies to define it. The next electoral debate should be a contest of ideas.
Candidates should tell Nigerians what they would do differently.
They should explain how they would finance their programmes.
They should defend their records.
They should submit themselves to serious questioning.
They should be challenged about insecurity, economic management, corruption, institutional reform, education, healthcare, infrastructure and national cohesion.
That would force political actors to raise their game. And they do that, citizens benefit.
*Beyond the Cap*
The irony of cap politics is that the cap itself is probably the least important thing in the story. What matters is what the controversy reveals about the political environment.
A country facing serious problems cannot afford an equally serious shortage of serious political conversation.
There is room for humour. There is room for satire. There is room for political criticism. But there must also be room for facts, for ideas, and for accountability.
Above all, there must be room for respect for the intelligence of the electorate.
Nigerians should not be invited to choose their next leaders based on who wears which cap, who makes the funniest insinuation or who generates the loudest social-media controversy. They should be offered a choice between competing visions for the nation. That is the politics the country deserves.
The cap could make headlines; but only competent governance could make history.
– Abdulkarim Abdulmalik is an Abuja-based Journalist. Email: nowmalik@gmail.com
