There is an old Yoruba saying that the child who says his mother’s soup has lost its taste should be ready to cook a better pot. That timeless wisdom captures the very essence of democratic politics.
Criticism, no matter how loud or persistent, is only half of leadership. The other half, and indeed the more important half, is the ability to offer a superior alternative.
As the drumbeat of the 2027 governorship election gradually reverberate across Oyo State, the political atmosphere is changing with remarkable speed already.
The era of quiet consultations, strategic alignments and discreet negotiations is giving way to open campaigns, media engagements, public rallies and calculated political manoeuvres.
The drums are beating louder, the gladiators are stepping into the arena and every political actor is eager to convince the electorate that he or she possesses the vision, courage and competence required to govern one of Nigeria’s most politically sophisticated states in Nigeria.
Ordinarily, this should be a season of ideas; a marketplace where competing visions for economic prosperity, human capital development and institutional reforms are displayed for public examination like a trader seeking a better option from variety of products.
Unfortunately, the emerging political climate appears to be travelling on a different road.
Instead of witnessing a contest of ideas, visions and initiatives, the people are increasingly witnessing a contest of criticisms.
Rather than competing with development blueprints, many now seem content to compete with headlines.
Indeed, one cannot ignore what I like to describe as the “bring him down” syndrome; a political culture built on the assumption that the shortest road to power is not necessarily through superior ideas but through relentless attacks on the incumbent.
It is a philosophy that assumes that if the tallest tree in the forest can be cut down, every shrub automatically becomes visible. Yet, as another African proverb reminds us, cutting down the iroko tree does not make the bush a forest of giants.
Since Governor Seyi Makinde assumed office in 2019, his administration has remained under constant political scrutiny, as every democratic government should.
Opposition parties and critics have questioned his policies, challenged his decisions and criticised different aspects of his administration. Such scrutiny is not only legitimate; it is the lifeblood of democracy. Government must never become too sacred to question.
However, what has increasingly attracted public attention is the sheer intensity and frequency of those criticisms. Almost every government action—whether infrastructure projects, economic policies, appointments, educational reforms, security initiatives or routine administrative decisions, has become a subject of political attack.
Meanwhile, many of the same projects continue to receive commendation from different segments of the public, professional bodies and stakeholders who acknowledge the visible transformation witnessed across several sectors of the state’s economy.
This contradiction presents an interesting political paradox. On one hand, there are citizens who applaud the administration’s investments in road infrastructure, healthcare, education, agribusiness, aviation and institutional reforms.
On the other hand, opposition voices appear determined to ensure that hardly any achievement escapes criticism.
Consequently, the political conversation increasingly begins and ends with Governor Makinde himself, creating the impression that the quickest route to political relevance is simply to keep the governor permanently in the headlines.
Politics, however, should be richer than that.
There is an African proverb which says, the hunter who spends all day chasing another man’s dog returns home without meat. In the same vein, an opposition that devotes most of its political energy to attacking an incumbent, without presenting an equally convincing roadmap for governance, risks winning applause for criticism while losing credibility on leadership.
This raises perhaps the most important question confronting the people of Oyo State as 2027 approaches.
And these questions include; where are the competing economic blueprints,
Where is the comprehensive document that explains, sector by sector, how another administration intends to outperform the current one, where is the practical roadmap showing how jobs will be created, industries revived, agriculture modernised, healthcare expanded, education strengthened and internally generated revenue increased without placing unbearable burdens on ordinary citizens?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are the very questions democracy expects every serious governorship aspirant to answer from verifiable fact point as proof of due diligence and homework before throwing their hats in the ring.
Sadly, much of the public conversation appears trapped in the familiar cycle of accusations, rebuttals, counter-accusations and political theatre.
The danger of this trend is that it gradually shifts public attention away from governance and redirects it towards personalities. Elections then become competitions of emotions instead of competitions of ideas.
Perhaps the greatest casualty of this style of politics is not the politician being criticised but the electorate itself.
Citizens deserve more than carefully crafted propaganda. They deserve facts. They deserve competing development models. They deserve the opportunity to compare one economic vision against another before casting their votes because every single vote is an obligation fulfilled by the electorate on social contract with the political contenders.
It has often been said that empty drums make the loudest noise. Whether or not that saying applies to today’s political climate is for the people to judge.
What is beyond dispute, however, is that no amount of criticism, however sustained, can substitute for a well-thought-out governance agenda. Pulling another man down has never, by itself, built a stronger house.
Some politicians appear convinced that electoral victory lies in constantly reminding voters of what they consider the incumbent’s shortcomings. Yet democracy demands something higher.
The electorate is entitled not only to know what is allegedly wrong with today’s government but also what tomorrow’s government intends to do differently.
After all, it is one thing to identify cracks in another man’s wall; it is quite another to prove that your own foundation can withstand the storm. That is why the conversation in Oyo State must rise above personalities.
Politics should never become an endless exchange of insults or a marketplace of blackmail. As the Yoruba wisely say, when elders gather in the marketplace, they do not count each other’s scars; they discuss how to save the village.
Elections should equally be about how to build a stronger state, not merely about how to weaken political opponents since government is continuum.
Ultimately, democracy flourishes not when politicians shout the loudest, but when they think the deepest. The people of Oyo State deserve a campaign that feeds their intellect rather than merely inflames their emotions.
They deserve aspirants who can articulate not only why the present should change, but why the future under their leadership would genuinely be better than the present.
That is the true essence of separating politics from governance. And without this, politicians jostling for the number one seat would have validated the viewpoint of most voters sitting on the fence; it is a game of “chop I chop turn by turn”.
…Watch out for the next part.