Haske does not owe injustice his silence: A rejoinder to Abu-Taqiya Zumo
By Mohammed Sani Tirgeli
I have read with considerable interest the open letter by Abu-Taqiyah Zumo advising Alhaji Abdurrahman Bashir Haske to remain in the All Progressives Congress (APC), despite the clear injustice meted to him.
The letter is undoubtedly well-intentioned, and its call for patience, strategic thinking and political maturity is worthy of commendation.
Related articles
Why Abdurrahman Haske must be supported not exploited
Adamawa APC, Haske’s departure and fresh political dynamics
Haske shuts-down Yola, declares guber ambition amidst pomp, pageantry and prestige
However, while the counsel may sound attractive in theory, it appears to overlook the fundamental issue at the heart of Haske’s political activism and raised critical posers. What happens when the political platform on which a person seeks to exercise his democratic rights becomes the very platform accused of denying those rights?
This is where the argument requires a more critical examination. Nobody disputes the fact that Haske is young and has a long political career ahead of him. In fact, in order to carry the youth along in election and other political processes, an important piece of legislation, the not too young to run bill was passed into law in Nigeria.
Another poser is, does youthfulness mean that Haske should surrender his democratic birthright today simply because he may have opportunities tomorrow?
That line of argument, simply stands on its head and difficult to sustain. Democracy does not operate on the principle that a younger aspirant should patiently endure injustice because “time is on his side.” If that were the standard, then the not too young to run law should be scrapped.
At 35, Haske has exactly the same constitutional rights to participate in politics, seek elective office and choose the political platform through which he wishes to pursue his ambition as any other Nigerian.
His age should therefore be celebrated as an asset, not weaponized against his democratic rights and political aspiration. Indeed, telling a young politician to accept political injustice because he is young, risks institutionalising the very culture of impunity that democracy is supposed to eliminate.
I think it is wrong to reduce this conversation to whether Haske is impatient, desperate or unwilling to wait. The most important question is whether the process through which the APC governorship candidate emerged met the basic expectations of internal party democracy.
If, as alleged, party figures openly boasted that the outcome would be predetermined and that the election would be manipulated, then the issue transcends Haske’s personal ambition.
More seriously, if claims that voting did not take place in a substantial majority of polling units are correct, while results were nevertheless subsequently generated and announced, then the matter deserves scrutiny rather than dismissal.
It would be difficult to tell a politician who believes he has been denied a genuine primary election to simply “exercise restraint” without first addressing the circumstances surrounding the process because silence in the face of impunity can easily become complicity.
A democracy survives not merely because elections are held, but because citizens and political actors are willing to challenge processes they consider fundamentally defective.
Zumo’s suggestion that leaving the APC amounts to desperation also deserves reconsideration. What is desperate about refusing to remain on a platform where one believes his political rights have been denied? If an aspirant contests a transparent primary, loses fairly and then refuses to accept the result, that could reasonably raise questions about his commitment to democratic principles.
But where an aspirant alleges that the process itself was compromised, his decision to seek another platform cannot automatically be interpreted as desperation. It may instead be interpreted as political self-preservation and a determination not to surrender his democratic ambition to predetermined process.
Haske is not asking anyone to hand him power. He is seeking another opportunity to present himself before the electorate. Ultimately, it is the people of Adamawa who should decide.
The advice that Haske should remain in the APC and reform it from within is noble in principle. But reform requires space. It requires a political environment where dissent is tolerated, internal democracy is respected and members have a realistic opportunity to compete.
One cannot meaningfully reform a system if the same system has allegedly shut the door against fair and just participation. The popular analogy of remaining in a house because the roof is leaking is appealing, but it has a serious limitation. What if the people who control the house have deliberately locked the person outside?
There is also nothing inherently undemocratic about leaving one political party for another. Political parties are platforms, not permanent matrimonial contracts. Nigerian political history is replete with movements, realignments and defections. Politicians have crossed party lines at different stages of their careers in response to changing political realities.
What matters is not merely where a politician comes from, but why he moved and what he seeks to achieve.
The argument that the APC’s existing structure makes alternative platforms automatically incapable of challenging it is also historically questionable. Political parties that appeared weak or relatively new at particular moments have disrupted established political structures.
The APC itself is perhaps the clearest example.
When the APC was formed, it was a relatively new political platform. Yet it went on to defeat the incumbent Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2015 presidential election and formed the Federal Government. In Adamawa State, APC also comprehensively won election in 2015 despite being a new party. The recent election in Osun State also produced a relatively unknown political party, Accord party as the winner of the governorship polls.
That alone should caution against presenting political structure as an absolute determinant of electoral victory. Similarly, the history of Nigerian state elections has demonstrated that established party structures can be defeated when voters become sufficiently motivated by a political alternative.
The lesson is straightforward: structure matters, but structure without acceptance by the electorate can become an illusion of strength.
Therefore, it is premature to conclude that Haske’s movement to another platform is destined to fail simply because that platform does not currently possess the APC’s national structure. True Democrats Do Not Reward Impunity. Perhaps the most fundamental disagreement with Zumo’s counsel concerns the meaning of democratic loyalty.
Is loyalty to a political party more important than loyalty to democratic principles? If a party conducts a transparent and credible primary, members lose and accept the result, then loyalty demands that they stay and support the winner.
But if members genuinely believe the process was manipulated, the democratic response should not be to silence them. The democratic response should be to investigate the allegations, address the grievances and restore confidence.
A party cannot demand loyalty while simultaneously weakening the mechanisms through which members participate. Internal democracy is not a favour granted by party leaders. It is the foundation upon which political parties derive legitimacy.
If party members are expected to remain silent whenever they perceive injustice, then the party may retain its membership but gradually lose its democratic soul. Zumo is right about one thing: Haske’s political future extends far beyond 2027.
But that does not mean his decision today is necessarily a mistake. In fact, how a politician responds when confronted with adversity often defines his political identity more than the offices he occupies.
Haske has apparently chosen not to retreat from his ambition simply because he encountered resistance within the APC. Whether he succeeds or fails on another platform will ultimately be decided by the electorate.
Let the people determine whether his ambition is genuine or desperate. Let the people determine whether his message resonates. Let the people determine whether the platform he has chosen deserves their support.
Tirgeli, writes from Yola.
