Warri — BJ’s lengthy typing was indeed worth the wait. As many have noted, his analysis is a classic Marxist intellectualisation of the recently concluded electoral ritual, even when presented as counter‑intuitive reflections. The Marxist‑scientific framework inevitably loomed over his thoughts, regardless of the rubric he adopted, and this was appropriate given the populist actions and utterances he examined, which often pretend to escape their ideological provenance.
Two responses anticipated mine: Femi Aborishade’s (which I could almost adopt wholesale) and Ike Okonta’s, both correctly identifying BJ’s theoretical framework. While BJ’s arguments are always salient and convincing, I sensed something left unsaid. Populism was the theme that demanded his counter‑intuitive approach, yet he did not dwell on it enough. Aborishade highlighted this lapse, and I will reinforce it with my own perspective.
From the outset I recognised that Peter Obi captured the deep angst and hopes of a large, disenchanted segment of Nigerians who instantly saw him as a hero. This was not because of any record of solidarity with workers, the poor, or the middle class, nor because the youthful volunteers knew his performance as governor of Anambra State. A quick search would reveal that Obi was far from a champion of progressive causes: he sided with Arthur Nzeribe against MKO Abiola’s 1993 mandate, was Atiku Abubakar’s running mate on the PDP ticket in 2019, and his takeover of the Labour Party appears opportunistic, especially since he refused to incorporate the party’s manifesto into his campaign.
So why did Obi become a messianic figure? It was not, as Aborishade and I agree, his promise to transform Nigeria from a consumptive to a productive capitalist economy—he never convincingly demonstrated this with the Nnewi‑Onitsha industrial model during his two terms. By contrast, Bola Tinubu laid the groundwork for modernising Lagos’s economy, and Obi’s own retail empire relies on importing foreign goods rather than producing locally. Obi’s surge mirrors Buhari’s 2015 rise: widespread disgust with President Jonathan, the PDP, and the Boko Haram crisis led voters to seek any alternative to the status quo. Corruption, summed up in a single word, dominated the discourse. Buhari’s spartan image and lack of scandal (despite controversies over the N2.8 billion petroleum fund) made him the trusted custodian of Nigeria’s resources, even if many had to contort their ideology to endorse him.
Obi’s heroism crystallised when he withdrew from the PDP presidential race, refusing to bribe delegates—a stance that became his unofficial slogan. To a populace weary of systemic corruption, this display of incorruptibility endeared him to the masses, who were ready to follow him anywhere. Dr. Pat Utomi, then vying for the Labour Party ticket, stepped aside, handing the nomination to Obi on a “platter of gold.” The Labour Party, though an odd fit for both Utomi and Obi’s neo‑liberal leanings, served merely as a ladder for Obi to enter the presidential race. Ideologically, the viable parties differ little; Obi’s shifting affiliations—from APGA to PDP to LP—illustrate that party manifestos are distant considerations for most voters, who rarely read them and instead rally behind a candidate they perceive as trustworthy. This gave rise to the “Obidients,” a personality cult rather than a movement.
The appeal of a productive capitalist economy is not unique to Obi; Atiku and Tinubu also championed production over consumption in their platforms. In conversations with Obidients, I asked whether they would have supported Obi under APGA, PDP, or had he bribed delegates. The near‑unanimous answer was no—APGA was not viable, and PDP and APC were associated with Nigeria’s 1999‑onward woes. Their support hinged on Obi’s perceived incorruptibility, the belief that he could safeguard the treasury and invest savings to tackle unemployment. Tinubu, by contrast, symbolised corruption, his long public profile linking him to every failure of the Buhari‑APC administration and to the “bullion‑van” scandal—ironically, a scandal that also involved Obi’s tenure as governor.
Obidients ignored Obi’s own controversies: a bullion‑van arrest in Lagos linked to Anambra, and a company incorporated in a tax haven under his family’s initials, as revealed by the Panama Papers. Yet, as with Buhari, voters were willing to overlook these flaws if the candidate’s personal probity seemed undeniable. While Buhari projected a modest lifestyle, Obi appeared as a frugal billionaire with interests in retail, farming, a brewery, and a bank—earning him the nickname “Peter ‘Nwana’ Obi,” after a character in Chinua Achebe’s *Chike and the River*. In a nation of thieving politicians, such thrift became a heroic attribute: “He won’t steal, and he won’t let anyone steal,” summed up the Obidients, and that was enough.
A further factor was the APC’s Muslim‑Muslim ticket, which alarmed Christian congregations and spurred a crusade against the perceived threat of Boko Haram, Islamic fundamentalism, Fulani herders, and mass kidnappings. The ill‑timed naira redesign and exchange programme by the CBN, launched on the eve of the election, added to public misery. Consequently, the Obidients wanted the APC out and saw the PDP as unacceptable, leaving Obi as the chosen one, anointed by churches. Even Vice‑President Osinbajo might have attracted similar support had he secured the ticket, but the electorate’s preference was clear: any party except APC/Tinubu.
Thus, for the Obidients, issues and ideology were secondary considerations. Their allegiance was personal, not ideological, and they cared little about the similarity of manifestos among the three viable candidates. Tinubu’s health concerns and viral videos further damaged his image. In amplifying Aborishade’s and Okonta’s observations, I conclude that Obi’s “productive capitalist economy” mantra was a peripheral factor for most Obidients, who were indifferent to the nuanced policy differences among the candidates.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge the salience of BJ’s Marxist reflections. I appreciate the counter‑intuitive, non‑classic Marxist analysis he offers, even if it risks mistakes when grappling with current events—errors that can always be corrected.
Ogaga Ifowodo, lawyer, poet, scholar and activist, is a member of APC’s presidential, Delta State gubernatorial and Delta South senatorial campaign councils. He wrote from Warri.
Comments are closed for this story.