Lexical innovations are a reflection of the ability of language to grow and evolve over time. Hence, the continuous surfacing of neologisms as products of linguistic evolution is not out of the ordinary. In 2020, the Oxford English Dictionary included some Nigerian words in its latest edition. Among them was “k-leg,” which essentially refers to a condition that causes one’s legs to curve inward, resulting in the feet staying apart while the knees knock together. Issues associated with “k-leg” include the inability to walk efficiently, as well as the squeezing and tearing of trousers (pants) around the crotch area. In Nigerian parlance, “k-leg” is synonymous with a problem.

Similarly, contemporary political conversations in Benue State have generated certain words to describe the nature and practice of local politics. These words include “pochocracy” and “atuurism.” During a casual conversation on a WhatsApp platform, the authors of this article undertook an exposition of these words. We initially engaged in the conversation just for the fun of socializing, but the unintended outcome of the social media engagement somewhat provides a presentable understanding of the two words in our local political context.

According to Paul Terna, “pochocracy” is “a political practice that promotes the looting of money from the public treasury to share among corrupt politicians and their minions and yes-men as a reward for their loyalty and servitude.” In other words, it can be defined in contrast to Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy, as a government of the “pocho,” by the “pocho,” for the “pocho.” Those who practice “pochocracy” are “pochocrats.” The origin of “pochocracy,” Terna explains, is from the Tiv word, “pocho,” which refers to a local flavourful stew or sauce that is popular among the Tiv people of Nigeria’s middle belt region. Its savory and delicious taste makes it indispensable at a meal for dipping balls of pounded yam for easy swallowing.

Regardless of its appetizing value, a meal is deemed incomplete when there is “pocho” without the meat. Hence, among the people of Benue, disdain for “pochocracy” as a political doctrine underscores a denunciation of a socio-political practice that cares less about productive policies and enduring common good, which are the core values of governance.

The primary role of government, as conceived by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, is to nurture and advance the good life of citizens. In this context, citizens also embrace the virtue of living together in pursuit of the common good. This social contract is deformed when impermanent self-interests becloud the vision of long-lasting objectives. Consequently, when the government becomes a platform for promoting exclusive individual interests instead of fostering the enduring welfare of the public, such a government can be likened to a meal of “pocho.” In other words, it is a government according to the doctrine of “pochocracy.”

Likewise, “atuurism” or “atuurocracy,” according to Paul Utser, is “a political philosophy or principle that encompasses a range of economic and social systems characterized by mischief and mismanagement of the state’s human and natural resources.” Those who practice this kind of politics are called “atuuricans.” The origin of “atuurism” is from the Tiv word “atuur” for okra, a vegetable that has a slimy or gooey texture when cooked. “Atuur” is either prepared fresh or preserved dried in powdered or sliced forms.

A soup of fresh “atuur” with smoked fish is a favourite of many families. In its dried powdered form, “atuur” is used for a soup called “gbodi” in Tiv, which has been a common item on the food menu of many boarding secondary schools in Benue State and beyond. Many students dislike “gbodi” because of its tastelessness. Among male students, it is rumoured that constant consumption of “gbodi” can cause allergic itching of the scrotum. Thus, in relation to politics, the tasteless and allergenic itching of the dried okra soup (gbodi) underscores the negative effects of the politics of “atuurocracy,” which is generally perceived with repugnance among the governed.

Commendably, a general disdain for both “pochocracy” and “atuurocracy” among Benue citizens has been reflected in numerous social media remarks by party members from all camps of the various political groups. In this context, critics of a sitting government usually consider its defenders as self-centered, praise-singing sycophants who live in denial of the administration’s glaring failures. Conversely, defenders of an incumbent government also decry selfish interests as the driving force of its critics. These counter-allegations ingeniously indict the pursuit of self-interest by public servants, suggesting that selfless service is what ultimately promotes progress and development.

The critical question is: Can the politics of “pochocracy” and “atuurism” be completely excluded from Benue’s political establishments? Certainly, “interests” form an inevitable component of every political arrangement. According to John Rawls’s theory of a just society, decision-makers are essentially inspired by self-interest. However, in Rawls’s concept of the Veil of Ignorance, decision-makers have no information at their disposal that they could use to pursue principles that specifically favor their personal circumstances. Thus, not knowing where they might end up, they make decisions that are favorable to people in every circumstance.

Among the issues that have bedeviled Benue State are the political customs that promote the interests of the elite at the expense of development and public well-being, and the practice of “Governor to Senator,” where a person who becomes the governor is, by virtue a future Senator. This potentially makes the government house a chamber for rehearsals and strategic planning for a seat in the Senate. Thus, a governor could spend two terms of eight years using public resources to advance things that favour his personal circumstances while neglecting public welfare. Such an attitude exudes a stench of “pochocratic” and “atuuristic” politics, which suffocates visionary thoughts for state development.

On a positive note, the current involvement of youths in politics, coupled with the advantage of social media platforms for civil engagements, spells significant hope for change. Nonetheless, political change will remain impotent if debates proceed with convictions that are unhealthily hostile to opposing opinions. For a better grasp of reality, it must be remembered that supporters are sometimes unable to identify their masters’ loopholes as clearly as the opponents. Thus, the assessment of ideas in respect of public interests must guarantee adequate scrutiny of all opinions and circumstances, regardless of their advocates.

Above all, it amounts to politics of “pochocracy” and “atuurism” when political mentors confine their mentees to a life of undue loyalty with promises that obliterate public interest. As crucial beneficiaries of good governance, Benue youths must look beyond a senile disposition and reject bonds of servitude that stifle the progress and holistic growth of the state. Seeking the common good as a priority in sociopolitical schemes is a better way of ensuring an outpouring of more persistent dividends. Let us say no to the politics of “pochocracy” and “atuurism” in Benue!

Paul Utser, Ph.D., is a Catholic priest and theologian who has written numerous articles on Benue politics in the past two years.
Paul Terna, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Department of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Federal University of Lafia .