A band of devoted party people once sold their cherished belongings – farmlands, houses, automobiles, others; another set had accidents, suffered trauma and bodily injuries; yet another approached their bankers and wired out staggering sums – all in trying to placate party needs, bankroll campaign rallies and facilitate other logistics. They might have been jeered at and endured possible other forms of ridicule and hardship in the process of stamping commitments to their parties. But when victory finally came for parties and candidates, names of such committed members vanished from appointments’ list! Rather, opposition hotheads – renowned for their attacks on the party and its personalities – were rewarded with coveted posts. Broken and forgotten, the diehard loyalists who could count their years of devotedness in decades and investments in staggering sums – now discredited and disgraced in a strange political calculation that has left them obviously sidetracked – withdrew into a quiet, solitary life of sorrow. Even if they did not openly defect to other parties or carry placards to protest their wasted sacrifices, their fate – reduced to ashes by their party leadership’s reverse gratitude trademark – told all the story!

Such picture as painted here has been familiar experience among party people, both males and females, especially those of so-labelled progressives’ fold, from Ekiti, to Osun, Ogun, Ondo and Lagos states, while comparable experience is not unlikely across other states! In Osun, a now former governor, who initially won through the courts, openly declared he would not prosecute opposition elements who brutally tormented, even murdered, scores of his supporters! He later became friends and hobnobbed with the same band of erstwhile ‘dangerous’ elements! Another past governor within same zone had equally relied on and procured critical support and grace of certain individuals from his state, individuals located both within and outside the country, from the very initial stage of his struggles to clinch party nomination and ticket, only to turn away such ‘used’ individuals, denying them even slightest opportunity of meeting him immediately he entered, and for the entire length of his stay in, office wherein he spent eight staggered years! Yours sincerely has, more than once, been a recipient of this regressive gift from the leaders!

In the annals of confounding paradoxes of politics, few phenomena are as bewildering, as galling, and as corrosive to the moral fabric of party life as the curious logo of reverse or regressive gratitude attitude of party helmsmen, particularly the chief executives – presidents, governors, council chairmen, ministers, commissioners, others. A trend that has become the hallmark of so-called progressives in our dear land is effectively an inverted ethic, whereby loyalty is punished and opposition rewarded, whereby sacrifice is disregarded and opportunism exalted. So much has it entrenched itself in the marrow of contemporary political practice that one is left wondering whether the very word “progressive” has not been emptied of its semantic content and refilled with its antithesis. Not a few of these loyal, but relegated, party bigwigs today have suffered psychological, even physiological attacks upon such betrayals!  The spectacle is not unfamiliar: men and women who have borne the brunt of political struggle, who have invested their treasure, their time, and in some tragic instances even their blood, find themselves cast aside when the spoils of victory are being portioned out, while those who once thundered against the party and sharpened their tongues in antagonism are suddenly enthroned in positions meant for supporters. The irony is so stark and bewildering that it borders on the unthinkable, the grotesque!

But what logic could undergird this inversion? What calculus could persuade so-called progressives that fidelity is dispensable and rebellion meritorious? The answer, though slightly elusive, lies in awkward valuation of visibility over loyalty. In the theatre of politics, the loudest voice often eclipses the most steadfast heart.

Those who have vociferously antagonised the party acquire a certain notoriety, a public profile that, in the assessments of strategists, can be transmuted into political capital. To co-opt such figures is seen as a masterstroke: it neutralises an adversary while simultaneously flaunting the party’s magnanimity. Yet, this magnanimity is counterfeit and misplaced, for it is purchased at the expense of those whose devotion had been unalloyed and unflagging. Thus, the summation of ‘progressive’ leaders is not moral but tactical; it is not concerned with honour, but with optics – everything deriving from sheer sense of expediency! In this schema, the loyalist becomes invisible precisely because loyalty is quiet, unspectacular, and therefore unmarketable! The dissenter, by contrast, becomes valuable because dissent is noisy, dramatic, and newsworthy. The result is a ludicrous inversion of values: fidelity is discounted and penalised, antagonism valued and rewarded! Consequences of regressive gratitude attitude are not abstract, though! They are interred in the biographies of countless party members who have suffered grievous losses. Some, in the crucible of struggles, have mortgaged their properties to finance campaigns; others have endured imprisonment, harassment, or the loss of family members. Quite a number of the victims of party ingratitude have died, tormented till their dying days by a fate they considered entirely unmerited, undeserved.  

History offers ample testimony to the dangers of such value inversion. Political movements that have disregarded genuine loyalists in favour of opportunistic characters have often found themselves hollowed out, bereft of genuine commitment, and vulnerable to implosion! The annals of revolutions are littered with examples of stalwarts who were sidelined while buccaneers were enthroned, leading to factionalism, betrayal, and eventual collapse. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and countless postcolonial struggles bear witness to this tragic pattern. But why does ingratitude persist in politics? The psychology of progressives seems to be animated by a peculiar insecurity. Having attained power, they fear the visibility of opposition more than they value the loyalty of supporters. They imagine that co-opting a vociferous adversary will silence criticism and project inclusivity. Yet, this inclusivity is hollow, for it is purchased at the cost of betrayal.

This psychology is compounded by a certain arrogance. Progressives often imagine that loyalty is automatic, that faithful members will remain regardless of neglect. They underestimate the corrosive power of ingratitude.

They fail to recognise that loyalty, like any virtue, requires nourishment: when neglected, it withers; betrayed, it dies. Beyond the tactical and psychological dimensions lies the moral question regarding preferring those who have opposed the party over known/committed supporters. It means the party has abandoned the principle of honour, which involves recognition of fidelity, the acknowledgment of sacrifice, the reward of commitment. To disregard honour is to embrace dishonour. A party that rewards opposition while punishing loyalty is not merely tactically misguided; it is morally bankrupt. This moral bankruptcy as often evinced by successful political office seekers and ranking public figures within the progressive fold has consequences beyond the party. It corrodes the political culture of the nation; it teaches citizens that loyalty is futile, that sacrifice is unrewarded; and that opportunism is the path to advancement. How does it indeed feel to see the one who fought frantically to reverse one’s efforts as an opposing force in the heat of struggles being the one ultimately aced by the fruits one’s labour? The dishonour seems extremely insulting, even nauseating, when the Reno Omokris, Femi Fani-Kayodes, Daniel Bwla, Atiku Abubakar’s former spokesperson, among possible others, are ones reaping rewards for having vigorously invested against the success which they effectively campaigned against and sought to blockade! Is this politics or reprehensible diffidence?   

The wrongs regularly foisted by progressive leaders customarily go beyond misplaced kindness, however. There is equally the trend of denying party members basic care through deliberate creation of artificial scarcity. This has often been tagged ‘weaponisation of poverty’! From states to councils, party leaders in the progressives’ fold have made themselves die-in-the-wool hoarders, rather than temporary custodians, of goodies, most especially food items, handed down from central offices, but meant for free distribution to general members, items which they routinely corner and dole out only sparingly to select favourites, leaving the party members wondering who owns what and for what purposes! While some of these leaders often, under the cover, sold off the items and kept the cash for personal purposes, the items – occasionally warehoused for years/decades – eventually go bad and expire! Such regressive, if miserly, wickedness by the party leaders partly, but quite significantly, explained electoral losses to opposition candidates in both Osun and Ekiti states!

Remedy is immediate extension of olive branches to the surviving, but already horribly wronged, ones among party people, and active cultivation of appreciation and generosity mindset by leaders! Progressives must renew their knowledge concerning virtues of exalting those who have sacrificed for the party, wherever they now are, and halt the trend of rewarding more individuals who have invested less! They must recognise that loyalty is not automatic but cultivated, not inexhaustible but finite. Only then can the progressives restore their moral compass which so far has suffered significant atrophy. Factually, criticisms which trailed ambassadorial appointments of popular opposition figures seems well and solidly founded, precisely as appointments are generally and sensibly believed to represent a culmination of determined, even traceable, commitment to party and candidate. But when portfolios are awarded to actors for their history of undesirable actions and declarations, the threshold of decency must seem immediately abused, and integrity of awardees challenged!

*Salawudeen, essayist/polemicist, wrote via [email protected]