Potential and Promise of Political Dramas
As far back as I have looked in politics and governance time, drama has been featured as upheaval, tumult, patronage, assassinations, coup, riot, outrage, recovery, policy, suspense, and tweetstorms. Like a well scripted TV show, a good guesstimate does not get rid of your viewing appetite. In different parts of the world, the last couple of years has been laced with unexpected turns in state actors and structures. These events build enormous momentum and anticipation for better governance — at least among supporters. When the dust settles, it is tough coming to terms with the worth of the momentous drama. What is the real value of political drama? Does it always promise so much and deliver little? Why is that? When and how does it result in meaningful redirection in governance and not business as usual or worse?
There’s a drama near you
Jacob Zuma’s resignation was some exciting news to hear, for everyone interested in the successes of good governance. The day before he resigned, I was muting to a friend that allowing the Gupta’s follow the news in the comfort of their homes was injustice. The following day, the South Africa’s elite police unit raided their homes, it was sign to me that Zuma will go down. This refreshed my contemplation on political dramas. This time, I picked up at pressure points that lead to these dramatic outcomes and I will talk about those in a bit.
Another fairly recent drama was in Nigeria’s 2015 general elections in which a seating president was removed from office by polls. The result was unprecedented in Nigeria. Every piece of it was dramatic: voters education and engagement, politicians strategic maneuvers and elections commissions posture. There was so much to marinate on and the embers from 2015 still fly around as high expectation among a dwindling number of Nigerians holding on that, governance will soon be marked with public interest distinctions. It has been an appalling running debate at every turn.
Westward is not different. Barring all unresolved questions, debates and allegations surrounding Trump, his emergence was dramatic and a promise of hope to some segment of the American public. I do not think he has made it easy for anyone to maintain support for him. The boast made about his distinctions are sometimes delusional. In some matters I give him credit, like getting me to pay attention to his Korean friend. It is as though the wisdom and machinery that delivered his votes has since malfunctioned in the face of governing. Was there ever a chance that he could make America great again? I do not know the answer to that but I know that political dramas are not overrated. We need to figure out how to make the most of them.
Triggers to political drama
Since Jacob Zuma’s fate made news, media sources have presented rich perspectives on how and why it happened. It is a fine summary of pressure points for political drama. Amabunghane and Transparency International have good back stories of individuals who early on engaged in fierce and vibrant journalism. I saw this list from Amolo Emmanuel and Patrick Gaspard:
- Fiercely independent journalism laced with objectivity and nationalism
- Robust civil society resistance that called government to account
- Public servants with integrity and courage to stand up to corrupt officials
- Viable opposing voice mirroring and querying the government.
A starter pack for political drama. It is probably missing citizen voices demanding for Zuma’s resignation but that can be argued to echo through journalism, civil society and public servants.
Journalism and civil society are more popular instigators compared to public servants. Ayo Sogunro tweeted about two kinds on Nigerian political thinkers: those who propose systems change and others who say players need to change. I will say public servants are the personification of systems change. In these climes, such expectations lose charm with time and pressure but there might be a nascent rising with “integrity idol type” thinking.
Viable opposition deserves more attention, credit, exploration and follow through than they get for their role in political dramas. Perhaps, because their formation permits them to conduct selves in opaque ways. The motivation and intent of oppositions are necessarily masked as aligned with public interest: citizen voices, journalistic critique and civil society pressure. In essence they are individuals (same political party or not) with the most advanced machinery to fill the vacuum created by political drama.
Everything but opposition looks right
In the heat of these development, there is limited time and space to vet motive and capability of the opposition. They are like actors thrust into old roles and trusted to deliver on the potential and promise of a tolerated TV show. Is there a way to isolate the machinery that catalyses the drama from the opposition? Is taking the reigns of leadership not the reward for being the opposition? Is there a way to let the vacuum fester for a while without erupting anarchy? The present goal is clearly to offload bad governance. Can the vision of that goal be stretched to contemplate and plan for after we offload bad governance. It is rarely the case. The circle repeats and painfully so.
Jacob Zuma pissed off enough important people in opposition, as well as the rest of his electorate. He lost protection. He created sufficient motivation for people who should align with him to find it distasteful to do so. It became too expensive to stay aligned with him. Bad governance will be removed if their propensity to piss off stakeholders rises above a threshold and gets sustained for a period. But did bad governance always intend to be bad?
Perhaps my newest contemplations are how can that propensity be consistently dangled in front of elected officials to keep them performing rather than being the consequence of losing office. Can losing support be an incentive to stay away from having a run at pissing off electorates?
