The Struggle for Power: A Riveting Journey Through Rivers State's History

Certain historical lessons require perpetual reflection to avoid repeating past mistakes. As Edmund Burke aptly noted, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The ongoing turmoil in Rivers State transcends typical political conflicts—it unfolds like a well-worn script. The battle for dominance among influential patrons and their chosen politicians recurs frequently within governmental dynamics, with Rivers State being no different. This conflict isn’t unusual but aligns with widespread patterns of patronage politics, wherein sponsors anticipate unquestioned allegiance from those they support. History provides compelling parallels here, particularly through Niccolò Machiavelli's insights in *The Prince*, which underscored how rulers maintain authority via astute maneuvering, tactical acumen, and at times harsh realism. Wike’s stronghold over River State affairs adheres closely to these principles laid down by Machiavelli. Having served previously as governor and significantly contributing to Fubara’s appointment, Wike anticipated steadfast devotion. Yet, historical precedents indicate that such mentors typically find themselves losing leverage over succeeding leaders. This echoes core tenets highlighted by Machiavelli—power is seized rather than granted outright. Despite Wike's strategic partnerships, sway over the state legislature, and continuing prominence as Federal Capital Territory minister suggesting he remains intent on retaining command, Fubara's recent efforts to operate independently reflect attempts to distance himself from prior dependencies.

Nevertheless, history demonstrates that those in powerful positions who cling tenaciously to their roles frequently encounter significant consequences. It is hard not to reflect upon the situation involving Chief S.L. Akintola during the First Republic, where his relentless political machinations and unwavering determination to retain authority contributed to turmoil and eventually precipitated the downfall of democracy in Nigeria. Internal strife in the Western Region intensified into severe confrontations, legislative impasses, and finally culminated in a coup that dismantled the First Republic. Governor Wike’s fervent efforts to sustain dominion over Rivers State bear an uncanny resemblance to this historical precedent, prompting one to ponder whether history might indeed recur under similar circumstances. Nonetheless, numerous ex-governors have managed to establish their replacements without resorting to overt hostilities.

The shift from Bola Tinubu to Babatunde Fashola in Lagos, as well as Rabiu Kwankwaso handing over to Abdullahi Ganduje in Kano (prior to their subsequent disagreements) and Peter Odili transitioning smoothly to Rotimi Amaechi in Rivers State, illustrate how political succession can happen without public conflicts. Additional instances like Kayode Fayemi passing the baton to Biodun Oyebanji in Ekiti, Udom Emmanuel moving to Pastor Umo Eno in Akwa Ibom, Usman Ododo taking over for Yahya Bello in Kogi state, and Ifeanyi Okowa being succeeded by Sheriff Oborevwori in Delta show that influential figures can step down gracefully without causing undue turmoil. In contrast, Chief Nyesom Wike's situation raises questions about his dominance versus mere political opportunism clouding effective governance.

Shifting focus from historical analysis to political theory, Elite Theory posits that societies are invariably governed by a select few elites, irrespective of whether they operate under democratic or autocratic systems. This perspective is illustrated vividly through the Rivers State crisis. Instead of being a clash between rulers and common people, the situation represents an internal dispute amongst these powerful figures. While both Wike and Fubara occupy high positions in the realm of political control, their contestation renders average citizens bystanders. Even though discussions around democracy and leadership abound, genuine authority stays firmly held by several key players who use governmental frameworks for self-preservation. Furthermore, according to Max Weber’s observations, legitimate rule stems primarily from compliance with structured legal-rational processes rather than emotional allegiances or individual charisma—a notion that weakens when unofficial connections and patronage dynamics supersede formal protocols.

Maria Ressa has observed, "Democracy is delicate. Every element—every law, every protection, every institution, and each narrative—is crucial. Even the smallest breach can be perilous. Therefore, my message to everyone remains: We must maintain our stance." Some backers of President Tinubu argue that his unauthorized interventions should be excused based on ex-President Olusegu Obasanjo’s previous conduct. Indeed, Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo had previously acted unlawfully by suspending governors and imposing states of emergencies. However, those circumstances cannot simply be replicated now. Times have changed significantly since then. Nigerian democracy was just beginning back then; social media did not exist, and information dissemination moved at a much slower pace. For instance, in 2003, Governor Chris Ngige was kidnapped and held captive for several hours, yet the prevailing political climate successfully stifled public outcry.

Associated Homage to Professor Wale Olaitan Challenges within Nigeria’s Travel Sector: Issues Confronted by Travel Agencies Loss for Nigeria, Gain for South Africa: The Impact of Prohibition on the Medical Cannabis Industry

Those times have passed. Nowadays, due to greater democratic understanding, an active media environment, and elevated political mindfulness, such wrongdoings are more difficult to conceal. Even President Obasanjo would be hesitant to carry out such blatant attacks on democracy if he held office now. As Maria Ressa cautions, "To undermine a democracy, you target the truth. This is what contemporary authoritarians do; they lie constantly."

Moreover, a glaring contradiction in Tinubu’s policies deepens this crisis. Even more hypocritical is President Tinubu’s stance on military rule. In the early years of his administration, when a coup occurred in Niger Republic, he threatened military intervention and condemned military dictatorship. Yet today, he has effectively imposed a military dictatorship in Rivers State by suspending a duly elected governor and installing a retired military officer as sole administrator. This contradiction exposes the selective application of democratic principles—defending democracy abroad while subverting it at home.

The contradictions have intensified following the Supreme Court's latest decision, which confirmed that Governor Fubara lacks authority to allocate funds without legislative approval. In contrast, an appointed individual can now manage these resources without such appropriations. The judiciary faces the challenge of explaining how these discrepancies are justified. Given its responsibility as the protector of the constitution, the Supreme Court should reflect on whether its decisions are upheld or exploited for strategic gains. Moreover, President Tinubu has unmistakably chosen a stance in this conflict. Rather than acting impartially like a mediator, he has sidelined an elected official by suspending him while keeping an unelected person, Wike, within his administration. Such discriminatory treatment undermines the legitimacy of his interventions and highlights their politically motivated character.

In response to Ressa’s plea to protect our democratic institutions at any cost, let us reflect upon the eternal lessons offered by history. As Winston Churchill famously stated, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have occasionally been tested." These words provide crucial perspective on the present predicament. The President’s unlawful action was exacerbated by the National Assembly’s brazen support of an unconstitutional declaration. Their hasty rejection via a simple voice vote underscores the extent of institutional deterioration. A matter requiring careful consideration was hastily resolved using procedures prone to confusion and exploitation. John Adams cautioned, “Liberty can’t be maintained without widespread public education,” yet this assembly undermines that ideal by diminishing itself into nothing more than a means for endorsing unchecked executive behavior. Instead of fortifying democratic oversight, the National Assembly inadvertently hastens the decline of democracy. The inability of legislative bodies to effectively counterbalance executive powers weakens both transparency and governance, paving the way for potential abuse of authority. Recalling Lord Acton’s profound statement about how “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” reminds us that power wields dual consequences—it seduces but fades swiftly. President Tinubu would do well to remember a key tenet of statecraft: when intimidation tactics target elites, fears spread widely within their ranks. Lateef Fagbemi hinted at such dynamics during his press briefing, indicating possible future interventions across various regions. Although politicians might currently submit publicly to President Tinubu, internally they plot against him. Historical evidence indicates that unbridled exercise of power invariably incites opposition—even from unlikely sources.

Drawing from this insight into the fragile essence of authority, ponder upon President Abraham Lincoln’s warning: "Virtually everyone can endure hardship, yet to truly assess a person's character, one must grant them influence." Like Wike, he needs to recognize that control is fleeting. Numerous individuals prior to him—including military dictators and authoritarian leaders—all possessed supreme command at some point but eventually vanished politically. It would be wise for him to reflect on figures such as Sani Abacha, Muammar Gaddafi, and Nicolae Ceausescu; these examples illustrate how swiftly even those once invincible can fall, serving as grim reminders that no ruler stays unchallenged indefinitely. Furthermore, this situation underscores the clear connection between legal frameworks and financial success. Serious investors hesitate when they see judicial systems undermined, legislative bodies weakened, and executives operating without restraint. Economic volatility discourages foreign direct investment since companies prefer settings where regulations remain consistent and ownership protections are upheld. Continued weakening of democratic structures won’t just impact Rivers State adversely—it could also jeopardize Nigeria’s broader economic outlook. In summary, the turmoil in Rivers State serves as an important lesson regarding the perils of unrestrained greed, internal conflicts among elites, and declining democratic norms. For democracy to fulfill its intended role, citizens ought to champion their freedoms and insist on transparency. Without this intervention, historical patterns suggest that cycles of conflict over dominance will persist, leading to severe repercussions for leadership stability and progress.

Aristotle once astutely remarked, "The destiny of empires hinges upon the education of young people." It is imperative for Nigerians to draw lessons from past political blunders and actively participate in forging their own futures. Should political patrons persist in valuing individual dominance above communal welfare, true democratic progress will elude them, leading to perpetual cycles of repetition in historical patterns.

Charles is a political scientist, strategic advisor, and specialist in public affairs analysis.

ALSO EXPLORE MORE FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

Stay updated with the latest news from Tribune Online in real time! Connect with us on WhatsApp for immediate alerts, special reports, and behind-the-scenes conversations. Subscribe to our WhatsApp channel today!

Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).