As we anxiously wait for the year 2007 to come, intending contestants to various elective posts are daily surfacing. In Sokoto, as is the case in a number of states of the country, the incumbent Governor, Alhaji Attahiru Dalhatu Bafarawa, is in his second and final term of his administration. Hence, the search for his successor has begun. Our prayer is that at the end of it all, a God-fearing, honest, welfare- and development-focused person shall be voted to succeed him as the Chief Executive of the state. In this regard, therefore, this piece intends to offer a guidepost of precedence to the intending contestants, with Bafarawa’s mobilization and campaign strategy, style of governance, transparency, accountability and people-oriented development programmes as a point of reference.

 

To begin with, the contour and rough road Bafarawa followed before he entered the State Government House must be well surveyed and studied by the intending contestants with a view to providing them a guidepost in their succession bid. After all, we are constantly reminded “a people with no knowledge of their past would suffer from collective amnesia, grumbling into the future without guidepost of precedence to shape their course…” Let the intending contestants, therefore, reflect on and ponder over the past as they march towards 2007.

 

The first point of reference is the personal qualities of Bafarawa ever before he became Governor – endurance, patience, perseverance and diligence. The rumours that he was nursing ambition to be State Governor pre-dated 1999. The rumours were first circulated during the NRC/SDP era when he was the NRC State Chairman and Malam Yahaya Abdulkarim was the State Governor. Under late Abach’s Transition Programme, rumours went fast circulating that Bafarawa was contesting for the post of State Governor under the defunct UNCP. This time, however, the rumours turned true when he personally declared his intention to contest for the post. The hot contest was, fortunately, laid to rest with the demise of Abacha. Already determined, and having perfected his mobilization strategy, Abdulsalam Abubakar’s Transition Programme provided the best platform for Bafarawa to realize his ambition.

The above is but a pointer to the state political elite that the game of politics is for those who are patient and ability to eschew the virtues of endurance and perseverance. To those who want reckon with history, they should remember, “Rome was not built in a day”.

 

Second, his mass mobilization strategy needs deeper reflection. This is one aspect, which all the intending contestants to the various political posts in the state should learn for possible adoption. The basic hint here is: build up grassroots support. In his own case, Bafarawa had been involved in a number of Community Development Projects and was known for his charity assistance to the needy. He had been gracing occasions where invited be it in Sokoto metropolis or in the rural areas of the state.

 

Third, over the years, his business concern, Bafarawa Petroleum, has been a source of livelihood for a number of youths who are employed either as workers, tanker drivers or distributors of petroleum products in all nooks and corners of the state. Not surprisingly, therefore, when in 1999, he raised up his voice soliciting for support to become the state Governor, the whole state answered.

 

Fourth, his election campaign was well planned. His first target then was the grassroots populace. He carried his campaign banner to almost all the towns and villages of the state. In the state capital, all knew his mission. He conferred with all known personalities in the state – traditional rulers, religious, business and community leaders, Students’ and Youth Leadership and acquainted them of his ambition. In all, he left no stone unturned in his effort to enlighten the electorates on the need to cast their votes wisely. Also, his campaign promises were well articulated and realistic, reflecting the priorities of the state. He was cautious of not promising what, on assumption of leadership, could not be fulfilled.

 

In all this, the lesson for the intending contestants is simple: remain focused and articulate your programme of action to serve as your campaign manifesto, striving to achieve objectives that are realistic. Do not promise turning the state or a part of it to another London or New York when realities on ground do not support such a claim. You might be tempted to make unrealistic campaign promises in your attempts to lure the electorates. If you do so, no sooner had you entered your elective office, you would be called upon to fulfill those promises.

 

Next, it can safely be said that grassroots mass mobilization strategy remains a key factor in winning over the electorates, and not the ‘bigmanship’ approach contestants at times display. Consider, for instance, the rumours being circulated on the eve of 1999 gubernatorial elections that Bafarawa’s political opponents were promised the governorship position even if it was only a vote that they could secure. The fact that such rumours turn untrue show that such idea of godfatherism and the imposition theory were mere imagination of a click of few individuals, within and from outside the state; hence can no longer be adopted as a campaign strategy come 2007.

 

On their part, contending political parties must organize well their structure, alliance and membership. Party leadership must be conversant with the dynamics of grassroots politics and political behaviour to enable them field out acceptable candidates. In grassroots politics, electorates may be tilted or otherwise towards a particular party or gubernatorial candidate simply because of the candidate contesting for councillorship or Council Chairman in their constituency. Thus, imposition of candidates to vie for such grassroots elective posts by any political party may invariably affect the performance of that party’s gubernatorial candidate. This hint is important since logically the grassroots electorates determine the outcome of gubernatorial elections.

 

To this end, intending contestants are employed to, like Bafarawa, be ready to accommodate criticisms and diverse opinions that at times may conflict theirs. As politicians, they might be blackmailed and/or have their records of misdeeds and omissions publicized in an attempt by opponents to make a point. After all, in political contest, the positive sides of the contestants are rarely pronounced. When Bafarawa declared his intention to contest the 1999 elections, the propaganda being circulated then by his political opponents was that he had no experience in modern public bureaucratic organisation and that his standard of education might hamper his ability to deliver as the state Chief Executive. For sure, the propaganda never bothered him. What is the situation today? Hasn’t his performance in terms of delivering the much-needed infrastructure and welfare services equaled, if not surpassed, his counterparts who joined politics after putting in many years of public service and/or with higher academic qualifications? Bafarawa’s performance proves again that ascribing performance or ability to deliver to academic qualification or prolong period of public service is purely elitist and not practically real in our leadership experience.

 

As we await for the year 2007, we employ the intending contenders to exhibit a sense of maturity in the game. They should reflect on the past in order to effectively strategise their plans. They should consider which political party to join and contest under and with whom to form alliance. Reach out to the rural areas and mobilize tirelessly. Remember that only those that are patient, diligent and have the ability to absorb the shocks that may come their way win the hot contest to the Government House. Bafarawa must have realized all this in 1999 and 2003. You too should deeply reflect on this for possible adoption, even if with modifications to suit post-2003 realities.