As we all know the electoral season is ramping up around every nook and cranny of the university. With a few of the departments, faculties and hall already conducting their electoral process while others just kicked off their own procedure, there is no doubt that election fever is catching up around University of Ibadan with the semester almost entering its end.
The biggest question mark that has always surrounded every electoral process, is the criteria for which to judge each political candidate that is jostling for power, and what is the best way to judge their competence and viability for the post they aspire to occupy.
Like the case in more contemporary times and places such as Britain and America, political candidates are judged based on their political acumen and ideology, with very few situations does the idea of popularity and personality come into play as a viable means of swaying the electoral college or the people as the case may be.
In Nigeria, ideology takes a back seat to popularity and personality with the masses swayed by what they presume to be the personality of an individual and how popular the said individual is viewed among his peers. In some cases, financial capabilities play a bigger role in deciding the fate of elections in the country, as the more you can dole out, the more probability that you will be elected. And this further entrenched the trait of corruption and lack of accountability in our electoral system, as most of these elected officials, when elected, turned their backs on the electorate believing that after all they have paid their dues, through the financial strength they exhibited during the campaign and electoral process in general. Some even believe it is time to recover the financial liquid they expended during the whole electoral process.
This practice is reverberating in all parts of Nigeria and even in the Nigerian institution. Like the case of UI, electoral processes are in most cases not decided by ideologies or plans of the aspiring candidates but rather the popularity and personality of the said candidates. In most cases the electorate are more concerned about the perceived demoneur and qualities an individual exhibits. Some go by the way or manner of approach, greetings and if at all how often does he/she greets you. How modest does the candidate look, does he look worldly or underworldly, does he count himself too big or proud to stoop low in their presence.
In some cases religious and tribal sentiments come into place, as candidates are judged not only on personality but their religious or tribal inclinations. Which fellowship does he or she attend, what tribe or lineage does this candidate originate from. These sentiments and points of view originate from the primary Nigerian sphere of political system which has found a way to creep into other places and institutions around the country with university of Ibadan not being an exception.
It begs the question why a citadel of learning will choose leaders not based on ideology or plans but rather on good behaviours and perceived personality. And this like in most cases have come back to bite the populace in butt, as elected candidates in most cases don't end up possessing what is required to handle the position they have been elected into because in most cases they are elected on the basis of goodwill rather on the strength of their plans and their ability to carry it out.
A prominent example was the case of Buhari, the former President of Nigeria who was elected not based on his plans but rather on his perceived goodwill, personality and demoneur. This would prove to be a costly mistake that will send the country into a Great economic depression. And it could be argued that the masses did not learn from their mistakes, as the jury is still out on the present administration as things seem to be going from bad to worse. Like the words of great philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel "History teaches us that man learns nothing from history".
Coming back to UI, and Zikhall in particular, the electoral process has always come down to the perceived popularities and personalities of candidates. It seems like the more popular you are and the more likable you are, there is a big possibility that you will be able to maneuver your way into power. The big question should be what should be of most importance; should your popularity and influence way more than your plans and ability to deliver your promises. We keep complaining about bad administration but yet creating a platform for which such bad leadership could thrive.
It is common knowledge that a person deserves what they get all by the consequences of their choice. If you pick a leader based on personality and popularity, there is no reasonable ground for you to start faulting his plans or his inability to perform to your taste, because in the real sense you only have him or her your mandate not based on the plans they have for you but rather based on your relationship and how familiar you are with the candidate in question. It will only be hypocritical to expect what you didn't bargain for. Because even miracles don't just appear from nowhere, you have to work towards it.
So it goes without saying, that inasmuch as we prefer and moved towards familiar candidates, we should not just be swayed by their popularity and human qualities and charisma alone we should also gear to familiarize ourselves with their plans and make decisions on viability of this plans and ideology instead of basking ourselves in the darkness of what we think of their Personality and how popular they are.
.jpeg)
