Psychologists call the pattern that people go through when they experience a serious loss the “cycle of grief”. It is a universal process experienced by all kinds of people in all kinds of situation, and involves five stages. There are many variants of these stages, but usually they go like this. When someone suffers a serious loss, such as bereavement or the loss of a precious job, the first reaction is shock or disbelief. Here, the feeling can be one of complete numbness or even passing out due to the unexpectedness of the loss. But soon the shock will wear off only to give way to the denial. This is the stage where the loss is so unreal to the person grieving that he or she refuses to accept the reality of the situation. “No, it’s not true; this can’t happen” are some of the likely reactions. But with the realisation of the truth comes anger. The anger stage is usually characterised by the blame game. Somebody or something must be blamed; even though it is the wrong person or the wrong thing, it doesn’t matter. Don’t expect people to behave rationally in the anger phase; they are normally emotional and simply want to find blame. Then after the anger comes despair or depression. This is a dangerous phase because when despair sets in, the situation often seems unbearable, and hopelessness may make some people take rash decisions. But for most people the grieving process always ends with acceptance of the loss, the coming to terms with the situation, and the willingness to begin life again. Only after this stage can real recovery begin.
Political parties and politicians can go through the same grieving process when they suffer painful rejection by the electorate. For instance, in the UK, the Labour party is undergoing its own grieving after recently suffering its worst election defeat in 30 years. The shock and the denial that accompanied the party’s crushing defeat in the May 7 general election have since come and gone. But Labour is now in the anger phase. As the party seeks another leader after the resignation of Ed Miliband, who led them to the defeat, the defeat debate has largely taken the form of blame game, with the main leadership candidates and their supporters blaming different aspects of the party’s policies and approaches to issues for the defeat.
What is, however, interesting and positive about the Labour “civil war”, as someone put it, is that the debate is about the future direction of the party. It is a battle of ideas, a battle to define what the party should stand for; what its values, vision and policies should be. If the party can overcome the anger and bargaining stages and elect a credible candidate as its new leader, it can avoid or skip the despair phase, and move straight to the acceptance stage, where it comes to terms with its loss. It can then rebuild and rise again, and face the 2020 general election with confidence. A useful lesson about the grieving process is that it’s better to quickly come to terms with the loss and rise again rather than wallow in denial or anger, which, if care is not taken, can harden into despair.
So, how has the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) been dealing with its loss of power after 16 years as this country’s ruling party? First, let’s be clear: in the scale of political losses, the defeat of the PDP at the federal level after 16 years in power is a monumental loss. This is especially so because PDP ran a crony government and patronage network in which many politicians and hangers-on lived off the state as scroungers for so long. The panic that set in as these politicians stared at defeat in the presidential election, which triggered the ignoble behaviour of some PDP henchmen, such as Godsday Orubebe who disrupted the final collation of the results, was a clear indication of how painful the loss would be for the PDP. Indeed, some PDP politicians immediately jumped from shock and denial straight to despair by abandoning the party to join the victorious All Progressives Congress (APC). Clearly, for these political turncoats, the loss of power was too unbearable that they couldn’t come to terms with the loss and stay in the PDP to help rebuild the party. It simply confirms that in the grieving process not everyone gets to the acceptance and rising-again phase!
However, for those who remain in the PDP, it is safe to say that they have overcome the shock and denial stages. Even Orubebe has apologised for his shameful behaviour, and some PDP stalwarts have congratulated the APC. But, like the Labour party, PDP is now in the anger stage. And in that stage it is blame galore! However, unlike the Labour party, the PDP’s defeat debate and blame game have focused on personality and campaign strategy, and not on policy issues. The party’s national chairman, Adamu Mu’azu, and chairman of the Board of Trustees, Tony Anenih, were blamed for their actions and inactions, and forced to resign. The party’s National Working Committee and Presidential Campaign Organisation have been pointing accusing fingers at each other. Not to be left out is the chairman of the PDP Governors’ Forum, Godswill Akpabio, who is also blamed for his role in the elections. And so is Jonathan’s wife, Patience, whose behaviour was believed to have irritated many voters. Then, of course, the campaign strategy: some PDP leaders blame the party’s hate campaign for its loss.
So, then, if PDP leaders are to be believed, the party lost the presidential election because of the failings of different individuals during the campaign as well as the campaign strategy itself. Not once amid the cacophony of the defeat debate or analysis are we told about the PDP values and policies that alienated the Nigerian people, about the party’s economic policy, which, despite the GDP growth, did not improve the lives of millions of Nigerians; about the fact that under Jonathan Boko Haram killed nearly 15,000 Nigerians and kidnapped thousands of girls; about the fact that Jonathan’s weak and incompetent leadership allowed arrogant ministers to act with impunity and ‘get away with murder’; about the fact that corruption and abuse of power were deeply entrenched under Jonathan, and that under him Nigeria no longer commanded international respect, and had, in fact, become a laughing stock in diplomatic circles. The list goes on.
Suddenly but belatedly Jonathan found his mojo during the campaign to tackle the Boko Haram insurgency frontally, and found his authority after losing the election to fire several erring officials and approve a number of new programmes. Indeed, he probably sacked more officials (not the big fishes, of course) and signed off more new projects since he lost the election than he did in the larger part of his six years in office. It was as if he was desperate to secure some last-minute legacies. But what a strange leader who tried to close the stable door after the horse has bolted! With his education and relative youthfulness, both of which should invest him with ideas and dynamism, Jonathan had the potential to be a successful leader but he chose to be a laidback and mediocre one. Of course, his noble act of conceding defeat in the presidential election has burnished his reputation locally and internationally. But if PDP is analysing why it lost the election, it cannot exclude Jonathan’s weak, incompetent and lacklustre leadership from the equation.
The truth is that most Nigerians had concluded long before the presidential election that Jonathan’s handling of the security issues, of corruption, of the wellbeing of ordinary Nigerians, and of governance generally was so poor and detrimental to the progress of this country that he did not deserve a second-term. To be sure, there was no overwhelming enthusiasm for Buhari, except in the core North, but for most Nigerians four more years of Jonathan as president would be a disaster for the country. A more competent and people-oriented Jonathan administration and a more coherent and less conceited PDP would probably have given Buhari and APC a run for their money! But, in the end, Buhari and APC exploited and benefitted from the frustrations of most Nigerians with Jonathan and his party.
So, it is important that as PDP dissects its defeat it learns the right lessons about why it lost. Certainly, it can’t blame its campaign, appalling as it was. It can’t blame the party chairman or some other party officials; their role was not pivotal. It wasn’t even the insurgent APC, because the APC was, in part, the making of the PDP. For instance, imagine APC without the five former PDP governors (the so-called G5), the former PDP national chairmen, and the countless former PDP legislators and party leaders, including General Olusegun Obasanjo, a former PDP president. The fact is that PDP became a house divided and inevitably fell. The party and Jonathan also became out of touch with the Nigerian people and lost their confidence. Nigerians wanted a government that could protect them and change their lives. PDP simply couldn’t provide that. They wanted a president that had gravitas and that could provide decisive and effective leadership. Jonathan lacked those qualities. These are the main reasons for PDP’s loss in the presidential election, and should be part of the open and honest debate that PDP should have about its future.
But for the vibrancy of Nigeria’s democracy we need PDP to come to terms with its loss, rebuild and rise again. PDP must be able to provide robust opposition and an alternative vision to that of the APC. It must be credible enough to be competitive for the next general election. However, it can’t do any of these unless it first answers the critical question about what it stands for. No modern political party can survive without committing to a clear set of beliefs and values. A party’s political philosophy and orientation shapes its programmes, policies ad behaviour. The fickleness of party affiliation in Nigeria is largely due to the fact that the political parties are so much alike and do not present alternative visions. The PDP should use its period in opposition to redefine itself. The APC calls itself a progressive party, and has some leftist or socialist agenda. How does the PDP see itself: a centre-right party? Clearly, Nigeria needs a party that believes in free markets, small state, strong defence and strong economy, and, ultimately, that recognises that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people through ensuring their personal security and safety, and through creating better jobs and improving living standards. Essentially, a party that can combine economic efficiency with national security and social justice. These are grounds on which PDP can compete intellectually and on policy terms with APC.
To be clear, I am not a member of any political party and hold no partisan views, but I believe that a vibrant democracy needs strong political parties, both the governing and the opposition. Like most Nigerians, I was thrilled that for the first time in this country we had an electorally-induced change of government at the federal level in a free and fair election. I believe that process of genuine competition for power should be nurtured and entrenched in Nigeria. That’s why I want PDP to get over its political grief and rebuild. It must skip the despair stage of the cycle of grief if it wants to be competitive again. Of course, like every government, APC will experience its own wear and tear and make mistakes. But PDP’s chance of winning in 2019 will not simply depend on exploiting APC’s failings; it will depend on whether it presents a credible alternative vision and represents a credible alternative government. Four years is not eternity, so the task of repositioning the PDP should start now!
Olu Fasan
