Ernest Osogbue.
In my many years of political observations and monitoring of political campaigns, I have discovered that politicians make fundamental errors. One error that has remained poignant in my observations, and which most politicians continue to make, is the effort to demarket opponents, by damaging their reputation to the electorate during campaign stops. Unknown to them, this approach, is a double edged sword that cuts both ways.
Rubbishing opponents does not only manifest in Nigeria, but also in developed countries, though to a lesser extent, due to the efforts of political strategists, who help to guide candidates on their wardrobe, demeanor, speech, and carriage. In Nigeria, politicians mostly depend on an unwieldy campaign council; a mixed multitude of supposed party loyalists, who spoil the broth most often than not. The Nigerian politician on the other hand, is inherently arrogant, and disdains professional guidance. That is mostly the reason why some of them speak out of turn and end up making a ridicule of themselves.
Take the recent gaffe by the NDC presidential candidate Peter Obi, who was said to have warned Nigerians in the diaspora, to not respond to the cries of their relatives back home for financial assistance. The scramble, by the NDC, and the Obi media team, to quench the resultant fire from that comment, could have been avoided, had the candidate subjected himself to the guidance of a political strategist. But no, Nigerian politicians know it all and baulk at the employment of professionals, while mostly depending on their emotional appeal. They step on the lectern and say whatever is first on their lips, which oftentimes leads to avoidable gaffes.
Let’s take the 2015 presidential election in Nigeria, as an instance, where I was present at a campaign event organised by the PDP, to put out its position on the campaign, and sell candidate Jonathan, the incumbent president to Nigerians. It was a media parley by the PDP campaign organization, as led by Femi Fani-Kayode, FFK, who was the DG, with political editors of major news organizations. My then colleague, Victorson Agbenson, who was political editor at Radio Nigeria, had invited me to come along as an observer. At the event, FFK, reeled out the numerous atrocities and sins of the APC, and it’s leadership. He lampooned Buhari, calling out his name about 9 times, and vilified Bola Tinubu, and called out his name about 15 times. The statement only named President Jonathan 3 times.
The entire statement had left me flabbergasted; why would FFK mention Tinubu and Buhari’s names more times than that of Jonathan, in a PDP statement? I expressed my surprise to Agbenson, informing him that I do not believe it was a good strategy to name an opponent more times than yourself during campaigns.
Fast forward to 2016, and by this time, I had emigrated to the US, just before the acrimonious presidential election campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As was to be expected, I was in the Clinton corner. Outside of that, I was based in Maryland, a typically democratic party state. I joined a group helping Madam Clinton with campaign sensitization and in doing the little I could to help her win. I observed however, that Mrs. Clinton was more about destroying Donald Trump’s reputation. She focused on his supposedly negative perception by women, and spent a lot of time calling out Trump’s name at every campaign stop; his purported sexual escapades, crooked business practices, and reported disrespect of women. On one occasion, I recall how she went lyrical, while on television, saying; we must trump Trump, an allusion to the fact that Donald Trump must be defeated. Supporters at the venue had gone wild with excitement at the rhyme scheme, and bellowed out a resounding applause.
I kept asking myself why Mrs. Clinton took delight in calling out Trump’s name at her own campaign rallies? Suffice it to say, that both Jonathan and Clinton, lost their respective elections at the end of the day. Another scenario that lends credence to my hypothesis, was the 2016 and 2020 governorship elections in Edo State. Adams Oshiomohle (APC) the then outgoing governor, went out of his way to make damaging comments about the opposition PDP candidate, Osagie Ize-Iyamu, while promoting Godwin Obaseki, the APC candidate. While Obaseki won that 2016 election, by 2020 however, when Obaseki was seeking re-election, a seismic shift had already taken place in the political space in the state, with Governor Obaseki trading places with his rival. While Ize-Iyamu, was now the APC flag bearer, Obaseki now represented the PDP. Ironically, all the PDP had to do, was to unearth previous vitriolic attacks on the character of Ize-Iyamu, by the APC chieftain, and former Edo State governor, Adams Oshiomohle, and replay it to Edo people. It was a masterstroke indeed, and a sobering moment for Oshiomohle and Ize-Iyamu, as Oshiomohle’s previous damaging comments came back to bite both him and Ize-Iyamu. It was a bitter lesson in not going all out to damage an opponent, as there are usually no permanent enemies in politics. Suffice it to say that Ize-Iyamu expectedly lost that election, despite the majority of Edo people not feeling very comfortable with Obaseki at the time.
While the efforts to damage the opponent may not be the only reason why the above politicians lost, I believe that focusing on doing damage to an opponent, instead of focusing on yourself, ultimately damages your campaign. It presents a candidate as having nothing to say about himself. A political campaign is like a job application, it should be more about extolling your own virtues, presenting your track record, and telling the voters the new ideas you intend to bring to governance. It could therefore, be counterproductive giving your opponent a free mention on your platform. In the Jonathan instance above, I left that PDP campaign event, with Tinubu and Buhari ringing in my ears from FFK’s statement, instead of Jonathan. Likewise in the Clinton scenario, by constantly mentioning Donald Trump’s name during her campaigns, Hilary Clinton inadvertently planted Donald Trump in the subconscious of undecided voters, who ultimately swung the vote in Trump’s direction. The Ize-Iyamu situation was quite funny and an eye opener, where positions dramatically reversed and one’s previous comments came back to haunt them.
Situations abound in Nigeria and around the world where politicians who took delight in damaging their opponents turned around to eat their own vomit. The current US secretary of state Marco Rubio, while campaigning against Donald Trump, for the Republican Party nomination, once called Donald Trump a conman, and a man not fit to lead the Republican Party, or the United States. Today, the same Marco Rubio acts like a lapdog to Donald Trump, echoing his every word and presenting him as the American Messiah. The situation continues to haunt him, and may ultimately cost him a future presidential run, at the end of Trump’s tenure. In Nigeria, the attacks on candidate Bola Tinubu by Daniel Bwala and Reno Omokri, in the lead up to the 2023 presidential election, have continued to haunt both men, as they have equally gone back to their vomit, by singing the praises and deciding to work with President Tinubu. The same man they lampooned, mocked, and said was unfit for office in the lead up to the 2023 presidential election. These are just a few examples of politicians being overzealous on the campaign trail and later coming back to eat their own words.
In a recent survey, it was shown that in disrespecting Shawn Carter, aka Jay-Z, in his songs before his death, Tupac Shakur, the legendary late American rapper, inadvertently helped to make Jay-Z, more popular. Jay-Z was only an up and coming rapper from New York at the time of Tupac’s murder, but today, he stands as the richest musician in history, thanks to Tupac, and remains the greatest beneficiary of the death of Tupac and Biggie, aka Christopher Wallace. This lends credence to the fact that the best way to defeat your opponent, is by not acknowledging them, but by ignoring them.
This scenario is more acute in politics, and I have since discovered that it is absolutely wrong to wish to destroy your opponents by recognizing them on the campaign trail. I usually advise political office seekers, to avoid the temptation to constantly mention the name of their opponents during campaigns, or while on media events. Always act like you are already the winner of the election, mentally claim the position and present yourself as the only candidate. Pretend as if your opponents do not exist. If at all they must be mentioned, or the need arises to reference them, do so in a dismissive manner, rather than a long diatribe of their negative attributes. Always focus on yourself; what you have achieved, what you bring to the position, and the great things you intend to do after the election. Never give the opposition a free pass on your campaign. While negative comments about opponents may ginger supporters, and engender vociferous applause at rallies, psychological analysis from exit polls, show that it is the name that voters hear constantly and most frequently, that sticks in their subconscious, and it is that name that attracts their thump print when they are alone in the voting booth.
It is therefore most important for politicians to focus more on themselves on the campaign trail, than in seeking to damage opponents by vitriolic attacks, which almost always tend to backfire.
