S.M. Afolabi, Gone With the Winds
“Afolabi, made by the press, is now undone by the press; he should have watched out and sensed the wind blowing in that studio when he allowed journalists to put his head in the noose which, had been tightened before he knew it.”
Ray Ekpu, in his column in the Sunday Times, allowed the passion of theory to tamper with his usually settled mind when he wrote that the press doesn’t make leaders. He was arguing against the so-called censorship clause in the electoral bill recently passed in the National Assembly which Presient Shagari grudgingly signed into law. He said that the censorship was “based on the false assumption that it is the press, not the people, that crowns the king.” After saying that many Americans held the view that the television elected John Kennedy as the president of the United States, Mr. Ekpu said: “But research in the field shows that people expose themselves selectively to media messages that are consistent with, or tend to reinforce, the political views they already hold. Media opinion can however affect “floating voters,’ who need some information in order to be swayed one way or another.” That is the theory that imprisoned my friend’s floating mind. In the first place, he didn’t offer any argument to prove wrong those Americans who held the view that the television made Kennedy the president of the US. But research also showed that the election eve debate between Kennedy and Richard Nixon more than closed the chapter against Nixon in that closely contested election.
Ray must also be aware that the self-same Nixon had used television to a adevastating effect in resurrecting his political fortunes in Califonia in the 50s when he had to contend with the scandal involving his dog, Chequers. The best rebuttal of Ray’s theory is the election of Jimmy Carter as the president of the United States, a man clearly made and unmade by the American media. Jimmy Carter who had lost an election to become the governor of Georgia, which he won on a second try, decided to run for the American presidency. He was hardly known in the US beyond the borders of the small state of Georgis where he had served as governor for one term. The presidential candidates for the two major parties in the US, the Democratic and the Republican parties, are nominated in a series of primaries of each of the parties. The first Democratic primary takes place in New Hampshire, America’s tiniest state. But before that, a caucus of the Democratic party takes place in the farmland state of Iowa. Jimmy Carter, called then Jimmy Who? – for not many knew about him – had come third in that race. But he ran against notables and veteran seekers of the Democratic ticket like Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Hubert Humphrey and Edward Muskie.
When reporting the race, John Apple, the New York Times senior political correspondent, argued ingenuously that Carter won that race, notwithstanding his third place on the ticket because, Apple argued, if an unknown could do so well against known heavy weights, then he was a man to be taken seriously. He pronounced him the winner. The Times is an influential newspaper, American paper of record, and if the paper then said that third place is same thing as the first place, or even better as was the case in the circumstance, then it has to be true. And henceforth, Jimmy Who? Graduated to Jimmy Carter, a serious candidate, and indeed the man to beat – can you beat that? – and thus, when he ran second in the New Hampshire primary a couple of months later, he was called a better winner by the Times. On that occasion, most of the American media echoed that conclusion. After all, if the New York said that was the situation, then that was the situation. By the next primary in Florida, Carter won, and everyone began to analyse the other candidates in terms of how they ran in comparison to Carter. Of course, Carter won that nomination, and the rest is now history. The same Jimmy Carter almost got derailed near the election by the American press when he allowed himself to get carried away and told the PLAYBOY magazine that he had always lusted in his heart – committing fornication in thought.
The waters then got rough; that statement cut his popularity rating by more than 10 points and he almost got washed by the tide. His demise as a president was caused more by the press than by any other factor, as the media tore him into pieces, presenting him as a bumbling, emotional, inconsistent and a light weight. That was what made him a one-term president. All this shows how the press makes and unmakes politicians. This, however, is not a discussion on the press censorship law, that would come one day soon. What is of interest today is what the press has done to S.M Afolabi, the Deputy Governor of Oyo State, or what the gentleman has allowed the press to do to him, apropos Jimmy Carter’s lust in the heart. Before he went on the air to tell listeners of the Lagos Radio Newsmakers programme that he knew of five fellows in the UPN who could succeed Chief Obafemi Awolowo in the case of his demise, Afolabi’s chances to give Bola Ige a good fight for the UPN gubernatorial nomination for Oyo State was very good. Perceiving himself as a sure shot and sensing the rising tide in the deceptive interview, he thought that he could address himself on the succession to Chief Awolowo. One, Afolabi is not familiar with Graham Greene’s warning that heroism stops where politics begin. Awolowo’s succession is a valid thing to discuss, it is true, but politics of survival has no room for the truth. So, the man broke a cardinal rule of survival in politics. He displayed heroism. Two, Afolabi has failed to instruct himself on the peculiarities of the UPN politics, a party which lives on the blood and blessing of Awolowo, a man regarded in that party as irreproachable, one viewed as the first descendant of God. If he had watched the way Bola Ige, the man whose job he covets, treat the person and image of the old chief in all his public utterances, Afolabi could have realized that it was fatal to commit blasphemy against Chief Awolowo. And if he didn’t realize it, nothing else could have instructed him better than M.C.K. Ajuluchuku’s tongue lashing in a public rebuke against Afolabi for contravening those two cardinal rules of the UPN politics. Afolabi then went on later to reply Ajuluchuku, daring to call names. Now, that’s not really a bright thing to do. Afolabi is green in the way of this game. H e should have known that Ajuluchuku doesn’t say anything in the name of the party that Chief Awolowo may disagree with. In fact, Ajuluchuku, a man with an admirable twist of poesy, is not the sort of guy you throw a garbage can of insults at.
In any case, Afolabi should have known that Ajuluchuku has said time and again that he reads chief Awolowo so well that he doesn’t need to clear anything with the UPN leader before he can properly reflect his thinking. Which means that Chief Awolowo welcomed the rebuke against Afolobi. If the Oyo State deputy governor understood the rules of the game, he should have known that the thing to do was to approach the party leadership to explain his position and do whatever he is asked to do in form of an atonement. All this is not intended to excuse Ajuluchuku’s uncharacteristic effusion that Awolowo is irreproachable. Only God gets that qualification, but no matter. Afolabi, perhaps made by the press, is how undone by the press. He should have watched out and sensed the wind blowing in that studio when he allowed journalists to put his head in the noose which, of course, had been tightened before he knew it. The things that Afolabi said were the sort of things for beer parlour talk, but not matters for radio, television and newspapers. The aftermath of Afolabi’s radio interview is that his gubernatorial chances in Oyo State have gone with the wind.
©Sunday Concord, August 29, 1982
Feedback: Oyo D-G Writes Parallax Snaps
My dear Dele,
My attention has been drawn to your column, Parallax Snaps, in the Sunday Concord of August 29, 1982, in which my interview in the studio of Radio Lagos was discussed. Much as I respect your matured approach to national issues in your column, I wish to place on record that your piece has attempted to paint a wrong picture of the whole issue to your readers. It is however relevant to tell you that the said interview contained to irreverent remarks about the most outstanding living statesman in Nigeria today – Chief Obafemi Awolowo. I am stating here once again that I was attracted to politics because of the sterling qualities in the leadership of Chief Awolowo and he is still my hero and mentor. He deserves respect and this I will continue to give him as a great leader. My statement during the interview which was aired three weeks after the recording, was therefore made in good faith and this had been conveyed to Papa Awolowo himself.
In my reply to Chief M.C.K. Ajuluchuku, I did not call him names as claimed by you, I only made him realize that he twisted a statement I made in good faith to my disadvantage and which to a right thinking person could jeopardize my chances in the gubernatorial race in which I am involved in Oyo State. Secondly, a sensitive matter of that nature shouldn’t have been made a public issue, Chief Ajuluchuku should have discussed it with me instead of putting it across to media. There is no doubt that I respect Chief Ajuluchuku’s judgment on issues and this he knows himself but this time I disagree with him.
In conclusion Dele, let me inform you that what has happened has not in anyway affected my gubernatorial chances in the state. My people kknow that I do not make reckless statements and most of them judge things by merit. Rest assured that I still have their full support. I hope you will give this letter the widest publicity possible.
Yours sincerely,
Signed
(Chief S.M Afolabi)
Deputy Governor, Oyo State.
©Sunday Concord, September 5, 1982
(Pp.173-177)
