By Gimba Kakanda
The three-way de-marketing campaigns and cyber warfare among supporters of the three major opposition figures suggest that whatever allegations are levelled against the governing party for undermining the emergence of a robust opposition pale beside the opposition’s own apparent commitment to destroying itself.
Even with my allegiance to the party in power, I would be less than honest if I claimed not to desire a strong opposition capable of holding our democracy to account. Democracy itself requires a system of checks and balances, and it is not always practical to rely solely on the three arms of government to provide this restraint. They may, at times, be aligned in interest, especially the executive and legislative branches. This is why the vigilance of citizens and the strength of opposition parties remain among the clearest measures of a democracy. Citizens possess the moral authority to question power, while opposition parties possess the constitutional path to replace a government.
For those of us in advisory roles within government, a strong opposition also makes it easier to offer sober counsel to those in key administrative positions, because one can point to clear political evidence that X, Y, and Z constitute credible threats. But where X, Y, and Z are not only estranged and fighting among themselves, and where their supporters are more invested in tearing one another apart than presenting a coherent alternative, that persuasive leverage is lost. The opposition ceases to function as a warning signal and becomes, instead, a performance of avoidable self-sabotage.
As it stands today, even if we choose to flatter ourselves with denial, the opposition and its loudest online supporters appear to lack the logistical coherence and political foresight required to mount a disciplined challenge to the government. This is often what unrestrained ambition produces. Greed is not a strategy.
The same lesson applies, in a different but equally sobering way, to the northern political class within government today. Too many have pursued narrow self-interest at the expense of building a principled bloc capable of standing together when it matters. This is not an indictment of anyone, but a painful observation about the cost of political atomisation. It is truly sad to see how much collective influence can be diminished when personal calculations are allowed to outrun shared purpose.
Power, like opportunity, may take you as far as the river, but it cannot force wisdom upon you. Once there, it is your choice either to drink with gratitude and preserve the water for others, or to muddy it with greed, poison it with short-sightedness, and render it undrinkable for everyone, including your own thirsty self.
