 The House of Representatives passed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill on Thursday. However, the lawmakers revised the compulsory direct primary clause, and the bill was passed after the removal of clause 84 requiring political parties to only select candidates through direct primaries. Now recall that the Senate on Wednesday included the consensus mode of primaries in the Electoral Act Amendment Bill as suggested by President Mohamed Abouhari and both chambers of the National Assembly. That's the Senate and the House of Representatives, however, deleted the compulsory direct primaries from the bill. To help us analyze all of this, we do have a guest since you do, I mean via Zoom, Shagun Shokpitor, who is on standby. He's a public affairs analyst. It's good to have you join us this morning. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. All right, so for me, the question would be, what do you make of this pattern that the House of Representatives and the senators have actually decided to take? I mean, first of all, there's a ton. They have deleted the compulsory clause of direct primaries. But you still have the senators bent on including the consensus method of electing their representatives. And the House of Representatives also not agreeing to that. So you have senators on the other hand saying, yes, it's okay to have direct primaries, indirect primaries, and the consensus. And then the House of Representatives not agreeing, only saying we want direct and indirect primaries. So what do you make of this new route of things? Okay, so first of all, it's not a surprise that the Senate and the House of Representatives has made a U-turn. Initially, what we had thought was that they were going to exercise their power to veto the President and just approve the law. But anybody that is familiar with Nigerian politics would have been surprised if that had ever happened. So this U-turn is not surprising. The disagreement between the two houses, I think is a good thing. I'm happy about it and I hope that the House of Reps wins this debate. So to have direct and indirect primaries as an option is a good thing, in my view, because this is a democracy and it's all about choice. So if the political parties say that they would like to have the option as provided in their constitution to either use delegates to appoint or elect, to elect their representatives at the various elections, or use the direct primaries method, then I think it's the way within their rights. The consensus option is an entirely different matter. It is extremely on democratic. For the simple reason that there is no way to determine what consensus is. Who are the people that are supposed to arrive at that consensus? Must it be unanimous? Is there going to be voting and all of those things? So invariably what you usually have is when they say consensus, it just means that the strong man in that party has determined who is going to be given a team. Shagun should be talking to you Harris. So I think we actually lost connection with him, but as soon as we're able to establish that connection, it would be a great one. But Kofi, as we proceed, I really don't know. It was quite interesting what he was saying. Yes indeed. Questioning the democratic credentials of this thing called consensus candidate. And he was asking who is to say or who is to arrive at the consensus? Who are those making the decisions? And of course, saying this would mean that there are certain strong men who continue to have the power to decide and to pick, to cherry pick who will be the candidates of the parties. But one of the things that he also said that I pretty don't sit with is the fact that he agrees with the disagreement that's going on. Now let's not forget the bone of contention between both houses. Yeah, between both houses. As much as we don't expect them to always align and have to be in sync. But we're looking at the essence of this bill and the critical element in the bill. At the end of the day, we're talking about the transmission of result electronically that was outrightly rejected by these lawmakers. Now, therefore, because looking at it, it would begin to look like maybe this is also a delay tactic because we're looking at time as well. Let's not forget that there's also a time factor where this bill should be given ascent by the president, because with this back and forth, I don't know if the House of Representatives would actually come to that point where they agree. And then we'll have to send it back to the president for the president to ascent. And then before it becomes a law. So all of this, I'm just thinking that those who are saying that these are delayed tactics adjust so we don't arrive at that particular highlight. I think Nigerians are unhealthily over pessimistic when it comes to the National Assembly. I don't think that's the case. Can I get messy, can I? Okay, go ahead. Yes, thank you very much. So far, they're not doing badly. I mean, the bill was sent back to them. They went on their end of year recess. They have resumed. And as they have resumed, they're already working on it. I mean, how many days did it take for them to pass this? It's already been passed by the House of Reps. The Senate is also going to pass. And then you have what you call a conference committee. This conference committee is going to be the committee regarding this particular issue in both the House and the Senate. They'll harmonize. And then they'll pass a joint bill. I mean, they have a lot of other things to do apart from this electoral bill. So the business of legislation is not something you just do one day. But you can also not do everything in one day. But you can also not take out the politics. No, it's not a matter of relax. We're just talking about the interests here. Oh, these guys are doing what they do. And we already were crying they are delaying. No, no. It's not about them doing what they do. Have they expunged the electoral electronic transition of votes from the bill? So why do we even have it in the first place? I mean, look at the fact that. I know that these politicians give us reasons to be pessimistic several times over several things. I understand that. But it's not all doom and gloom. We have a guest back. So let's let's allow him to do the talking. Mr. Shingu Shopito is a public affairs analyst. Mr. Shopito, can you hear us please? Yes, absolutely. Sorry about that little break in transmission. Not a problem at all. So you can go ahead with your thoughts. Yes. So I was saying the consensus alternative is on democratic because it simply allows one guy somewhere. So in the case of ABC, it's probably between Oboe if it's in the Southwest or maybe O'Hare at the national level, if it's at the state level, then the governors always will tell you. I mean, I remember running up to the 2019 election Governor Idykone Amoso of Oboe State at that time. You know, I remember when he was was was calling me personally to send him raising the hands of candidates and saying, this is the senator for this this. So this is the House of Reps member for this one. He was practically telling members of the party who the ticket had been given to. That is not a democracy. So I agree with the House of Reps that, you know, to expunge that particular provision in that law. Yes, you can bring back the option of indirect primaries if that's what the political parties want. Well, it's okay. We would have preferred to have direct primaries forced on on the political parties because that would get us indicates what the general membership of the parties want. However, we also know that the direct primaries alternative comes with with a lot of challenges. One of those challenges, the very obvious one is if these parties don't have proper member register. So what would the voter register be for direct primaries? So all of those things also need to be sorted out. If they are sorted out, then the direct primaries is absolutely the best option that we can have to deepen, you know, our democratic experience. So my hope is that the House of Reps wins this debate and that the consensus alternative is expunged from that bill. I'm sure that the president would not object that all the president is saying is if you have direct primaries only, then, you know, you force the parties. It's expensive. INEC monitoring this would be impracticable. Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I agree with some of those things, but I can think that it's definitely the direction we need to move in. So all things being equal, fingers crossed, we hope that the House of Reps wins this debate and they get this deal across to the president as quickly as possible over the next couple of weeks so that the president can give us sense. Before we then start talking about, oh, we're too close to the next election and therefore we're not meant to. I'm not meant to have sense, you know, to this law. Mr. Chopiton, interesting one from you. You've talked about, you know, the fact that the consensus provision in this re-amended electoral act amended bill is something to be worried about and it's anti-democratic. I'm not coaching you there. But, I mean, even if it wasn't included, aren't we, I mean, is it not safe to say that there will still be these cherry-picking and imposition of candidates by political godfathers even under direct or indirect primaries? You know, because we've seen the conventions and primaries by the political parties where delegates go and cast their votes. But they've already decided who they're going to vote for before now. And most of these delegates, so this political party delegates from the world levels down to, you know, the world levels of the parties are subject and loyal, for instance, to the governors of the states. These governors are the leaders of the party who place them there and wouldn't go against their will. So, even if we're direct or indirect primaries, one would argue that the leader will still have his way. Yes, you do have a point. So there would always be that, you know, in Nigerian politics. And I think anywhere in the world, actually, you would always have strong party members that are influential and that would give instructions slash narratives to members and that would follow those instructions slash narratives. However, what the direct primaries option in particular does is that it makes it more difficult for the Godfather to do this. So, you could then have a situation where a particular member of the party decides that he's not going along with any consensus and he has the right to express his franchise and his right to vote it for. So he presents himself against the wishes of the party hierarchy. Now, because you are being direct primaries, for the leadership or the strong man of the Godfather and the party to have his way, he would have to bribe, you know, three million, four million members. You know, as the case will depend on the size of the party. As against bribe in maybe 300 delegates, you know, so it's more difficult. Clearly, the advantages of having a direct primaries far are very, very obvious, you know, makes life difficult for these Godfathers and I guess that's why they are so strongly opposed to it and they want the indirect primary option also included. So you won't be able to do a way with Godfather. It's entirely just by, you know, one simple act of the National Assembly but you will make it more difficult and you level the pain field for people who want to be outliers and rebuilds within the party structure who want to say, you know what, I have a letter to Godfather, I don't care what or Godfather or whoever the strong man might be is saying, I want to try my luck and if he has the resources and he has the popularity and he has the network on his own to convince, you know, the general membership of his party to vote for him, then he has a chance. Let's not forget that this is not just about the national election, it's not just about the presidency, it's not just about the humanitarian election, it's about elections at all levels across board. So, you know, I think this really, really, having direct primaries as an option will really level the pain field and hopefully with time allow us to get better quality leadership emerging onto the tickets and then people can then vote in the general elections. Okay, so first I'd like to ask you if you see the upper house and the lower house coming to a point of consensus, coming to that point of compromise where they will be speaking in one voice and having that bill being passed to the president for accent, that's on the one hand. On the other hand, some people are of the opinion that this is just another way, it's a process of just delaying the entire accent to it because at the time it would just become impossible and the president might just say the timing is not right and then we would just pass it again and fall back to the electoral act of 2010 or 2011. Yeah, so on the first question they always do, they don't have a choice, you know, so they would always go on their usual committee and they come tonight. My only hope is that they do it on time. They will do it, I don't doubt about that. Somebody will win the day eventually. I hope, like I said before, that it will be, you know, this argument or this debate or this battle will be the house of reps because their position I think is more representative of the wishes of Nigerians. So the hope now is that they do it on time so that, just like you said, they don't then now lend credence to the conspiracy theories that these guys really don't have the intention of signing this bill in the first place that all of this is just gamesmanship so that it will be seen to have tried but that they want to run the 2022, the 2023 general elections on the 2010 amended act rather than this 2021 act or bill. So the earlier they get their acts together and get this to the president, the better for all of us and I know that there are some members of both houses that actually are desirous of seeing this act go through because it actually improves their own chances as well of returning. It's not all of these legislators that have the apparatus to read elections and this act will definitely make rigging much more difficult. So it's in their interest to get this act passed and I think that we look at it, I think they will get it across to the president in the next two weeks at the most and the president will not have a choice but to sign you know because after this then we have no other excuse. So I really don't believe in those conspiracy theories I think that the president will sign once a month that's singular concern has been expressed. Let's not forget that has been addressed, pardon me, let's not forget that the president didn't raise any other issue. The extensive explanation that he gave all around the decision of the legislature to force the direct primary option on the political parties. So once they fix that, then I believe you will sign. Mr. Chopiton, you've talked about the inclusion of that controversial clause 84 and the need to have direct primaries as the panacea to rigging or lack of internal democracy, let's say in our political parties. But when you talk about political parties and the need to have direct primaries compulsorily so that we have everyone who can make a choice make a choice for the party. Now we can go back to the 1992 elections and option A4 which meant that as candidates you had to go from the state or even world level down before going to, yes, world level down to the state, from the state to the national level like Biola and Kingibe did. Tofa did, sorry. But some persons on the political landscape still believe that the direct primaries would have been a long shot. And I'm referring to the Interparty Advisory Committee which is a group of political parties. They are the ones who are bearing the expenses and are filling the heat. So you think the Party Advisory Committee saying thank heavens that we're not having direct primaries, I'm sure we will be listening to them and understanding that this will not have worked for the parties. Yeah, you make a very good point and that's why I said that even though for the good of our democracy on the long run this is the way to go. But at the moment the practicality from ground is that the direct primaries option will not work. And this has been tried in the recent past in the all-cycle election at those states. Some of the elections in Lagos state as well. The direct primaries option was used. And one of the controversial things that we had was having a voter, the number of voters that voted in some of those elections far supposedly voted. Far exceeding the number of members of ABC. So we know that these challenges are there. So if INEQ, if this clause had been passed and direct primaries had been made compulsory, the first thing INEQ would have had to do would have been to verify the voter's register. Has that been to be done? I mean how would that happen? Because with the national voter register that is grown and managed by INEQ it's biometrically verified if these individuals are all 60 something million or something million whatever the numbers are now registered voters can be individually verified with their fingerprint and with their face. So on the party level is that possible? The day use biometric machines, so what will happen that the party will simply come up with 50 shares names and they will do whatever elections and quotes that they want to do. I really, really think for us in the civil society space yes we love the direct primary option but we have to be pragmatic. It would have been a terrible, terrible, terrible blue if that deal hadn't passed with that direct primary as the only alternative. In fact, it would have been Celtic. It would have really, really degenerated into something. It could have snowballed beyond intended or expected consequences because we would then have people going to court to try and say look there's no voter this time in the party where did this voter come from? And that would then spill over into the general elections and people really have a Celtic situation. So I think it's a good thing that the indirect primary option has been allowed. I think most of the parties, most of the big, at least the big two parties are definitely up for that. It's easier for them. But what I think we need as citizens and as civil society is to begin to push to get the parties to clean up their act in terms of how we manage their member register. We need to push for that now so that the direct primaries can become a viable alternative as we go further down the road. Maybe targeting the 2027 elections for example the realistic option to say look the parties will need to invest in parametric devices and come up with verifiable register of members so that direct primaries can then be used. So that happens, I think this is a good move. All right let's quickly look at the role of civil society right now. I mean civil society organizations of the opinion that the introduction of the clause of consensus by the senate, that's the opera house would actually lead to litigation at the end of the day and they are planning a protest. So the question is of what impact would the protest add? What impact is the protest in all of this? Well you know the impact of the process the protest would depend on you and I physically, the ordinary Nigerian out there. If we support the protest we could make it loud enough and then we'll have an impact. You know one of the things that most people don't realize is that the politicians are afraid of the people. They understand that it's a game of numbers they're afraid of us. But they also and it's because of that fear that they have very smartly over time and are not talking to me as of three years over time the Nigerian political system has been designed in such a manner as to ensure that the people never come together. So poverty has been recognized. Division, alarms, ethnic, religious lines have been weaponized to ensure that we don't unite behind one cause. Every single time that Nigerians have united behind one cause and our cries have been cohesive and powerfully put forward. We have prevailed you know every single time. So if you just look back over the last three or four years every single issue that people have protested about you know when we say protest. Protest doesn't have to be about street protest alone. Online now social media is very powerful. The politicians are there to hear those things. So protest online, protest offline, go to the streets, go to the TV station, go to the radio, call on radio, whatever. Just voice your position to this thing. They will listen. They don't have a choice. So I think everybody needs to support the civil society position regarding this consensus. The consensus is one of the greatest evils you know in our political system. It's one of the biggest problems. Because what that does is that it allows some guy in his bedroom and his kitchen. If I mean who is going to be our next club now who is going to be our next senator, who is going to be our next rep. Even if that person is completely undeserving and lacking merit. So you know so you have area boys and pouts and multiple directs. Now have it. Mr. Shopee Talk, can you hear us please? Are you there sir? Okay yeah it's quite interesting what he's talked about you know area boys and girls. So I listen to someone say you know in some states in Nigeria we have of course four tiers of government, not three. We have the federal, we have the state, we have the local government. An area boys. Agberu is the fourth one. Go to the streets sir, you may understand what that person is talking about. For me it's really surprising that dispassers ought to be very patriotic of democracy and want to defend that. I mean as a lawmaker as we're talking about to even think about introducing the clause or having the element of consensus in a democratic setting it's not really thoughtful for me and I'm just wondering what would actually preempt that. But like you have mentioned as much as we don't have that as constitutionally being backed up or a structure or recognized it's something that exists that we cannot and that has always played a role in our elections year in year out. And I don't know, I'm also thinking that you know 2023 might not be different. I'm sure you're saying that why we're so... You go down to the institutions of higher learning. These are institutions that are meant to to produce, be it a production factory for the leaders of the country. The framers of our society. Those are thinkers of our society. And what do you see when you talk about the play politics in school which people take seriously and fight over. You see people who contest for elections a campaign and on the day of the election maybe students union government for instance you won't see their names on the ballot. You see maybe one or two names or just one name and you say but I don't know this pain ever campaign. Where is this name coming from? Because some godfathers in the school probably in management or former students who've left and have refused to move on with their lives they said that we're going to choose someone to be the SCG president. And so they graduate from the schools with this mindset to say it's part of politics that we are the elders who can sit down and decide who should be the candidate. But then again, it's politics. You can look at it on the other side to say sometimes this allows for the best person to emerge. In some situations, let me explain what I mean. In some situations we have high voter electricity in the country. People don't know the right questions to ask. That's why in some cases the worst of us are ruling the rest of us. When it should be the best of us ruling the rest of us. Now when the worst of us rule the rest of us, even the best of us will become like the worst of us. So everybody has to go down. You would see someone who is so enlightened and has a lot of qualifications fighting on the street because someone needs to scout because of bad road or poor traffic management. Just as we talked about the blows that actually was exchanged yesterday. Yeah, you see someone driving roughly because he has to because I mean so everybody's become this way because we have the, in some instances the worst of us ruling the rest of us. So the reason is also you know that the voting public, you talk to the politicians I've spoken to a lot of them over the course of the past few years and all that and they'll tell you that the voters they delegate for instance and even the voters out there they don't give one cobo about your ideas. They don't care. Down the grass roots they simply do not care. A lot of people who have had good intentions going out to campaign. Going to the grass streets to meet the electorate or reaching out to delegates. They've had to change their methods because these guys simply just do not care about your ideas. So they ask for the money. What is in it for me? So what's in it for you? In the course of this conversation. So I was about to say that these people may not have the capacity to intelligently elect the best. They will go for the person who is their brother. They'll go for the person who we've been seeing. We've been knowing this man for years. He's been there. He's been giving us care. Or he looks like as he talks like us. He's straight and won't go for the best. So in some instances. So I don't think that the people just woke up and became the way they were. I don't think that the people just decided that they will not think about it. Like he's mentioned he talked about the fact that you know poverty has been weaponized. And we cannot rule out the fact that there's so much poverty in the land. And some people will tell you that corruption and poverty and people not thinking straight. Not an excuse but you know that's a thing. So usually people just it's a mindset. It's a culture that has been you know that have been practiced over time because that's how culture is actually happening. I can give an example. It happens over and over again and then it becomes a norm and everybody feels like this is what it is. And so someone started this trend. Someone started this pattern. And then over time the people grabbed it and believed that this is it. And so if you look at the trend of things now. I always say that there's you know an issue of a trust deficit. People no longer trust the system. People no longer trust what you can say because that pattern had already been started by a politician and people have bought it and it has become a culture. And so when you come around the first thing we're asking is see because we know that when you go that's all. So what can we get for the now? That's a part of it. But trust me when you hit the road and you go down to the delegates. Okay. It's not about not trusting the system. They are the system. But we have our guests back on the line. Mr. Shegwin-Shopiton, can you hear us please? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, all right. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. But talking about you having this debate here in the studio the consensus candidates. Is it always negative? Is it always a bad thing? Is there some good aspects to this as well? Especially when you look at how our electorates and our delegates think? So looking for a good element of the consensus candidates the consensus alternative is like assuming that the political big waves like this McNanimals parent who knows what is best for their children and regardless of what the children want they will make a choice for them and at the end of the day everything will work out well. So I decided what cost my son and my daughter has been to waiting school. That's the analogy. And we know now with modern parenting we know that that's not true. You have to allow the child to make up his mind what he wants to be. Or you look at what his skillsets are and all that and what his proclivities are and then allow him to gravitate in that direction. We can't assume that some big week in some political parties somewhere has the best interest of the majority of people at heart and it's going to be the person that he knows will be better for all of us. Who is he? Is he good? So no, I don't think there's anything positive about the consensus thing at all. I think that you have to allow the people at the end of the day if you allow the people to make their choices to make smart choices they are not being allowed. What we have had over the last, at least in this part with public for example, has been that the choices have been made for us. Just think about all the elections from 1990 to today. Choices have been made for us. We have always had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea between, you know, a red devil and a black head. They've always been devils. You know, we've never really had options. So and that is because of all of this, the way the entire political system has been rigged up to function. So, you know, like the weaponization of politics, the weaponization of the UTC, you know, the weaponization of division of fault lines. All of those things are designed to ensure that we do not make the right choices. So they can make choices for us until we fight for a system where the majority of the people are the ones calling the shots with regards to who is going to run our affairs. Then we'll continue to have, just like in the same, the worst of us, you know, running our affairs for the rest of us. And, you know, we will never make progress as such like that. So, consensus should be thrown out of the wing. It should be, if I should be outlawed, you know, so it shouldn't be a case of how a party constitution allows it should be prohibited. This act, if the House of Representatives will win their argument, they should go instead for that by prohibiting it in its entirety. Okay. Yeah, at a point, this was, you know, between, it was a tussle between the federal legislatures, legislators rather, and the governors. Would you say this is now can be seen, can this now be seen as a victory for the governors? The concern of the legislators, of course, they were practicing the law of self-preservation basically saying we need to also take the power away from the governor so we can go back to the House and enjoy ourselves with work, do the hard work we've been doing. But how can, you know, Nigerians ensure that the governors do not continue to wield the power, they're willing to pick who they want to pick, and that there's internal democracy in the political parties? I think that is a fantastic question because it actually speaks to the heart of one of the things that I consider to be our biggest problems as a society. So when our governor structures, you know, civil service system, you know, and political systems became centralized by the military, what happened was that they also centralized our thinking pattern as a people. So we now find that by default, almost instinctively and subconsciously, everybody turns the search light towards a project and as a rock. And we are, you know, heckling the president, attacking the legislators to a lesser degree, but yes, we do that. And we forget completely that there's some national government level of governance. We have governors who have commissioners. We have states, as we've already said, where state laws have serious impact on our lives are made. We have local governments, where laws are made by the way as well, but people don't know this, right? So to begin to fix the problem of the power that the governors built, the first step is that we as a people need to turn the search light, not away from a project. We need to get a bigger side, so that we can point the search light at Asor and at the three arms zone, or also pointing it at the state government houses and we're pointing it at the state houses of assembly and we're pointing it at, so get three search lights and look at the federal state and the local government level for everything that we're doing, for all the accountability, for all the heckling, for the demand for transparency and whatever else we're doing. So civil society, for example, has to understand this. We need to come together, build structures that can better interrogate what is going on at the state level because when we do that, then the governors can be put a bit in check and really, hey, people are looking at me. Right now they know that their attention is away from them. Their attention is turned towards a majority of Nigeria. So everybody is attacking Bwari. But what about what the governor is doing? We know that they're not doing well at the federal level, but what about what your government is doing? You know, what happens to the federal allocation? We know that the current revenue allocation system is nonsensical and will not bring about development. But money is still shared to the governors. What do they do with these monies? Who's asking the questions? What happens to the security votes? So until these questions are asked, the governors continue to wield this power and they continue to determine who becomes a local government chairman. When I listened to Governor Wike the other day when he was talking about the issue of soot and he just said, then you look at the government chairman that is found not properly looking at this local refinery issue, will be removed from office. You know, I mean, that's shocking. These guys are not your appointees. They are supposed to be elected representatives of their own people. But this is how the governors see this, you know, this entire thing. They are gods. Local emperors in their domains and whatever they want happens. And when they come together as a force, they are actually very powerful and they influence what happens at the national level. So we need to come together and try to checkmate these governors by putting a bit more attention towards what's happening at that level. So as we begin to course the conversation down now, I'd like to ask, do you think that we should consider making legislation for the principle of zoning and allowing political parties to actually uphold that? Zoning, another conversation we begin and this is the conversation that is similar to the concept of federal character quota systems and what have you. And I have never really supported those things. I think they kill meritocracy. They promote mediocrity and kill meritocracies. So now, is zoning good? Maybe at a particular stage in our political history and our development as society, yes, probably you can say whether there's an argument for it, just for inclusiveness and to ensure that everybody has this our so-called sense of belonging. But absolutely not. I don't think any legislation should be made to force this on the political parties. I think it's an argument of convenience amongst the politicians. Let's not forget that these guys are not thinking about you and I, they're thinking about their interests. So the reason they go after the zoning are in my case so that their own tongue can come. But at some point, the thing would have gone round enough for us to be able to say enough and no further. So no, we shouldn't legislate zoning. In fact, my own agitation is even the federal character principle at some point must be expunged. I know there's position of affirmative action and all of those things, but it cannot be the major consideration when you're trying to select who runs the affairs of your country. If you do that, then you're going to kill off the chances for you to get the best people to run your affairs. So no, I think we have to run away from that. Mr. Schroff, it's interesting that you want federal character also abolished as well. I mean, even in the Supergirls, we see that they also try to balance things out to her federal character. But anyway, you've said you would love to see direct primaries as a provision in electoral law. Should we be thinking about going back to 1992 and possibly having a two-party state? That way, some would say, this issue of the cost and the difficulties with logistics of organizing direct primaries may be surmounted. Is that something that Nigeria should consider? Would it be good for a democracy? No, it won't be good for a democracy. I mean, first of all, in two, one we're running at the moment, it's a two-party state, to a large extent. You know, you've got the APC and you've got the PDP, and that's it. For the serious, in both serious positions, your candidates will always, the winners will always match on those parties. But because it's a democracy and it's all about participation and inclusion, you know, you cannot legislate a two-party state. What happened in 1992 happened because we're fledgling democracy, we're experimenting. And eventually, this case would have moved a bit upon that, because that's just the way democracy is run. It's all about ability of everybody to express themselves as a so-wish freedom of expression, freedom of association. All of those things are very, very critical to the democratic process. So no, we shouldn't have a two-party state. No, we shouldn't legislate that. In fact, we should expand the space a bit more. However, we need to have checks and balances to ensure that what we saw leading up to 2015 and then 2019 to a lesser degree, not where you have 92 parties presenting candidates. So, you know, what they do with that part of the world not as democracy is, you've got some sort of a collegiate system or a lead system where some parties can only participate at certain levels, until they have met certain benchmarks and then it can be promoted in quotes to the next level. So you can run at the local government level, produce a chairman or two, you know, and then on the back of that success, you'll be allowed to contest, you know, maybe the House of, the state houses of assembly and the governorship and then if you succeed to a certain degree at that level, then you go to the national level. You can do that. So what that does it allows people to join the parties that best express their own ideological leanings or whatever or the reason that you have of joining particular political parties. But I don't think that we should reduce the space. I think the space should be expanded a bit more in a well-coordinated manner. Well, as that, you know, sounds very awesome as that sounds very good because it's a case of saying we can't make legislation for a two-party system or return to a two-party system. Well, it's okay to see that over the years. I mean, if you look at the elections, you constantly find the dominance of just two-party. Despite the fact that you have several political parties and one would be thinking, why don't we rather start making laws, you know, to that effect? Just as saying, yes, consensus should not be, should be taken out of the clause. It doesn't promote democracy. But we still see that play in party, you know, at the party level, talking about the political parties at this point in time. However, we hope that we get to that point where you know, our democracy becomes very democratic. Interesting. Thank you. So, come on by sharing contribution and analysis from you. Thank you very much for your time, sir. And of course, we hope to have you again some other time on the breakfast then, of course, to analyze developments in a national policy. Thank you very much. Mr. Shagun Shopito is a public affairs analyst. Thank you. How was it? Pleasure to be here. How was it? Very interesting. Merci. 2023 is around the corner. Yesterday, some people were really going back to that video where Ashwa Jib you know, promised. Yeah, he promised. He talked about the the PVC that expired. And then for me, for me, it was about the women that the ladies who visited him. But you didn't say that yesterday. Yeah, yeah. So, is it that you think you took a closer look? It was so, people were still talking about it. You know, the yes from the women around. What are you trying to do now? As if they knew. They already knew. So, people could be justling for these opportunities to meet with these politicians to impress them and also to get some things from them. And the political landscape is written with all sorts of interests and all sorts of people. So, the question here would be have we really learned anything? Would there be anything new? When adjuvants act differently in 2023, looking at all of the elections that we've had from 1919 up until this point. Yes, yes, that's a good question. So, that would be that's one question. We'll see how this thing goes. But what is important is very important for, I think, a lot of experts have said, you know, experts in politics, in democracy, within outside Nigeria that the educated class in the country needs to step up. You know, those in the middle, those who have the middle, the lower middle class, step up and then do the enlightenment for those in their communities to educate them to say, you need to elect people based on what they have to offer you in terms of ideas, not in terms of rice or materials or 5,000 naira. Anyway, we'll keep talking about the Nigerian politics as today's draw closer to the 2023 election. That's Sabina, the size of a package on the breakfast this morning. Mercy? If you miss out on any part of the conversation, it's all right to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, what plus TV Africa and on YouTube, subscribe to YouTube as a plus TV Africa lifestyle and plus TV Africa. I am Messi Bopor. Do have a fantastic Friday. And I'm Goofy Bartels, return on Monday. Keep watching plus TV Africa.