 The Deputy President of the Senate, Ovi Omoa Gege, has urged the national leadership of the Christian Association of Nigeria that all the all-progressive Congress APC would not present to people from the same religion as its presidential and vice presidential candidates for the 2023 general elections. Earlier, the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria warned political parties against heating up the polity with the either Christian Christian or Muslim Muslim ticket in the presidency. Joining us to discuss this is Olu Martins, he is a political analyst and Leonard Ibute, also a political analyst. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. Thank you for having us. Thank you. I'm going to start with you Leonard. The issue of Muslim Muslim Christian ticket, should that even be a basis for conversations in the first place? Should that be an issue? What about the issue of merits? What about being fit for the job? What about the people who are being fielded as candidates for political parties? Should we not be looking at their capabilities or their precedents? Should it be religion or ethnicity playing the first card or the first point of relevance in this conversation? Thank you for having me. That's an interesting way to frame the argument. However, we should understand, we've had Muslim Muslim candidates before the Abiyala era, unfortunately they never saw the light of day. But we should understand first of all that this is participatory democracy and democracy is about representation and representation is across tiers. This is why we have geopolitical zones, we have religion, we have ethnic groups, we have minority leader, majority leader. All of these are enclifts of political value that need to feel represented, otherwise a democratic experiment falls on its head. And so while your question, the way you frame it, at least the contrast and this thinking with competence and all that, it's actually not the case. It is true that the real issue is that because political parties want to win election and necessarily must win elections to govern, the way to win in a democratic setting and to feel and to form a government, a legitimate government both in a legal term and in the minds of the people is for them to feel represented. And so the statement, while I agree that it is nuanced debate, yes, it's contrast with competence, it does not, because there are many competent Christians because there are competent Muslims. And so a democratic experiment in a nation where the Christian Muslim divide is very stuck. We are as divided as can possibly be. There is a House of Hulani enclave, there is the South enclave, even in the South, in the South, South, South, South West divide in the North. We have the Northern minority who are a majority in population and they have the House of Hulani who are dominating government. All of these calculations must come into the mix for parties to prevent candidates that are indeed representative of our diversity. So I think the statement is not out of place. Interesting. Olo Martens, we are people who are divided along ethnic and religious lines. We all know that. Every time we analyze issues, we look at them from those prisms. But how well has it helped us as a country going about issues from a religious, either a religious or an ethnic perspective? What has it yielded us so far? I'm not in any way saying that we should not involve religion or ethnicity in what we do, but I'm saying we're so hung up on this and I'm wondering how beneficial has it been for us going forward? Should we not be looking outside of these prisms to analyze issues or really even talk about governance? Thank you very much. Let me again and again continue to applaud plus TV, plus politics for always putting these very tiny issues if you like to speak in the front burner. We talk about the engagement of the media, the forum of the states, the collective freedoms of all of us is endangered. So to that extent, I should give you kudos for always engaging these very popular issues. But the main issue here is that I think that the postulations and our vassions, if you like to put it, of the Senate president is anachronistic, is a cake, is medieval. The world is fast moving away from some of those very pedestrian issues of religion. However, it's that when religion comes to play is when the center cannot guarantee anymore a level playing field for Christians or Muslims. Because after Christians or Muslims, what about the African traditional religion? And what about those who don't even believe in God? You know what? So why we pander to religion? It's a solitary pointer that the center does not hold anymore. We pander to ethnicity. It's a solitary pointer that the center does not hold anymore. What it means is that our thought lines are deepening and perhaps this administration has led by President Mohammed Dubari has even made it more apparent by some of his actions or inactions. I do not subscribe to those arguments. The world has gone beyond that because economics has nothing to do with religion, intelligence has nothing to do with religion, capacity has nothing to do with religion. It is when I feel that because I practice XYZ religion, I am undermined or I feel that I am a second class citizen or I cannot worship my God the way I want to worship Him. That's when we begin to pander to some of these pedestrian discussions. So what the current president has said in his engagement with this deputy Senate president is to tell him that there is a failure of leadership. There is a failure of competency. It appears like if you are a Christian or a Muslim as a case may be, you benefit outside your competency, outside your capacities, outside the things that you are going to, that you will ordinarily have been able to get, but for the fact that you are Christian or Muslim. Otherwise, these things should not even come up in our discussions. You know what? So there's no Christian brain. There's no Muslim brain. Economics, science, chemistry, physics, all over the world is non-religion. So to pander to these issues, they're taking us backwards. We've gone beyond that. I do not care. I'm a pastor. I pastor a church, but I do not care really if my president is a Christian or a Muslim. I think we're having connection issues with you, Mr Lou Martins. But if you can hear me, just say something. I can hear you very well. Can you hear me? Yes. Can I respond to Lou Martins? Yes. No water. Olu, I think you're having connection issues. So let's go to Leonard. Leonard, you think you want to differ on some of the things that he said. So go ahead because I have a question. Leonard, go ahead. Okay, great. Can I speak? Can I respond? Yes, please. Awesome. So, yeah. I mean, so you see the realm of politics does not dwell in idealism. In an ideal situation, a good leader is a good leader. And when leaders are good, nobody cares where they are from, right? Nobody cares that Nelson Mandelaiz Zulu is an African leader, right? Primarily, we identify with him. He has that general acceptability and identity. And to Lou Martins' point, yes, the country is a nightmare. We are not in an ideal situation. And so if we are looking for a democratic experiment that at least is acceptable, we must look at all the different fragmented units and give them a sense of belonging. Why do we have agitations coming from the left, right and center? Some of them are legitimate because some people feel they don't belong. Some may be pedestrian because some people want to use it as a point of activism to bring personal benefits and all that. But the thing is this, democracy is not meant to be ideal. It is the government of the majority where the minorities are allowed to have it safe, but it is a good form of government when the minority has a voice, a voice that can be heard on that platform. And so in the Nigeria of today, where religious sentiment is the single most important dividing factor between the north and south, even though it's not real. We know that the real device is economic. Great, because I was about to ask that who's made, because it seems like we've allowed ourselves to be played along these lines. Because the average Nigerian, for example, when you were growing up, when you were in school, you didn't ask your seed partner if he was Christian or Muslim to let them sit close to you. When you were playing as a kid, you did not ask them. Are you a Christian or Muslim? If not, I'm not playing with you. So I'm saying maybe we've allowed politicians to play us or play up because I think that's what the canned president was trying to talk about. Heating up the polity. So what if we now, for example, you're saying that it's not an ideal situation? If it's not an ideal situation, why can't we create an ideal situation that suits... Sorry, what? You will build from where you are. You can't jump the gun from where you are. But are we really building anything, Leonard? Are we building anything? Because it looks like we let the politicians set the pace and then we follow. I think the right argument is to not discount the role of our diversity in our politics. The whole point of democracy is the recognition of diversity. I'm sorry. I do not want this to be a backup, but what is the diversity we're talking about here? The diversity of Nigerians is their culture, not their religion, is it? Religion should not necessarily play a part in this, should it? It is possible for us to have competent Christians and competent Muslims in government. This is not mutually exclusive. If the idea is to find competence and to have a religious mix that is acceptable, that should be the agenda. I think that agenda is more worthwhile than to pitch one against the other. We can have competent multi-religious groups who exist in the running of this country, and that is a more acceptable model where we are right now than to take competence alone as the only selection criteria. That's unrealistic. I understand, but my question was that can we not just talk about competent Southerners and Northerners and people from the South South instead of saying competent Northern Christians? Do you understand what I'm saying? We're complicating the issue. I might be wrong, but I'm going to toss this to Ola. We're more interested in the zones and the religion, and that plays up more in terms of who we're picking instead of looking at who the person really is and what they're able to offer. I hope that you can hear us now, Ola, because we're having connection problems with you. I've been hearing you. I've been following the discussions all the while. It's been very interesting, but can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Yes. First of all, my name is Olu Martins. Olu Martins? I'm so sorry. Yes, yes. I couldn't agree with you more in your engagement with Lenard's. You have made the job in a manner of speaking easier for me because you know the matter is that a good footballer, if you are a striker, for instance, a David Beckham holds the ball. Rud Vanistroe knows where the ball is going. We should go where the ball is going. We shouldn't go where the ball is. We have these convenient arguments that we post all the time. Check for the same. That because the network was bad in XYZ areas. The network is dealing with you right now. Olu Martins, can you hear me? I think we're having connection issues with Olu again. Are you back? I think you're going to have to save the day again. Now, Lenard, I want to go to what the canned president said. I'd like to quote him directly. He was saying that political parties are actually the ones hitting up the polity about the issue of Christian Christian or Muslim Muslim tickets for the presidency. He's saying that these things are not supposed to matter. But you see, a lot of people are analysing it in a way that it seems like all the Christians where the can was going there to say we want to make sure that there is a Christian Muslim ticket. We want everybody to be properly represented. But I don't think that that's where they were coming from. They were trying to say let's play down on these sentiments and look at the people that the political parties are fronting. Yes, so I mean, again, when we make it an either or conversation, we would have an indeterminate argument. My point here, as separatists and Aristotle, you know, the founders of democracy or proponents of democracy, separatists predominantly expressed. Democracy is always the best form of government where competent people are the participators and by participators I mean from the candidates to even the voters. So if you have a medical condition, for example, that is a gynaecological condition, right? Even if we are going to vote via a democratic process to determine who is going to operate on you, the people that are qualified to vote will be gynaecologists. And so in the end, the worst you can have is a gynaecologist. But democracy is not like that. You cannot discount the lack of education in the polity, the brain waves of the majority, the religious sentiments of the people, the tribal enclaves to which they belong. You cannot discount that in favour of an ideal that says let's find the most competent person. Democracy is not a competency test. It is a popularity test. And so the candidates that we appeal more to a wider base will form the government. So if we are looking for that, then we have better recognised what that base is looking for in religion, to say in religion who is the most competent person of this religious extraction, in tribe who is the most competent person of this tribe. And if we do that, we save ourselves the idealist thinking that overnight we can change a significantly distorted Nigerian political system. And it is not just a Nigerian political system, it is democracy in general. We forget that democracy is not a trumpet America. Are we really impacting the democracy in Nigeria? Because you have been making reference to ideal situations. I do not know if ideally we are practicing a democracy or realistically that's not the case. I do not know but let's see if we can let Olu speak. Olu, are you back? Mr Olu Massans, are you still there? I think you're trying to speak but your connection is really, really bad. Unfortunately, I'm going to have Leonard answer that question. Leonard, ideally we're supposed to be operating a democracy where you're saying that popularity carries the day. But realistically, is it a democracy that Nigeria is operating on or something that is similar to it? Well, there is no perfect democracy. When you look at the American electoral system, it is what we think regularity is. We have a Nigerian version. Democracy is a journey. We are trying to be as democratic as we can be. We are far from it. But my thesis is this. With what we have, I'm a business person. You don't analyze a business case from where you want to be. You analyze a business case from a business case. The business case is this is where we are. If you want to move us from where we are to where we want to be, what can we do now to win in the short term while we are on the journey to the long term? But if we say we shouldn't talk about ethnicity, we shouldn't talk about religion, we shouldn't talk about the polarizing political views. That in itself is a non-democratic statement because democracy is about the alignment of opposing views and opposing concerns. So when you can't chairman or anybody saying these views will better align, trust issues will be better resolved, if we are able to have representation from the two major religions in Nigeria, that is a sensible statement to make. It's practical. We don't have to like it. It is where we are and that is the best place to start from to move towards where we want to be. It is not by accident that the parties have a zoning formula that zones, precedences and positions between the north and south. It is in recognition that people need to have a sense of belonging in the Nigerian experiment across those lines. And so if there are other dimensions other than in north to south zoning, then it makes sense to consider it in the analysis. It cannot be binary, either this or that. Maybe it requires a lot of other variables and I think religion in today's Nigeria is a significant variable that you cannot discount even in business for that matter. Interesting. Let's try again if we have Olu Matins back. I think we've lost him completely. We've lost his connection. Apologies Olu Matins for the internet connection. Welcome to Nigeria. Leonard, before we wrap things up, the average Nigerian is obviously tired of the drama within the political parties. I just finished speaking with a PDP representative and he was talking about the fact that he wasn't really straightforward about the zoning process because I asked a direct question as to if you have already given the national chairman or voted a national chairman who's from the north, does that mean that your party is going to vote for you? The party's ticket is going to the south and he said that the party has opened the floor for all hats to be thrown in and whoever emerges emerges. Again, that of course plays down on the dissenting voices that you're talking about, the fact that we have polarization and we are diverse. But if we do that now, for example, in the PDP, where is the room for all of us to be represented at some points or the other? First of all, that remains a very, very significant hurdle to cross within the PDP because zoning is written into the PDP's constitution. I mean, constitutions can be amended. There is equal voting rights at the table for that amendment to happen. It is not a bilateral decision by some board of trustees of party chairmanship or whatever. It requires an amendment of the constitution which to my mind and I may follow in this space has not happened. As it is today, the indication unless the PDP is able to review the constitution, which I don't think they can, is that for sure the zoning formula favours a southern candidate. But that said, this is not about the PDP or the APC or about the political enclave. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, right? I believe there are equal distribution of competent people across geographies in Nigeria. I am from Benway State. In Benway State, I am from a minority tribe. I am an idoma person. The idomas have competent people from geopolitically they call us North Central. When we don't feel like it, we call ourselves people of the middle belt. We have a political identity crisis that is also a problem for us. But beyond all this, we can have a southern competent person of a religion that is acceptable to those who care about religion. This is the model that we want to, that we should practically be looking at. And we shouldn't be thinking PDP or APC. We should be looking at Nigeria and say, how would the typical Nigeria, I go to my video, I've been to my video, minimum 10 times this year, I've travelled minimum 18 states in Nigeria this year. So I don't know anybody or maybe very few people visit rural places like I do. My business is in transportation so I have to know and I'm involved with them. The thing is this, what politicians know that we analysts have refused to know or we have decided to be blind that we're using our religious brains to analyse. Is that there is a way that the people that form governments in this country think politicians know that and they play those nuances. So if we call on TV and we say the nice things that would happen in a legal business to set up or that would happen in a boardroom set up, then we miss the whole point of democracy because the professor and the illiterate farmer have the same votes. In closing. In closing, I agree fully that a number of variables that need to be in the equation for deciding who the best candidates are. Number one, they must come from the right religion so that they will have acceptability. Number two, they will have the right competence for the Nigeria of today and the next four years. Number three, they must be able to reach out in a manner that guarantees them victory. It is okay for us to bring good candidates that cannot win a election and we do this every year. Please good candidates find a platform that can get you victory so that you don't just become a TV celebrity. We have to go. Thank you very much. Lena de Boute is a political analyst and also we had Olu Martins who is also a political analyst. Thank you very much for being part of the conversation. Thank you for having me. All right. Well, thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a quick, quick break to bring you highlights of the week and all the interesting conversations we've had on plus politics. And when we come back, I'll be telling you good night. And the fact that they try to, you know, cover it up or probably have these conversations behind closed doors shows that they should be something we should be worried about. In the first place, the quality of what they're doing is very important to us and we need to make sure we have a way of tracking what the judiciary are doing. It's just like having our lawmakers over at the National Assembly and we don't know what they're doing. So how are they representing us right? So I think it's something that they have to look into once more and it's something that we, the taxpayers, deserve to know. What is this money used for? Because right about now in Nigeria, the quality of service to the judiciary system is very low. The service delivery is extremely low. The timely delivery of service is also extremely low. The economists have been in existence even before my great grandfather was born. And I think they have an integrity to protect. They have an image to protect. And they can just come out and give that information that is not true. Definitely they've done their finest. Now I went through the report from the economist. They talked about soldiers welfare, that soldiers are not well paid. They talked about diversion of soldiers' allowances, which are not getting to the soldiers. They talked about poor feeding. Now, let's skip aside the area of arms selling now. From those three points out, the economists gave out, I confound for the economists that that report was true. I was a soldier, a former soldier. All what they've stated happened to me, myself, when I was in the Bacassid Peninsula in the 90s. Our funds were cut off. We were not well paid. We were being fed like cows. We are expecting that the government will, as you know, gain an apologise to the people and we take it up from there. And what happens if none of that takes place? If none of that takes place, you would have heard that Mr President said that he has given licence to MPDC or NMPC. I can assure you that one bank will not fly into Ogodw, in the name of oil. If those things are not taken care of. Can you repeat that? What do you mean by that? I read it from the president. If you like me, you will like my dog. You cannot like my oil. Help me. It appears that there is so much on government's business in part of the north. Now, part of the east is also falling in a succumbent towards it. The government will show presence in these areas. If you need to go defeat these guys, hold territory while you are advanced to do more, get more food, so just more boots on the ground like we said elsewhere, and do the needful. It means no longer time for paying lip service and talking. You cannot be warning in this day and age. This is what's going to play out on election day. It's actually going to be between two political parties. It's going to be between ABC and Abda. It's going to be between ABC and Abda. I know that when it comes to that, I believe that Abda will take the day. I believe that the chance to solve the problem has what it takes in this 21st century. It has what it takes to carry on with the development of Alhambra 6. Thank you all for being part of the conversation. We hope you enjoyed all of our broadcast for this week. We'll see you on Monday on Plus Politics. I'm Mary Annacol and have a good evening.