If a governorship aspirant cannot explain how he will create jobs, attract investment, reform education and industrialize Ogun State, why should anyone support his ambition? Years in government don’t prove competence, and political loyalty isn’t a substitute for results. Yet, too many supporters defend candidates they should be questioning, elevating personal allegiance above public accountability. Ogun State needs fewer praise singers and more leaders with credible plans to deliver progress.
A political culture in which the closer some supporters get to an aspirant, the further they move from asking questions. They celebrate access as achievement, proximity as influence, and praise as political participation. The candidate becomes untouchable, criticism becomes betrayal, and the very people who should demand answers begin to manufacture excuses.That isn’t political loyalty at its finest. It is the surrender of civic responsibility.
Politics should be about the competition of ideas, the presentation of workable policies and the public’s right to determine who can govern effectively. But when political support becomes worship, the substance of leadership disappears under the noise of allegiance. The manifesto becomes merely secondary. Competence becomes negotiable. Accountability is postponed until after the election, when the same citizens who defended every weakness are left to live with the consequences.
A candidate seeking to lead Ogun State must be prepared to explain how the state will create sustainable employment, strengthen its industrial base, improve education, support small businesses, expand market access for local producers and attract investment beyond political announcements. It is not enough to promise development just like others have but unfortunately there was nothing to show forth. Aspirants must explain the policies, institutions, people to engage with, timelines and measurable targets through which that development will become reality. Enough is enough of candidates coming to play tricks on the minds of the Ogun State people, ambition should be plain and not coated with grammars, easy to be understood by all and sundry; learned and unlearned, poor and rich.
Where is the plan for a young graduate who has searched for employment for years? What is the strategy for the trader whose profits are consumed by transportation costs, inflation and poor infrastructure? How will a farmer move produce from the farm to profitable markets without losing much of it to spoilage or exploitative middlemen? What reforms will improve public schools, equip teachers and ensure that children from low-income households are not condemned to inferior opportunities?
A governorship ambition without detailed answers to these concerns is merely a request for power without a convincing explanation of its purpose. The truth is experience is not the same as achievement. That is why we must stop this error that years spent in government serve as a qualification that should silence every other argument. But experience, on its own, does not guarantee competence. A person may occupy public office for decades without delivering meaningful improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.
Consider an aspirant who has been involved in government since 2003 and now seeks the governorship. The relevant question is not whether that person has been around for a long time. It is what the years have produced. What policies did the individual influence? What institutions became stronger? What measurable improvements can be linked to the person’s responsibilities? What failures occurred, and what lessons were learned?
These questions should apply to every aspirant, regardless of party, family background, political godfather or financial strength.
This is not a demand to dismiss experience. Experience can be valuable when it produces sound judgement, institutional knowledge and a record of service. But experience must be examined, not worshipped. A lengthy political résumé is not a substitute for evidence of performance.
Neither should youth or novelty automatically be mistaken for competence. A younger candidate with no credible plan is not necessarily better than an experienced candidate with a demonstrable record of results. The real distinction is between those who can translate public office into measurable progress and those who expect the public to reward ambition without demanding proof.
Ogun State does not need change for the sake of a slogan. It needs leadership capable of making change work.
The cruelty of political worship
The most damaging feature of worship politics is not merely that supporters praise their preferred candidates. Citizens are entitled to support whoever they choose. The danger begins when loyalty becomes an excuse to dehumanise opponents, intimidate critics, spread unverified allegations or treat fellow citizens as enemies because they disagree politically.
When political arguments descend into insults and personal attacks, the public loses the opportunity to examine the issues that matter. Instead of debating the cost of governance, education outcomes, job creation, healthcare delivery and industrial development, supporters spend their energy defending personalities and humiliating dissenters.
That is the politics of shame.
It reduces citizens to instruments of political warfare and treats disagreement as an offence. It encourages people to defend what they would ordinarily condemn simply because the person responsible belongs to their preferred camp. In such an atmosphere, truth becomes a casualty of loyalty, while public policy is pushed to the margins.
No politician deserves that level of unquestioning devotion. Public office is a responsibility entrusted by the people, not a throne before which citizens must bow.
A supporter who asks difficult questions is not necessarily an enemy. A journalist who investigates a candidate’s record is not automatically working for an opponent. A young person who rejects a political godfather’s preferred candidate is not a traitor to the state. These are expressions of democratic citizenship.
If an aspirant’s supporters cannot tolerate scrutiny before an election, what should citizens expect when that aspirant eventually assumes office?
The ability to withstand criticism is not a weakness in leadership. It is an essential test of democratic maturity.
From political noise to technocracy
Technocracy, in this context, means a stronger emphasis on expertise, evidence, institutional competence and practical solutions in public decision-making. It does not mean handing government exclusively to technocrats or pretending that politics can be separated entirely from democratic choices. Elected leaders must still listen to citizens, understand their needs and remain accountable to the electorate.
But political ambition must be supported by the capacity to govern.
A government cannot industrialise a state through slogans alone. It needs reliable electricity, functioning transport networks, predictable regulations, access to finance, skilled labour and policies that encourage businesses to invest and expand. It must understand why local manufacturers struggle, what prevents small businesses from growing and how public infrastructure can support productive activity.
Education reform cannot and must not end with promises to build schools or employ teachers. It must address learning outcomes, teacher training, classroom conditions, vocational education, digital literacy and the relationship between education and employment. A young person should not spend years acquiring qualifications only to discover that the economy offers little opportunity to use them.
Agriculture requires more than distributing inputs during political campaigns. Farmers need storage facilities, processing opportunities, accessible markets, affordable logistics and a stable policy environment. Traders and small business owners need an economy in which effort can translate into growth rather than being consumed by avoidable costs.
These are complex problems. They demand careful planning, competent institutions and leaders willing to listen to specialists and the communities affected by their decisions.
That is why aspirants should be judged not only by the promises they make but also by the quality of their proposed solutions. Can they explain how their policies will be funded? What obstacles might prevent implementation? Which agencies will be responsible? What targets will they set? How will citizens know whether the promises have been fulfilled?
A candidate who cannot answer these questions should not be rescued by supporters who mistake confidence for competence.
Let the aspirants debate
If Ogun State is serious about choosing capable leadership, governorship debates should be treated as a democratic necessity rather than a ceremonial event.
Every major aspirant should have an opportunity to present a detailed policy agenda and defend it before the public. The discussion must go beyond prepared speeches and familiar political slogans. Moderators should ask direct questions about unemployment, education, industrialisation, healthcare, agriculture, security, infrastructure, public finance and the cost of implementing proposed policies.
Young people should not be invited merely to applaud. They should be allowed to ask questions that reflect their lived realities. Traders should be able to challenge candidates on market conditions. Teachers should ask about educational standards and working conditions. Farmers should question agricultural policy. Entrepreneurs should demand clarity on taxation, access to finance and the business environment.
Candidates should be required to explain their priorities, identify measurable targets and acknowledge the limitations of their proposals. Where a plan is unrealistic, the public deserves to know before election day, not after the government has been formed.
Political parties, civil society organisations, professional associations, media organisations and independent civic groups can help create credible platforms for these engagements. The process must be fair, transparent and open to scrutiny, with clear rules that prevent any candidate from receiving preferential treatment.
Most importantly, the debates should be documented and made accessible to the public. Citizens need more than memorable sound bites. They need a record against which future performance can be assessed.
A candidate who genuinely understands the responsibilities of the office should welcome the opportunity to explain how they intend to govern. Refusing scrutiny may not automatically prove incompetence, but a persistent unwillingness to engage seriously with public concerns should raise legitimate questions.
Publish the manifesto. Measure the promises.
Manifestos must become more than campaign documents produced to satisfy political expectations. Every serious aspirant should publish a detailed, accessible and cost policy document before the election.
The document should identify the problems the candidate intends to address, the proposed interventions, their estimated costs, the sources of funding, the institutions responsible for implementation and the timelines for delivery. It should distinguish between immediate priorities and long-term reforms, while acknowledging what the state government can achieve independently and what may require cooperation with the Federal Government, local governments or the private sector.
Independent media organisations and civic groups should make the manifestos available in a common format so that citizens can compare proposals without being overwhelmed by partisan messaging. Claims should be checked. Contradictions should be highlighted. Unrealistic projections should be challenged.
After the election, the winning candidate’s promises should not disappear into political memory.
A public governance scorecard should be established, with an initial assessment after the first three months and independent quarterly reviews thereafter. Such reviews should examine progress against published commitments, budget implementation, project delivery, service quality and the availability of reliable public data.
The first three months should establish a baseline and assess early actions, not be treated as sufficient time to judge every long-term outcome. Some reforms require years to produce measurable results. Nevertheless, citizens should be able to identify whether the government has begun implementing its commitments, whether it is using public resources responsibly and whether it is being honest about delays and obstacles.
The reviews should be conducted by credible independent bodies using verifiable evidence, not by partisan supporters grading their own preferred administration. Findings should be published in accessible language, and the government should have an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented.
Accountability must continue after the celebrations, after the appointments and after the campaign promises have faded from social media.
The people should not have to wait until another election before discovering whether they were served well.
The media must interrogate power, not worship it
A democracy cannot make informed choices when its information environment is dominated by propaganda, sponsored praise and partisan hostility. The media must therefore resist the temptation to become a megaphone for political camps.
Journalists should examine records, verify claims, investigate public spending and give candidates fair opportunities to respond to legitimate questions. Editorial independence must be protected, especially when political pressure or financial inducements threaten to influence coverage.
At the same time, citizens must learn to distinguish verified reporting from speculation, commentary from established fact and political allegations from proven wrongdoing. A viral post is not evidence simply because thousands of people have shared it. An accusation does not become true because it targets an unpopular politician.
Independent media should organise public forums where aspirants are challenged on specific policy questions, not merely invited to deliver campaign speeches. The questions should be relevant, the evidence should be available for examination, and the same standards should apply to every candidate.
The media’s duty is not to manufacture heroes or enemies. It is to help the public see power clearly.
Beyond Ladi Adebutu and the politics of factions
The recurring battles among political camps, including arguments over Ladi Adebutu and other prominent political figures, illustrate how easily public debate can become trapped in personalities. Political disagreements are legitimate, and the public has every right to scrutinise influential politicians. But the conversation must move beyond defending or attacking individuals as though the future of Ogun State depends entirely on one person’s victory or defeat.
The important question is what each political camp proposes to do with power.
What is the economic programme? How will public schools improve? What will be done to expand employment opportunities? How will public contracts be awarded and monitored? What safeguards will prevent waste and corruption? How will the administration ensure that development reaches communities outside the most visible urban centres?
These questions should not disappear because a preferred candidate is under criticism, nor should they be ignored because an opposing candidate has made a promise that sounds attractive.
The state belongs to its citizens, not to political factions. No party, dynasty, godfather or aspirant should be allowed to define the limits of public discussion.
Hello, Tony. The message is simple: political support must not become an excuse for abandoning critical thought. If a candidate is worth supporting, let that worth be demonstrated through a credible record, clear policies and the capacity to deliver. If the candidate falls short, supporters should have the courage to say so.
That is not disloyalty. It is responsibility.
The youth must stop renting out their judgement
Young people are often described as the future of Ogun State, yet they are too frequently treated as campaign instruments rather than partners in governance. Their energy is welcomed during rallies, their voices are amplified when they attack political opponents, and their online influence is valued when it can mobilise support. But when they demand detailed policies, transparent spending or a clear plan for employment, they may be dismissed as troublesome or inexperienced.
This contradiction must end.
Young people should not measure political relevance by how close they stand to an aspirant or how fiercely they defend a political camp online. Their influence should be measured by the quality of the questions they ask, the evidence they examine and the standards they insist upon.
Before endorsing a candidate, they should study the person’s record, examine the manifesto, compare competing proposals and ask what the candidate intends to do for people beyond their immediate supporters. They should challenge empty promises regardless of who makes them and refuse to spread allegations they cannot verify.
Political participation should enlarge the citizen’s freedom of judgement, not destroy it.
The goal is not to produce a generation that rejects every politician. Cynicism alone cannot build a state. The goal is to produce a generation that understands the difference between support and submission, between persuasion and propaganda, and between leadership and the mere pursuit of office.
Ogun State needs citizens who can disagree without dehumanising one another and support a candidate without surrendering their conscience.
The ballot must become a demand for results
The governorship contest should not be reduced to a popularity competition or a battle over political inheritance. It should be an opportunity for the people to compare visions, examine evidence and decide who offers the strongest and most realistic path towards development.
Every aspirant must be willing to answer the same fundamental questions: What will you change? How will you change it? How much will it cost? Who will benefit? How will success be measured? And what will you do if your plan fails?
The answers should matter more than the noise surrounding the candidates.
Ogun State has human capital, commercial activity, industrial potential and communities whose needs require urgent attention. Unlocking that potential will demand more than political experience or an impressive campaign organisation. It will require competent leadership, disciplined public administration, sound economic planning, institutional integrity and citizens prepared to hold those in power accountable.
No single candidate possesses all the answers. That is precisely why serious leadership requires consultation, expertise and the humility to learn. The governor should not be expected to know everything, but must be capable of assembling competent teams, evaluating evidence and making decisions in the public interest.
The people, in turn, must refuse to excuse failure simply because it comes from their preferred political camp.
Politics becomes dangerous when the struggle to defend a candidate becomes more important than the struggle to improve society. It becomes shameful when citizens attack one another over personalities while the problems affecting their schools, businesses, farms and communities remain unresolved.
The way forward is not more abuse, more blind allegiance or louder online battles. It is a politics built around ideas, measurable commitments, informed participation and accountability that survives beyond election day.
Ogun State must demand more from those who seek to govern it. Aspirants must bring their records and plans into the open. Political parties must encourage substantive debate. The media must interrogate power independently. Young people must reclaim their judgement. And citizens must learn to reward performance rather than proximity.
The next governor should not be chosen because supporters have perfected the art of praise. The governor should earn the public’s confidence by demonstrating the ability to govern.
A state cannot build its future on the worship of political personalities. It must build that future on ideas, competence and results.
That is the difference between having a political movement and building a society.
And until Ogun State makes that distinction, the people will remain spectators in the very politics that determines their future.
