From the Fundamental Concept of Leadership to the Workers’ Role in the Movement
SECOND THOUGHTS ON THE BETRAYAL OF LEADERSHIPS
The essence of this piece is partly to prove that it is contradictory to claim that everyone is a leader and at the same time say that there can be no representatives for logical reasons explained recently since the mass themselves are the leadership. It should also be clear at this point in this discourse that there has existed some form of unofficial or bureaucratic leadership that becomes apparent in times of crisis without which the movement can not last very long or move very far. The question now is; if the rejection of an official leadership is meant to avert betrayal, how can the unofficial/bureaucratic leadership be prevented from selling out the movement? If the elected leaders can be put in check by refusing to hold elections, what about the leaders who were not elected, how can they be controlled?
Answering these questions would seem like an admittance of the inevitability of a betrayal and hence failure of any movement because even if one should propose decrying a bureaucratic leadership on account of their betrayal it would have the same effect as denouncing an official leadership that sold out the movement, and anyone with some experience in mass movements knows that the government or ruling class will always favour, in fact, enforce agreements reached with traitors in leadership irrespective of whether that leadership is official or not.
But to commit mass movements to defeat as an ultimate fate would be an ahistorical error. History has taught us that despite the fall of many mass movements new ones arose even when nascent movements lost out due to their unfaithful leaderships. This just proves that the masses themselves are the real leadership as their readiness and orientation are the primary factors for change in the society while their leadership is only secondary. Sometimes the quest to change society can be reduced to the quest to change the leadership or administration of mankind. Hence in the journey to an advance society representaives, leaders, and officials will sell out for personal gains; give up; shy away from responsibility because of fear or simply become redundant but the masses (must) continue the fight and ensure that they advance from one level of material existence to the more advanced level. This means denouncing or relieving any official leadership that fails to represent the mass interests and constituting a new one to take its place every single time.
Meanwhile it is impossible to measure the growth, change or achievement of a mass movement without an official representation or leadership as the aims of such a movement would be largely unclear or contradictory. At the same time, even without an official leadership a movement can be vanquished or disbanded by state coercion just as we have experienced. This is similar to attempts to decapitate a movement with an official leadership. In both cases, such a movement can be revived or sustained by a mass which recognizes in itself the historical responsibility to continue the cause for a more advanced society. The masses drive and sustain a movement however without an official leadership it is impossible for such a movement to grow.
IS ELECTORAL POLITICS THE DEATH OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS?
The Youth Democratic Party (YDP) is no strange development to anyone who is conversant with the goings-on of the END SARS movement. Critics have rightly pointed out that, to use their words, “youth is not an ideology” that is to say it is not enough to form a political party based on the age range of citizens, or just because a person is young or is a youth shouldn’t be enough qualification to be a member of the party. Before we arrive at a concrete position on the YDP we must first ask the popular question, “is electoral politics the death of social movements?” Should the climax of a movement be the formation of a political party? Or should the final move of the popular masses be at the ballot?
Elections are themselves products of social movements and hence for social change. In the same vein they can be a vehicle for social change however as social change is eternal elections cannot be the peak of social progress. So it will be a fatal error for any movement to make elections the most powerful weapon in its arsenal. That is, any movement which seeks to collapse itself into elections is headed for the political morgue or preparing its own obituary.
There are various levels to this, the more a movement bends towards electoral politics as its final resort the weaker it gets and the more it loses its essence. Only those movements which do not have voting as their end game survive or prevent any set back that may come through electoral politics instead they maximize the opportunity which an election period brings. In order to maximize the upswing of political awareness of election periods to strengthen the movement it must have a political demeanor. Imagine that after bringing the Buhari government to an end before 2023, the same movement lacks or cannot provide its own political alternative to APC/PDP. So what form should that political alternative take? Since the end of this political alternative is to strengthen the movement itself, the political alternative (that is, the kind of participation of this movement in all forms of politics) must be through its representatives or its coordinating committees.
So the movement can only participate in politics or form a political party through its organs of representation or coordination at the regional and national levels. This would naturally mean that this party is the embodiment of ideals of the movement not machinations like YDP with abstract or no principles at all.
Again, the mere fact that the actualization of the key demand of an anti-government uprising for instance, to bring down the Buhari regime, necessitates transformation of such a movement into a political/economic alternative means that electoral politics should serve to strengthen a movement not take over the movement. This does not mean however that the progenitors of the YDP have no right to form a political party however the timing means that the party is only here to play a misleading role.