By Steve Otaloro
One of the oldest temptations in politics has endured through every generation: that power can only ever be called by a clenched fist. To most, authority is felt to be inadequate unless it threatens, stifles dissent and commands submission without question. Yet history has consistently taught us that the most powerful leaders are not those who swing the largest hammer, but those strong enough to keep it in a holster.
It looks like Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa is going to test that proposition.
By virtue of this office which is by both convention and political norm endowed with enormous clout, he is the constitutional leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ondo State. In a system where political architecture rarely permits governors to be just another member of the party. At the heart of party machinery sits the governor. The party is run by state chairmen, but it is frequently driven strategically by governors in the states. Now, that is the unspoken constitution of Nigerian politics.
Many governors across the country wield this power, unapologetically. They make decisions behind closed doors and get whisper announcements to the public. Consultation is seen as good deed instead of an obligation. At times the consensus is imposed rather than bargained.
Such an approach is not against the law. Power permits it.
But Aiyedatiwa has taken a different course. Instead of concentrating authority within the Government House, he deliberately expanded the circle of consultation. He strengthened the Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC), institutionalised regular stakeholders’ meetings and, more recently, broadened representation to accommodate voices from the state’s 203 wards. These are decisions he could easily have made alone. Instead, he chose deliberation over decree.
That distinction matters. Democracy is not merely the freedom to vote. It is the willingness of those who possess power to restrain themselves from abusing it. The true democrat is not the politician without authority, but the leader who possesses overwhelming authority and still seeks the opinions of others. That is a rarer political virtue than many appreciate.
The recent APC primary further illustrated this disposition. At a time when consensus candidacies have become fashionable in several states, sometimes reflecting the overwhelming influence of incumbent governors, Ondo State followed a different trajectory. When the idea of consensus emerged, Governor Aiyedatiwa reportedly insisted that it should first be debated across the state’s three senatorial districts rather than imposed from above. The outcome reflected the preference that emerged from those consultations.
Whether one supported the process or not, the governing philosophy was unmistakable: legitimacy grows stronger when participation is wider. Politics, however, rarely rewards moderation.
When developments after the primary generated controversy and earlier expectations were altered following decisions at the national level, tension naturally followed. Aspirants became anxious. Their supporters became restless. Rumours travelled faster than facts, as they often do in Nigerian politics.
At that delicate moment, the easier option would have been silence. Instead, Governor Aiyedatiwa convened meetings involving the Governor’s Advisory Council, party leaders and aggrieved stakeholders to calm frayed nerves. The objective was straightforward: preserve party unity, encourage reconciliation and keep attention focused on the larger political contest ahead.
Statesmanship often consists of preventing yesterday’s disagreement from becoming tomorrow’s disaster. Unfortunately, not everyone appears to appreciate the delicacy of reconciliation.
Even before official processes were fully concluded, some individuals reportedly began premature celebrations, organised victory parties and projected triumph as though every internal disagreement had already been settled. Political maturity demands greater restraint. Reconciliation cannot flourish where triumphalism thrives.
Victory, after all, loses much of its dignity when it humiliates those expected to become tomorrow’s campaign partners.
Ironically, some of the same voices now calling for reconciliation seem determined to undermine the very atmosphere necessary for reconciliation to succeed. Peace cannot grow where provocation is constantly watered.
Perhaps the greatest irony surrounding Governor Aiyedatiwa’s leadership is this: many of his critics appear disappointed not because he has exercised too much power, but because he has exercised too little of it.
They expected retaliation. He chose accommodation. They anticipated political vendetta. He offered consultation. They expected an emperor. They encountered a democrat. They expected bitterness. He responded with governance.
While critics occupied social media with accusations, the governor appeared more interested in roads, schools, infrastructure, public services and employment. His response to political attacks has largely been administrative performance rather than rhetorical warfare. That may not satisfy those who mistake noise for leadership.
Satire often writes itself in Nigerian politics. We sometimes accuse leaders of authoritarianism, yet become suspicious whenever one refuses to behave like an autocrat. We complain about concentration of power, then criticise a governor for sharing decision-making. We demand inclusion, yet ridicule consultation as weakness. It is a curious contradiction.
Perhaps what unsettles some observers is not that Governor Aiyedatiwa possesses power, but that he seems reluctant to weaponise it.
Power intoxicates many. Restraint confuses them. History has a habit of separating those who merely occupied office from those who elevated it. Time, not applause, ultimately judges leadership. The loudest voices of today are rarely the final editors of tomorrow’s history books.
Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa will eventually be judged, not by the fury of his critics nor by the enthusiasm of his supporters, but by whether he strengthened democratic culture in Ondo State while delivering tangible governance.
If leadership is measured not simply by the authority one possesses, but by the wisdom with which one exercises it, then Governor Aiyedatiwa deserves recognition for choosing consultation where compulsion was available, reconciliation where revenge was tempting, and democratic inclusion where authoritarian convenience would have been easier.
In politics, every leader receives flowers when the crowd is watching.
Only a few earn the lotus.
The lotus does not bloom because the waters are calm. It blooms despite the mud beneath it. That is why it has endured for centuries as a symbol of resilience, purity and quiet strength.
Perhaps, then, it is time to give Aiyedatiwa his lotus- not merely as a flower of praise, but as a recognition that leadership is at its noblest when power chooses humility over hubris, consultation over command, and service over self.
