Banner Online News

As journalists in Delta State prepare for the October elections of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, one question appears to be quietly following the campaign trail:

Why are some people who were once identified with the incumbent chairman’s camp now finding a new political home?

That question may be uncomfortable. But it is certainly legitimate.

In every election, people move. Alliances shift. Friends become rivals. Yesterday’s supporters sometimes become today’s campaigners for another candidate.

That is politics.

But when people who have been sufficiently close to an incumbent leadership to understand its inner workings begin to identify with an alternative aspirant, surely there is more to examine than the convenient explanation of betrayal.

So, what happened?

Did personal ambition suddenly become irresistible? Did some people simply calculate where their interests would be better served?

Or did their experience within the incumbent administration produce questions about the direction of the Council, leadership style, consultation, communication, welfare, inclusiveness or the general management of the affairs of the Union?

And here comes the more uncomfortable question:

If people who once helped to sell the incumbent leadership to members are now helping to sell an alternative, should the explanation be sought only in their motives—or also in the leadership they are leaving?

That is where the October NUJ election becomes interesting.

The incumbent has the advantage of a record. The challenger has the opportunity to question that record. Those who have moved camps have a story to tell. And the ordinary members have the responsibility of listening to all sides before deciding.

Nobody should be condemned merely because he changes allegiance.

Equally, nobody should expect automatic applause merely because former allies have joined his camp.

For the incumbent, the movement of former associates should perhaps be an invitation to introspection.

For the new aspirant, their arrival should not be mistaken for a mandate.

And for the members, the important question should be bigger than who is supporting whom?

What exactly is each camp offering the Delta NUJ? What is the programme for journalists’ welfare? What is the vision for strengthening the Council?

How will members’ professional interests be protected? What is the plan for training and capacity building? How will communication between leadership and members improve? What will be done differently?

And perhaps most importantly, what lessons have the contestants learnt from the experience of the present administration that should shape the next one?

These are the questions that should matter as journalists head towards the ballot.

Because a union election should not become a referendum on personalities alone.

The NUJ is bigger than the chairman, bigger than the aspirants and certainly bigger than their respective campaign teams.

The chairmanship is a position of trust, not personal ownership. The office belongs temporarily to whoever members elect. The Union belongs to its membership.

Therefore, when members of an incumbent chairman’s team begin to look elsewhere, the sensible response is neither to demonise them nor to canonise them.

Interrogate the development. What did they see? What did they experience? What did they expect? What did they disagree with? And what exactly are they hoping will change under the alternative?

Those questions may produce uncomfortable answers. But uncomfortable questions are not necessarily bad questions.

Indeed, journalists should be particularly suspicious of an election in which nobody is allowed to ask uncomfortable questions.

We spend our professional lives asking politicians why they made decisions, why officials resigned, why allies defected and why institutions are failing.

Now the NUJ election presents journalists with an opportunity to ask some of those questions of themselves.

If your own people are moving away, what does that tell you?

Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

Perhaps they are merely pursuing personal ambition. Perhaps they have genuinely become persuaded by another candidate’s programme.

Perhaps they are dissatisfied. Perhaps they believe the time has come for a different direction. Perhaps all of the above are true in different cases.

The important thing is to establish the facts rather than manufacture rumours.

And there is another little matter the new aspirant should not overlook. People can leave one camp without necessarily falling in love with another.

Therefore, the task of an alternative candidate is not simply to gather dissatisfied members around him. It is to convince the wider membership that he has a credible programme capable of addressing the issues that produced the dissatisfaction in the first place.

That is where the election becomes a contest of ideas rather than an arithmetic exercise in counting defections.

So, as the October NUJ Delta election approaches, perhaps the most SPOOKY question is not: “Why did they leave the chairman?”

It is: “What did they see that made them believe there was somewhere else worth going?”

And perhaps the question waiting for the new aspirant is equally haunting: “Now that they have come to you, what exactly are you going to do differently?”

The answers; not the noise, the gossip or the size of campaign crowds may tell journalists much more about the real issues before the Delta NUJ electorate.

After all, when journalists gather to elect their leaders, the story should not merely be who wins the chair. The story should be what kind of journalism union the members are choosing to build.