Response to Abubakar Rajab
— Yusuf, M.A
Abubakar Rajab, I understand the intention behind your contribution. However, the position you presented assumes that good performance can justify the continuous retention of power within the same geopolitical zone. Once that assumption is examined against the principles of democratic balance, constitutional fairness, and the historical power record of Kogi State, it becomes clear that the argument cannot stand. This is not a matter of sentiment, but of structural justice.
The recent defense of non-rotation attempts to frame the call for balance as emotional, while presenting continuity as wisdom. The rhetoric may sound refined, but it collapses under constitutional logic and political science. No multi-ethnic state sustains peace when one bloc becomes the custodian of power. Power-sharing is not a cultural courtesy; it is a stabilizing mechanism in plural societies. As Arend Lijphart’s extensive work on political systems shows, stability in divided societies is sustained when executive power rotates among the constituent groups. Rotation, therefore, is not a political favour. It is the framework that prevents dominance, exclusion, and the resentment that follows.
The historical record in Kogi State is not in dispute. Kogi East has governed for sixteen years. Kogi Central governed for eight years under Yahaya Bello and is now in another four-year tenure under Governor Ododo, bringing the zone to twelve years so far, with active political momentum toward sixteen years—all concentrated in one local government area. Meanwhile, Kogi West has not governed even once since the creation of the state. This is not equity. It is an exclusion.
Robert Dahl, one of the foremost scholars of democratic theory, makes it clear that democracy begins to erode when any group is permanently denied access to power. Stability is threatened not when an excluded group demands inclusion, but when the exclusion is normalized and defended as governance strategy.
Performance cannot be used as the currency to purchase indefinite political retention. Performance is the minimum expectation of any administration. It does not suspend equity. When “performance” becomes the justification for power to remain indefinitely in one bloc, continuity is no longer governance—it becomes custody of the state.
Invoking the examples of Barack Obama or Rishi Sunak is also a misapplication. They emerged in political systems where the rotation of leadership and access to national office had already been normalized. Their rise did not follow a pattern of one group monopolizing leadership; rather, their rise was possible because the system did not lock power in a single identity bloc. Their examples reinforce the necessity of inclusion—not the justification of exclusion.
Therefore, the question that must be answered is straightforward: If Kogi East has already governed for sixteen years, and Kogi Central is positioned to complete its own sixteen, what is the democratic justification for Kogi West remaining at zero? No rhetoric of performance, continuity, or development can answer that question without confronting the imbalance itself.
The call for power rotation is not an attack on the current administration. It is a call to restore the equilibrium that sustains unity. Rotation is not politics. Rotation is peace. Rotation is fairness. Rotation is the structure that allows every citizen to see the state as shared, and not inherited.
Kogi West is not asking for an advantage.
Kogi West is asking for parity.
And parity is the only foundation upon which a stable Kogi can stand.