By Adamu Aminu
The ongoing preparations surrounding the possible defection of Kano State Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, from the NNPP to the APC—widely seen as a point of no return from the political camp of his godfather, the warlord of the red-cap ideological movement known as Kwankwasiyya—have raised critical questions about the nature of contemporary politics. Is today’s politics driven by ideology or mere transaction?
This unfolding trend has made certain realities even more glaring, leading many to believe that politics rewards survival, not loyalty.
Yet, some still maintain that every general rule has its exceptions, arguing that there remain a few individuals who uphold political ideology without trading conscience for breadcrumbs.
Although politics is often described as having no permanent friends or foes, it is increasingly perceived as a game defined by brazen and frontal perfidy.
Ironically, in an era where cross-carpeting and aligning with the ruling party have become fashionable—essentially jumping aboard the gravy train—some political officeholders continue to preach ideological purity to the masses while privately craving patronage and political survival.
Manipulation now appears to be an entrenched feature of political dynamics, where godfathers exert overwhelming influence over their godsons for personal gain or ulterior motives. Political mentorship and the financing of protégés, it seems, do not come free—there must always be a lucrative payoff.
Dear reader, how do you perceive the ongoing tug-of-war within Kano’s political landscape?
Is this crisis driven by ideological conviction or transactional interest?
As the proverb goes, “One hand cannot clap alone.” Similarly, the Hausa saying “Idan bera da sata, daddawa itama na da wari”—meaning “If a rat is accused of stealing, the locust beans must also smell” apptly captures shared culpability.
The rules of political ecosystems rarely change.
When mentors become allergic to truth and ideology, preferring dominance over genuine guidance, their protégés will eventually seek independence and self-preservation. Conversely, there are cases where mentors are sincere, hardworking, and ideological, yet their endorsed mentees become intoxicated by power, carried away by the sweetness of governance.
As the nation edges closer to the 2027 general elections, cross-carpeting has become increasingly endemic. The pressing question remains: how does one reconcile a politician who once spoke with fiery passion against a party, only to later embrace the very structure he blamed for underdevelopment?
How does a man who once stood on the podium preaching vision, restoration, and human development defect to the same party he accused of incompetence and economic mismanagement?
Is this the ideological or transactional politics we intend to teach and pass on to the next generation?
From my personal standpoint, such open and frequent party-switching is a tragedy of modern politicking. Most politicians do not defect on ideological grounds; they simply move because the political wind has changed direction.
Some cross over not out of courage, but out of convenience—seeking greener pastures elsewhere.
It is time to reflect deeply on the prevailing moral bankruptcy: a system devoid of ethical values, where political exploitation and betrayal are rebranded as smart survival strategies.
Undoubtedly, this trend reflects what is fundamentally broken in our democratic practice.
Aminu writes from Kano.
