by Bayo Adeyinka
“We are relieved not to have a vote in this election. But were we offered one we would—with a heavy heart—choose Mr Buhari. Mr Jonathan risks presiding over Nigeria’s bloody fragmentation. If Mr Buhari can save Nigeria, history might even be kind to him”.
That was the concluding part of the editorial piece published by the respectable London magazine, The Economist, this week under the title ‘The Least Awful’. The subtitle is even more pungent – ‘A former dictator is a better choice than a failed president’.
This piece made the front page of many local newspapers and has been the subject of political discussions among the elite over the past few days. Even the APC has been brandishing it as a big-time endorsement of their candidate. However, beyond the endorsement, does this translate to political capital and how exactly will this affect the voting pattern, if at all? Does this mean that anyone that is endorsed by this global paper can consider himself home and dry? Can we examine a few historical antecedents as the past is a good predictor of the future?
During the British General elections of 1966, the Economist endorsed the Conservative Party led by Edward Heath. Part of the editorial piece read, “On their record in the past decade, as in the past weel, on the central issues of British policy the choice must be for Mr Heath.” The election was won by Harold Wilson of Labour Party who was PM till 1970.
In October 1974, the newspaper yet again endorsed Edward Heath thus : “[A]lthough a good Liberal contribution would be essential to the formation, and the success, of any coalition, it is the Conservatives who will provide the strongest and toughest opposition to a majority Labour government next week.” The election was won yet again by Harold Wilson of Labour. It was his second coming.
In 1997, the Economist while endorsing John Major of the Conservative Party left nothing to the imagination by declaring definitively that “Labour doesn’t deserve it”. Tony Blair of Labour Party won that election.
Let’s look at the United States of America. During the 1996 presidential elections, the newspaper endorsed Bob Dole of the Republican Party. Excerpts of that editorial endorsement reads, “We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year’s dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one.” The candidate referred to as ‘dubious character’ in that year’s election was Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party. He was re-elected that year.
In 2004, the newspaper lashed out at Gorge W. Bush in a piece titled ‘The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry’. The magazine endorsed John Kerry that year but George Bush won.
The newspaper which has a penchant for endorsements of all sorts also has a rich history in Europe, Oceania, Latin America and even Africa. During the 2002 German Federal election, it endorsed Christian Democratic Union’s Edmund Stoiber under a piece titled ‘ Time for a change’. Gerrard Schrider of the SPD won that election.
At the 2008 Italian General election, the newspaper while endorsing Walter Veltroni wrote “Silvio Berlusconi has failed to show that he is any more worthy of leading Italy today than he was in the past”. Silvia Berlusconi won.
During the Turkish General election of 2011, there was an editorial piece titled “Turkey’s election: One for the opposition”. In that piece, Kemal Kilicdaroglu was endorsed but the election was won by Recep Tayyip Erdogan for a third time.
In 2012 during the French Presidential election, the newspaper while endorsing Nicolas Sarkozy wrote, “For all that, if we had a vote on May 6th we would give it to Mr Sarkozy—but not on his merits, so much as to keep out Mr Hollande.” Francoise Hollande won the runoff with 51.64% of the vote to Sarkozy’s 48.36%.
During the Australian federal election of 2013, the newspaper supported Labour Party’s Kevin Rudd and wrote “The choice between a man with a defective manifesto and one with a defective personality is not appealing—but Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor’s decent record.” The opposition Tony Abbott of Liberal Party won.
The newspaper endorsed Congress Party of India’s Gandhi during the 2014 general election in that country. The paper wrote, ” We do not find the prospect of a government led by Congress under Mr Gandhi an inspiring one. But we have to recommend it to Indians as the less disturbing option.” Narendra Modi of the National Democratic Alliance won.
Curiously, during last year’s general election in South Africa, the newspaper endorsed the Democratic Alliance by stating that “The DA deserves to be endorsed. It has doggedly promoted non-racial and liberal values and sensible economic policies.”Jacob Zuma of the African National Congress won.
Finally and most recently, Brazil’s Aecio Neves was clearly endorsed during the October 2014 presidential election. The newspaper, while appearing fully partisan wrote , “Voters should ditch Dilma Rousseff and elect Aécio Neves.” Dilma Rousseff won 41.6% of the vote, ahead of Aécio Neves with 33.6% and Marina Silva with 21.3%. Rousseff and Neves contested the runoff on October 26 with Rousseff being re-elected by a narrow margin, 51.6% to Neves’ 48.4%.
While most candidates will gladly accept an endorsement from such a respectable newspaper, the impact of such endorsement especially when our citizens in diaspora won’t be voting does not amount to much. No monumental shift in public opinion will take place. So what’s the real worth of such an endorsement- apart from it being just an opinion? Will it have any impact on the outcome? Time will tell.
Bayo Adeyinka is the manager of SAP Business Improvement at Shell. He writes as a freelance writer.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
