OpinionPolitics

Church, State and 2023 General Elections

5 Mins read

 

By abiodun KOMOLAFE

Originally, in the secular world, the State comes before the Church, because, by its institutional characteristics, it is the custodian of all other institutions. In other words, the State is the behemoth institution; co-existing, but superior to other social institutions. And that has been established since 1648! Thenceforward, the marriage between the Church and the State has been at the mercy of the State. The only exception is Rome, where a State exists within a State because the papacy is a state on its own.

In the United Kingdom, the Church legitimizes the State. Succinctly put, the Church is the legitimacy booster for the State. That is why, while the powers of the State protect the King or the Queen, the Church legitimizes the State. The more reason the King or the Queen can do no wrong! Again, that’s why, immediately a Prime Minister is elected, he or she goes to Buckingham Palace for the blessing of the King or the Queen. And the King or the Queen will normally approve the appointment of the Prime Minister, because it is both symbolic and a symbiotic thing!

Basically, though the State is always there to protect the interests of the Church, the unfortunate thing is that, in the Nigerian circumstance, the Church is now representing a sectorial capacity of the religious sector. For instance, the Islamic faith is as formidable as the Church. As it is, the Bola Tinubu/Kashim Shettima same faith joint presidential ticket of the ruling _All Progressives Congress_ (APC) has so made the powers of the two main religions in Nigeria become so antagonistic to each other that it is now the test of religious influence!

It is also interesting to note that former Governor Rauf Aregbesola of Osun State did add the reality of _‘Isese’_ (traditional worship) to the mix, which, of course, is still within the purview of reli gion. Gboyega Oyetola, the immediate past governor of the state, did not betray the trust! In Osun, for instance, ‘Isese’ now has a recognized annual holiday attached to it. Impliedly, the indigenous religion is also qualified to be a contender to the throne. While the Christians may put forward an advice, the Islamic world will be willing to add its voice. Ultimately, the _‘Isese’_ adherents, who also have the recognition of the State, will also want to be heard! So, it’s no longer the Church, solely.

Where also lies the place of the atheists and others whose interests are not captured in the present picture? After all, Nigeria belongs to all Nigerians, irrespective of creed or race. What’s more? Elective offices in Nigeria are supposed to be secular. That’s what Article 10 of the Constitution says! Yes, the atheists may not have the population with which to push through their wishes, but, within the context of liberality, even the _Boko Haram_ insurgents have a reason to make a demand in a democracy!

With a specific reference to the 2023 elections, there’s a lot of confusion in the definition of Christianity in Nigeria. And it is deliberate! Take, for instance, the case of Peter Obi. As governor of Anambra State, it’s being alleged that he never gave non-Catholics free access, or _Certificates of Occupancy_ to build their churches in the state. Added to Obi’s purported sins was that he almost chased everybody, who wanted to build a mosque in the State, away. As a matter of fact, these allegations have been appropriately documented and any Nigerian with disagreeing opinions has been asked to come forward and open up. Now, Obi as the presidential candidate of the _Labour Party_ (LP) is a regular face at Pentecostal churches and congregations. As Apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3, doesn’t being a Christian go beyond being a churchgoer?

Those who still doubt the relevance of, or the influence of religion in Nigeria’s democratic journey had better ask Atiku Abubakar why he hurriedly deleted his tweets, condemning the gruesome murder of Deborah Samuel by religious extremists in Sokoto, on his Twitter handle. Obviously, the _Peoples’ Democratic Party_ (PDP) presidential candidate did it to appease the hoodlums. Otherwise, he would lose the entire North, come February 25, 2023!

It has also been argued that Nigeria is currently not a State. Well, those who hold this notion may not be wrong after all! For example, had dear fatherland truly been a State, the Ademola Adeleke-led government in Osun would not have deliberately refused to pay the salaries of certain public workers. That’s not possible in a true democracy! No! In a thriving democracy, public administration cannot come down to the handlers’ personal feelings or idiosyncrasies.

All said, the immediate major interest of the Nigerian State, so to speak, is to have successful elections in 2023. Without doubt, the point opined about the question of religion and its influence on; or, relevance to, governance is so critical to social cohesion. The State will want the cooperation of the Church, while the Church, though will want to appear neutral, will be very sensitive to its interests. So, the State must be extremely careful not to be seen as being religiously biased or partial. If it does, it could lose its legitimacy; and it will have legitimacy crises. Take for instance the Nigerian situation: the current president is a Muslim; so also are most of the key position holders in its bureaucracy and public service. Coincidentally too, the ruling party has also presented a Muslim/Muslim presidential ticket for the election. Under this condition, should the handlers of the State spew words that are perceived as being against the Christian world, it can bring the country to its knees.

If I may ask, how coterminous is the interest of the Church with that of the Nigerian State? Whereas the interest of the State is as constant as the Northern Star, the Church cannot but negotiate its interests and preferences with the State within the context of the demands of other similar social institutions. The interest of the State is to have a legitimized government in place; and the interest of the Church is to have its interests protected from hindrances from the State or opposing faiths. That the Church is presumably drawing global attention to the fielding of Tinubu and Shettima as the APC joint presidential flag-bearers as a result of these fears cannot be far from the truth. The argument is that, as Muslims, a Tinubu/Shettima presidency may not be sympathetic to the core interests of the Church, more so as they don’t even understand the components of those core interests.

Lastly, it’s a statement of fact that the burden of the success of the forthcoming elections lies squarely on the State. However, since it is a societal issue, it therefore behooves the Church and other societal groups to cooperate with the State to ensure that a peaceful atmosphere prevails before, during and after the exercise for, it is only in a peaceful atmosphere that both the interests of the State and the Religious Community (the Church inclusive) can be realized. How to get societal peace engineered in an environment of insecurity, poverty, hunger and other kinds of social malady places an enormous burden on the State. It’s after these negative social indices are sorted that both the Church and the State can have peace and, effectively, a government that is legitimate.

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

• Komolafe wrote in from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 07087941459 – SMS only)_

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryOpinionPerspectivePolitics

Tinubu’s Reforms Deserve Continuity, Second Term Crucial — Onuigbo

4 Mins read
The President of Globe Legislators International, Rt. Hon. Sir Sam Onuigbo, has called on members and stakeholders of the All Progressives Congress…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com