Politics Requires Honesty Too: A Response to Rayyanu Bala
Politics, like every democratic enterprise, demands honesty, balance, and accountability from both participants and commentators.
It is against this backdrop that I find it necessary to respond to the recent article by Rayyanu Bala titled “Politics Is Not A Parade Ground.”
Ordinarily, such commentary would not require a response. However, for the sake of public clarity and accurate record, silence would only allow selective narratives to go unchallenged.
My earlier intervention was not made in isolation. It was a direct response to Mr. Bala’s own article, “Where IGP Adamu Got It Wrong.” In public discourse, critique is not a one-way privilege. Those who offer criticism must equally be open to scrutiny.
Disagreement is not the problem. Indeed, disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. What is troubling, however, is the attempt to blur objective reality with carefully constructed rhetoric that may distort public perception.
Mr. Bala argues that ambition is not the issue but attitude.
This raises a critical question: whose attitude is truly at issue? When political actors engage supporters, consult stakeholders, and organize themselves early, should that be interpreted as aggression or intimidation? Political preparation is not a declaration of hostility.
It is a legitimate exercise of democratic rights.
Across Nasarawa State, many individuals are pursuing political aspirations.
To single out one aspirant as a source of “friction” creates the impression of a deliberate narrative rather than an objective assessment.
Political relevance naturally attracts attention. Visibility is not synonymous with conflict, and momentum should not be mischaracterized as intimidation.
When individuals with proven leadership credentials step forward, public engagement will inevitably increase. This is not a threat to democracy. Rather, it is a reflection of democracy in motion.
Mr. Bala is correct in stating that democracy is not a parade ground. However, democracy is also not a passive arena where energy, preparation, and political engagement must be suppressed to maintain comfort.
Democracy thrives on participation, competition, and the free expression of ambition.
What some may describe as “tension” may simply represent the disruption of established expectations.
Political evolution often challenges familiar patterns, and such change should not automatically be framed as destabilizing.
It is also important to acknowledge that political survival is a reality for many actors within the system.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, survival must not come at the cost of fairness or factual representation.
The suggestion that consultations, mobilization, or the visibility of campaign materials constitute destabilization is exaggerated.
Participation should never be confused with confrontation. Aspirants have a legitimate right to engage with the political process openly and responsibly.
Calls for civility in political engagement are welcome and necessary. However, civility must be mutual. It cannot be selectively demanded while subtle attempts are made to delegitimize others through public commentary.
Equally, the notion that silence among other aspirants automatically reflects maturity is misleading. Silence may reflect strategic timing, calculation, or limited organizational structure. It should not be elevated as the sole measure of political responsibility.
Ultimately, the purpose of my earlier response was not driven by fear or insecurity but by a commitment to fairness and balance. Public commentary must reflect objectivity, not selective caution.
Nasarawa State deserves a political environment where ideas compete freely, where narratives are balanced, and where public discourse is guided by truth rather than perception management.
Democracy is strengthened not by silence but by honest engagement. Credibility, both in politics and commentary, rests on the commitment to illuminate truth and uphold fairness.
