We don’t ordinarily see a connection between sex and politics. Well, that’s not counting the fact that power — political power in particular — enhances men’s allure. What they have in common substantively is that the same approach that works best for one would do the same for the other.
Experts on sexual fulfillment — Dr. Ruth Westheimer, for one — cautions couples not to focus on their own pleasures during intimacy. To optimise mutual satisfaction, they say, each partner should focus on servicing the other.
Given people’s natural tendency to go for their own fulfillment, this advice is counter-intuitive. In any case, I doubt that it is a panacea for all that keeps couples from sexual satisfaction. But it does make a lot of sense.
Now jolt your thoughts away from the bedroom and onto the political arena. Now imagine that the advice for optimising the pleasures of intimacy is applied in political relations. Now, it’s understandable if you say that this is unrealistic. I’m sure there are those who would say it is unrealistic in the bedroom too. But suspend that skepticism — cynicism? —and just imagine the difference it would make in politics.
I might never have done this had it not been for the juxtaposition of two equally unrelated events. One is a recent appearance of Dr. Ruth—as Westheimer is popularly known — on a late-night TV programme.
And the other is a WhatsApp forward of a supposed announcement that Dr. Ogbonnaya Onu has been appointed Secretary to the Federal Government.
As it turned out, the post was apparently wishful thinking on someone’s part.
In any case, for context, Dr. Ruth is a sex therapist who became a celebrity in the 1980s by giving frank advice about sex on TV programmes. She’s been largely away from the screen for quite some time. Now 91 years old, she is pitching a book she just authored, titled — you guessed it — “Sex After 50.” Though she didn’t repeat it, her trademark sex advice inevitably came to mind.
As to the supposed appointment of Onu as Secretary to the Federal Government, I read the “news” with mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was relieved that an Igbo was appointed to that position. On the other hand, I still marvelled at the insensitivity of Nigerian political leaders in not finding a way to have an Igbo in a leadership position of any of the branches of government.
As of the time of this essay, the Senate Majority Leader position was still pending, but the APC legislators were leaning toward allotting it to another geo-political region. Meanwhile, Igbo groups are vociferously asking for it, some pushing for Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha for the position.
Had Atiku Abubakar won the presidency, we would have had an Igbo Peter Obi as vice president—and a heartbeat away from the presidency. That would have helped to address a sore issue in Nigerian politics. But as it is, we don’t have an Igbo at the helm of the presidency, the Senate, the House of Assembly, or the judiciary.
There are lots of things to consider, of course, in filling the positions. Bankrolling of elections is a major consideration. But in politics, as in sex, there is actually nothing more important than making the other person happy. There is nothing more important in Nigerian politics in particular than ensuring the sense of equity even if that means that individuals sacrifice their own sense of entitlement.
I have severally written critically of aspects of the Igbo claim of marginalisation. But that perception is real and the related emotions are raw. President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration severely exacerbated the grievance during his first tenure. It could be readily argued, of course, that the Igbo hold this or that significant position, and they do. But there is the matter of optics, as American pundits are wont to put it. In politics, appearance matters—a lot. The absence of an Igbo in the top leadership makes the work of Biafra advocates much easier.
It is not an over-simplification to assert that underlying most national conflicts around the world is failure to heed Dr. Ruth’s advice as applied to politics.
Africa in the World Cups
Now to a less weighty matter. After the dismal performance of African teams in the 2018 World Cup, the recent World Cups provide reason for some cheer. In the 32-team 2018 tournament that featured five African teams (Senegal, Tunisia, Nigeria, Morocco and Egypt), not a single African team advanced to the Round of 16.
Africa’s representation in the Under-20 World Cup this year performed much better. In the 24-team tournament that featured four African teams (Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa), all but South Africa advanced to the Round of 16. That is an impressive success rate of 75 per cent. By contrast, the European confederation had four of its six teams advance, for a success rate of 67 per cent.
More than that, an African team, Senegal, won its group with seven points, which means it won two games and drew one. Another, Mali, came second in its group. Both teams advanced to the quarter finals, with Senegal beating Nigeria 2-1. Senegal was within a whisker of advancing to the semi-finals. It was leading 2-1 before South Korea equalised in the 8th minute of an unusually long injury time. Senegal eventually lost in a penalty shootout, after each team scored one goal during the overtime. If the senior African teams can perform this well in the 2022 World Cup, that will place the trophy within reach.
Now to the 2019 Women’s World Cup. For a continent that is not known for women’s empowerment, the women’s teams still outperformed the men’s.
In the 24-team tournament, Africa was represented by three teams (Cameroon, Nigeria, and South Africa). Two teams (Cameroon and Nigeria) advanced to the Round of 16, where they were both eliminated. The success rate of 67 per cent is still a lot better than the zero advancement of the men’s teams in 2018. There’s a challenge right there come 2022.
END
Be the first to comment