There is a point at which persistent criticism of a public official ceases to look like ordinary political scrutiny and begins to raise questions about the motivation behind it.
That appears to be the growing concern surrounding Sola AbOloolude’s consistent criticism of the administration of Governor Seyi Makinde.
Criticism is an essential part of democracy. Public officials must be scrutinised, questioned over their decisions and held accountable for their actions. But when criticism becomes unrelenting, predictable and seemingly fixated on one individual, the criticism itself can become a subject of scrutiny.
It is against this background that AbOloolude’s latest reaction has attracted attention. Rather than concentrating on the substance of the issues raised against his repeated attacks on the Makinde administration, his response has again focused on the person challenging his position.
His critics argue that the pattern reflects what they describe as an unhealthy fixation with Governor Makinde and an apparent intolerance of attempts to question or challenge his narrative.
“The issue is not whether AbOloolude should criticise Governor Makinde. He is entitled to his opinion and has every right to scrutinise the administration. The real question is whether the criticism is consistently driven by facts and evidence or whether virtually every development involving Makinde has become another opportunity for attack.”
This is why the reference to “Seyi Derangement Syndrome” by a popular broadcaster and Fresh FM political anchor against AbOloolude gains political relevance.
“The expression should not be mistaken for a medical diagnosis. It is a political description of what critics perceive as an increasingly intense preoccupation with Governor Makinde, where issues are allegedly viewed primarily through an anti-Makinde lens.”
The concern becomes even more pronounced when the person who routinely criticises a public official appears unwilling to accommodate criticism of his own position.
Anyone who subjects a governor, government or political institution to scrutiny should equally expect his own arguments to be scrutinised. That is the natural exchange that sustains healthy public debate.
“If you routinely challenge the decisions of a governor or public institution, you should also be prepared for people to challenge your arguments. Accountability cannot be a one-way street, and no commentator should expect immunity from the same scrutiny he demands from others.”
If AbOloolude believes the Makinde administration has failed in a particular area, the strongest argument would be to identify the policy, explain the shortcomings and provide evidence of its impact on the people.
If he believes a government decision is wrong, he should explain why. If he alleges wrongdoing, the evidence should speak for itself. That is how robust democratic criticism is sustained.
What weakens political commentary is when every disagreement is interpreted as an attempt to silence the commentator or when those who challenge an argument are immediately portrayed as politically compromised.
Such a response can create the impression that the opposition is no longer limited to policies but has become attached to the individual occupying the office.
Governor Makinde, as a public official, cannot expect immunity from criticism. But criticism of him cannot reasonably be immune from criticism itself. Those who challenge the governor must also be prepared to have their arguments challenged.
“There is nothing undemocratic about criticising Makinde. In fact, the governor should be subjected to scrutiny. But those criticising him must equally accept that their own claims, conclusions and motives can be examined. That is the balance that keeps public discourse healthy.”
There is also a broader lesson for political commentators. The more frequently an individual attacks a public official, the greater the responsibility to remain accurate, balanced and evidence-based.
Repetition does not turn an allegation into a fact, just as the intensity of an opinion does not automatically make it credible.
That is why AbOloolude’s critics are asking him to engage issues rather than personalities.
“If the Makinde administration has failed, document the failure. If its policies have harmed citizens, demonstrate the consequences. If public resources have been mismanaged, provide the evidence. Facts should be allowed to carry the weight of the argument.”
Such an approach would make the criticism stronger and harder to dismiss.
One can demand accountability without being a government spokesperson. One can disagree with a critic without becoming a partisan. And one can defend fairness in political discourse without endorsing everything the government does.
The danger begins when political criticism becomes so personalised that opposition to government policy appears indistinguishable from opposition to the person occupying the office. At that point, the debate risks shifting from governance to personality.
Whether the description of AbOloolude’s approach as “Seyi Derangement Syndrome” is fair is ultimately for the public to judge.
But the underlying question remains legitimate: is the criticism primarily about policies and governance, or has Governor Makinde himself become the central focus?
The answer should be found in the arguments being presented.
“If the concerns are genuinely about governance, then governance should dominate the conversation. If they are about policy, policy should be the focus. And if they are about accountability, facts and evidence should make the case.”
Makinde is not above criticism, and AbOloolude is not above criticism either. Neither position should be controversial in a democracy.
What matters is whether those participating in public discourse are willing to apply the same standards to themselves that they demand from those they criticise.
That is where criticism retains its value. It is also where criticism stops looking like an obsession and becomes genuine accountability.
Kazeem Adesope writes from Ibadan.
