The Politics of 'No Mass Death'

The current political landscape, particularly in Nigeria, is characterized by what Joshua J. Omojuwa terms the "politics of no mass death." This strategy, employed by both government and opposition, measures success not by tangible achievements or progress, but by the mere absence of widespread suffering. This approach sets the bar for national ambition at survival, and any deviation from catastrophe is celebrated as a success.

“

When a government spends a whole week arguing with one man, it is clear they take him serious.

Omojuwa points to Atiku Abubakar's prominent stance on fuel subsidies and Peter Obi's past defense of a 13-month doctors' strike in Anambra as examples. In Obi's case, the strike was framed as a necessary price for reform, with the argument that "nobody died en masse." Similarly, the promise to restore fuel subsidies is presented as a way to cut costs, rather than a policy that benefits the powerful. The focus remains on preventing immediate, visible disasters that could embarrass the government, while ignoring the quiet attrition that failure often inflicts.

“

Nobody died en masse. Therefore nothing much happened.

This focus on "no mass death" allows politicians to preside rather than govern. The argument for restoring subsidies, for instance, is cleverly framed as "targeted intervention" aimed at domestic production. However, the specifics of this targeting, how, to whom, and at what cost, remain largely unexplained. The piece suggests that this approach avoids genuine policy discussions and instead relies on the emotional appeal of making life cheaper tomorrow.

“

This is the politics of no mass death, and it is practised across every party, by government and opposition alike.

Historically, the fuel subsidy has been criticized not as a friend to the poor, but as an efficient machine for transferring public wealth to a connected few, with the cost borne by ordinary citizens through taxes and inflation. The "politics of no mass death" perpetuates this cycle, offering a promise of not getting worse, rather than a vision for building a better future. The article concludes that governing by the standard of merely avoiding mass death is not governance at all, but a passive presidency hoping that catastrophes remain small enough to be denied.

“

To govern by that standard is not to govern at all. It is to preside, and to hope the catastrophes stay small enough to deny.