THE QUEST FOR LEADERSHIP AND IDENTITY IN OKPE NATION
Introduction
The twin issues of Leadership and Identity remain central in the consciousness of the Okpe Union. We view them as critical in crafting a strategic plan for the growth and development of the Okpe Nation. This paper analyses contending principles on leadership and considers one of them appropriate for Okpe Nation. The paper also offers a tentative framework for the coexistence of the Orodjeship with the Okpe Union, politicians and civil societies.
ON LEADERSHIP
Our understanding of leadership has evolved over time, as the society becomes more educated and complex. Time was when the notion of leadership revolved around one person, who exercised sole responsibility for ensuring good leadership in the polity or organization. When people elect their leader, they accord him the responsibility to lead and guide them, and to provide the strategic directions for the development of their society. At the same time, they are also responsible for ensuring that the leader remains on track. Thus, everyone – the leader and the followers – is responsible for leadership. Traditionally, we regard elected or appointed officials, community elders or monarchs as leaders because of their positions. However, Joanne B. Ciulla has challenged us to reconsider this interpretation of leadership. She writes:
“Holding a formal leadership position or position of power does not necessarily mean that a person exercises leadership. Furthermore, you do not have to hold a formal position in order to exercise leadership.” (Joanne B. Ciulla, “Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory,” in Joanne B. Ciulla, ed., Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, Westport, CT., 1998, p.12.)
To exercise leadership, she argues, a leader must be effective, ethical and honest. He must also be selfless in his service to his community. Thus, leadership is conceptualized as the provision of selfless services to a community and a nation. It is very probable that very few, if any, current leaders in Nigeria, in Delta State and in Okpe Nation qualifies to be called a leader, were we to measure them by these criteria of leadership. However, it is recognized that there are several Okpe men and women, who are neither traditional rulers nor occupying formal leadership positions in, say, the Okpe Union, as well as political offices or Udogun Okpe, that continue to exercise leadership by their selfless services to the Okpe Nation and to Nigeria.
In their seminal work on the subject of leadership, James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner opine: “Credibility is the foundation of leadership.”[1] People want leaders “who are credible” that they can “believe” and “have faith in and trust.” (James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose it, why People Demand it, San Francisco, CA., 1993, p.22.) According to Kouzes and Posner, credibility is a key factor determining the honesty and trustworthiness of leaders. When a politician tells his constituents “Trust me with your votes,” he is demanding to be given a blank cheque. Since “leadership is a reciprocal relationship between those who choose to lead and those who decide to follow,” (Ibid., p.1) it is assumed that constituents would have determined the basis of their relationship with the politician seeking for their votes. What is the basis for entrusting him with your votes? How well did he perform when last he asked you to “trust” him? Was he effective? Was he ethical? Was he a credible representative of your ethnic nationality and constituency? These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered satisfactorily, before you decide whether or not to entrust him with your votes.
In late 2002 President Olusegun Obasanjo admitted that his government could not show any evidence of what it did with the 320 billion naira allocated to road construction, and yet proceeded to seek and “obtained” the votes of Nigerian electorates for a second term, a situation which signified Nigeria’s preference for a regime that would mismanage its public funds. The mismanagement of leadership is no longer under scrutiny, but the electorates’ sense of values and ethics. This phenomenon applies to all governments at the State and Local levels in Nigeria, including Delta State and the Okpe and Sapele local government councils, as constituents continuously “elect” leaders with clouds over their credibility. This makes us to ponder about the rights of those constituents to question the credibility of their “elected” leaders. A society dominated by sycophants and uncritical loyalists can never produce credible leaders. Nigeria epitomizes such a society. Okpe Nation is included in this categorization.
Values is one of the most frequently used concepts in any analysis of leadership. When this is injected into an analysis of leadership, the concept of leadership assumes a controversial property. If we accept the view that leadership “is a process and a set of practices” that “admit no right and wrong” (Ibid., p.66.) the inevitable conclusion is that there are no bad leaders. The we-they dichotomy in our conceptualization of leadership into good and bad, moral and amoral, renders the concept more problematic. Was Idi Amin a leader? Was Adolf Hitler a leader? Was Olusegun Obasanjo a leader? While it is easy to respond in the affirmative because of their respective formal state positions, an expansion of the question will challenge our test of leadership. Our concern in leadership should not be determined by what is leadership but, as Joanne B. Ciulla puts it, “what is good leadership?” Thus, we are compelled to rephrase the question with its normative implications by postulating that, a good leader is one who is both effective and ethical. (Joanne B. Ciulla, “Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory,” p. 13.)
The question of whether people like Hitler or Amin or Obasanjo are leaders will continue to be controversial, given our conflicting perspectives of leadership. Besides being effective and ethical a leader must also be able to transform his society positively. Again, was Hitler a transformational leader? James MacGregor Burns does not consider Hitler as such, because of his grave ethical shortcomings, while, irrespective of those same failures, Bernard Bass views Hitler as a transformational leader. (For detailed discussions on this subject, see James MacGregor Burns, Leadership, New York, 1978, and Bernard Bass, Leadership and Performance: Beyond Expectations, New York, 1985.)
Joseph C. Rost expanded on Burns’ concept of transformational leadership and posited that: “Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” (Joseph C. Rost, Leadership For the Twenty-First Century, New York, 1991, p.102.) The thrust of Rost’s thesis is that, leadership is a partnership between leaders and followers where influence is “multidirectional” with definable “real changes” and “mutual purposes” and goals. ( Ibid., pp.102-123.) This partnership is in fact a social contract between leaders and followers, which is the responsibility of both parties. While a leader is required to demonstrate effective and transformative leadership vis-à-vis a positive development of the society, the followers, on the other hand, are required to hold the leader accountable for his policies as their representative in either the local, state or federal legislatures. Where they fail to hold their elected or appointed leaders accountable, then they become mere sycophants and uncritical loyalists with even lesser credibility than the leaders.
On the issue of moral and amoral leadership, Kouzes and Posner argue that “anyone who would do evil, has no legitimacy as a leader.” They opined: “Such legitimacy is determined not by the leader, but by the society that envelops the leader and the constituents.” (Kouzes and Posner, loc.cit., p.66.) This proposition underlines a fundamental problem in our determination of legitimacy vis-a-vis the role of society. Given that a leader is the product of a society, and that a society gets the leader it deserves, we can conclude that a bad or an amoral leader is a legitimate representative of his society. A battle between moral legitimacy and amoral legitimacy becomes inevitable. But if we have a situation where the properties of amoral legitimacy overthrow moral legitimacy and the former enthrones itself as a new framework of morality, then the constructs of amoral legitimacy acquire a new meaning. This new legitimacy, albeit amoral, becomes a standard for measuring legitimacy in the polity, like in Nigeria, Delta State, and in Okpe Nation. For example, corruption, which is condemned by every Nigerian, has acquired the status of a nationally acceptable practice. That most constituents will condemn this new legitimacy is predictable and understandable. However, where it is imposed on the population by a leadership, then the directions of the polity are bound to encounter serious leadership problems, as exemplified in Hitler’s Germany and contemporary Nigeria. In his review of Nigerian leadership, one of Nigeria’s foremost nationalists, M. C. K. Ajuluchukwu, declared:
“In the early years of the First Republic under the direction of our nationalist leaders, our country was regarded by the international community as the pride of Africa with a government equal in integrity and propriety to the best in the world. Today, the Fourth Republic has fallen steeply from the lofty heights of global admiration into the dark pit of contemptible degradation as the second most corrupt nation on earth!” (M. C. K. Ajuluchukwu, “The President and a historic moment,” The Guardian, Lagos, May 28, 2003. Emphasis added.)
Integrity and propriety are value-based categories that enable us to evaluate the credibility of a leader. Ajuluchukwu wrote his lamentation in May 2003, in the formative years of the Fourth Republic when the polity can be said to possess more integrity and propriety than the shithole that is Nigeria today, as described by some commentators. As a result of the inbuilt distrust and dishonesty of Nigeria’s political structure, dysfunctional and unethical leadership practices have permeated the entire fabric of the Nigerian polity.
As we argued above, credibility is an essential indicator of leadership. A leader must be credible. Kouzes and Posner identify honesty as a vital attribute of credibility. They postulate:
“Being seen as someone who can be trusted; who has high integrity, and who is honest and truthful is essential. You may know someone is clearly competent, dynamic, and inspirational. But if you have a sense that, that person is not being honest, you will not accept the message, and you will not willingly follow. So, the credibility check can reliably be simplified to just one question: ‘Do I trust this person?’” (Kouzes and Posner, loc.cit., p.24.)
Thus, simply being “competent, dynamic, and inspirational” does not qualify one as a leader. For example, a president of a country or of a corporation, a religious leader or a traditional leader, may be competent, dynamic, and inspirational, but gravely ineffective and unethical in his exercise of leadership. If we return to the comparative analysis of leadership in Nigeria’s immediate post independence regime of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and that of the Fourth Republic, as advanced by Ajuluchukwu, the ethical failures of the latter dwarf its claim to leadership.
How do we recognize leadership? Various social scientists have grappled with this key question. As argued by Wilfred Drath, our views on leadership are usually informed by the “thoughts, words and actions” of those in leadership positions. When these thoughts, words and actions are “admirable and effective” the community’s attachment to the vision of the leader becomes evident. Thus, according to Drath, “…leadership is not something out there in the world that we come to know because it imposes itself on our minds, it is something we create with our minds by agreeing with other people that these thoughts, words, and actions – and not some others – will be known as leadership.” (Wilfred Drath, The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Sources of Leadership, San Francisco, CA., 2001, pp.4-5.) Drath identifies three principles of leadership. He describes the first, personal dominance as “a way of understanding leadership as the quality or characteristics of a certain kind of person called a leader,” the second, interpersonal influence he posits as “…a way of understanding that leadership happens when a group of people agree and disagree, ally and contend, concur and argue, plan and negotiate until someone emerges as the most influential person and thus claims the role of leader” and the third principle, relational dialogue, is “…a way of understanding that leadership happens when people who acknowledge shared work use dialogue and collaborative learning to create contexts in which that work can be accomplished across the dividing lines or differing perspectives, values, beliefs, cultures, and more generally what I refer to as differing worldviews.” (Ibid., pp.12-15.)
The first principle, personal dominance, identifies the leader as the “source of leadership and the followers are the receivers of leadership.” Interpersonal influence is a historical improvement on the first principle. The process of selecting a leader under this principle recognizes the role of negotiation between parties. The third principle, relational dialogue, is a qualitative improvement on the second principle. Drath identifies some fundamental properties of each principle which facilitate our understanding of leadership. These are:
1. Personal Dominance:
- “Leadership is something a person possesses.”
- “Leadership is an expression of this personally possessed quality or characteristic.”
- “Leaders lead because followers are convinced of the truth of their leadership.”
2. Interpersonal Influence:
- “Leadership is a role occupied by the most influential person.”
- “Leadership involves followers actively in the process of negotiating influence.”
- “Leaders lead by influencing followers more than followers influence them.”
3. Relational Dialogue:
- “Leadership is the property of a social system.”
- “Individual people do not possess leadership; leadership happens when people participate in collaborative forms of thought and action.”
- “If there is an individual leader, the actions that person takes are an aspect of participation in the process of leadership.” (Ibid.)
The historical progression of leadership principles is a reflection of the evolution of society and the consciousness of a people. While relational dialogue recommends itself as the prototype of very effective leadership, the personal dominance variant remains the preferred option in most polities, especially in Nigeria and in Okpe Nation. The construct of leadership as “the property of a social system” under the relational dialogue leadership principle underlines a strong ethical imperative that is absent in the other principles. It also has relevance to Edwin P. Hollander’s analysis when he argues that:
“A leader is not a sole voyager, but a key figure whose actions or inactions can determine others’ well-being and the broader good.” (Edwin P. Hollander, “Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower Relationship,” in Joanne B. Ciulla, ed., Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, p.49.)
The determination of the “broader good” of society is a function of the convergence of collaborative thoughts and policy actions that define the direction of society or the community, with the capacity to build social cohesion among the various constituencies of the community and to adapt to changes and challenges. These are the critical tasks of leadership. Every community, organization or institution grapple with these challenges. The readiness to adapt to modern practices and disrobe itself from ancient belief systems anchored on tyrannical tendencies defines a progressive and democratic leadership polity.
People are committed to a leader when they are inspired by his leadership, and can identify with the leader’s strategic directions and visions that bind the community. There is an absence of such a leadership in present day Okpe Nation. It is this gap that the Okpe Union is destined to fill by effectively managing emerging challenges and paradigm shifts that impact on Okpe core interests. The success of Okpe Union in this historical role will be measured by how it manages the leader-followership dynamics as aptly posited by Hollander in his paraphrase of G. W. F. Hegel, thus: “the good leader must incorporate the experience and qualities of the follower and demonstrate followership in leading.” (Hollander, p.51.). The visionary and effective leadership of the Okpe Nation by the Okpe Union in the early colonial period which saw to the unity of the Okpe people in the pursuit of legal battles, the resuscitation of the Okpe monarchy after over one hundred and fifty years of interregnum and the recognition of Esezi II, the first Orodje of the modern era by the colonial government readily comes to mind now.
While the three leadership principles articulated by Drath represent a valuable theoretical construct of leadership, it should be stressed that, irrespective of the preferred type of leadership principle, the critical element in assessing leadership remains the effectiveness and ethical base of the leadership. For example, a leader operating at the relational dialogue level may not necessarily be more effective or ethical than his counterparts operating at the personal dominance and interpersonal influence levels. Assuming that all vital properties of leadership remain constant at each level, what these principles suggest is that, for example, the effectiveness and ethical values of the leader are more pronounced at the relational dialogue level.
QUEST FOR OKPE LEADERSHIP AND IDENTITY
In the preceding paragraph we posed the following questions that constituents must examine before casting their votes for leaders seeking political offices:
- What is the basis for entrusting him with your votes?
- How well did he perform when last he asked you to “trust” him?
- Was he effective?
- Was he ethical?
- Was he a credible representative of your ethnic nationality and constituency?
These are some of the critical questions that need to be answered satisfactorily, before you decide whether or not to entrust him with your votes. On several Okpe WhatsApp platforms, Dr. Lucky Akpere succinctly asked prospective Okpe candidates vying for the governorship of Delta State in the 2023 elections to show their “score cards” besides their claims of experience and qualifications. As I was in the midst of writing this piece, I noticed an eloquent contribution by Prof. Kenneth Eni on the WhatsApp platforms of both the OKPE PEOPLE’S FORUM and OKPE GOVERNORSHIP MANDATE of December 25, 2021. Given the relevance of his contribution to this paper, I have taken the liberty to quote it verbatim along with my response to him. The convergence of our views on the critical issue of Okpe Identity is a welcome development for awakening of the consciousness of the Okpe people.
[11:08, 25.12.2021] Kenneth Eni: Clark’s concept and definition of the Niger Delta does not include other ethnic groups in the region other than Ijaw. I have been privileged as then Media Officer with SPDC between 1997-2001 to attend several workshops, oil seminars and conferences where I heard and watch him speak confidently among his kith and kin on his idea of a Niger Delta. If you read carefully through most of Clark’s speeches and letters, you will never hear him mention other ethnic groups living in the Niger Delta. Although is maternally Urhobo, he claims his maternal and Itsekiri bloodlines only when there is something to benefit and not when there is something to give. So, when Clark mentions Niger Delta, he refers and means only Ijaw!
Bottom line, Okpe needs to raise leaders who will have the singular vision of positioning Okpe as Clark and his likes have done for the Ijaws. Okpe ethnic Union(s) need to have the capacity to speak on national issues from time to time and not the infighting we are witnessing among ourselves. Presently, Okpe has no voice in the scheme of things. Okpe needs to rise above individual pride and pocket politics. If we get the governorship, Okpe today lacks the internal support to make our choice of a governor succeed. We are overtly self critical and self antagonizing. A change in the attitude and reorientation of the average Okpe person is needed.
[11:31, 25.12.2021] O. Igho Natufe: Thanks, my dear Brother, for a brilliantly articulated response to Chief E. K. Clark’s rhetoric on the Niger Delta. You emphatically stressed the imperative for an Okpe Voice that many of us have been agitating for the past two decades. You were a key player in that moment. Your position that ”Okpe needs to raise leaders who will have the singular vision of positioning Okpe as Clark and his likes have done for the Ijaws” is a historic call that we ALL Okpe nationals must adhere to. I completely agree with you that Okpe ethnic Union(s) need to have the capacity to speak on national issues from time to time and not the infighting we are witnessing among ourselves. Presently, Okpe has no voice in the scheme of things.” Unfortunately, when those Okpe nationals vying for the governorship hide under Urhobo ethnicity, then we lose a critical mass of our leaders with “the singular vision of positioning Okpe as Clark and his likes have done for the Ijaws” It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that Okpe candidates for the governorship endorse Okpe Identity instead of claiming the ethnicity of another nationality.
Merry Christmas and God’s blessings.
[11:49, 25.12.2021] Kenneth Eni: I really appreciate you.
[11:49, 25.12.2021] O. Igho Natufe: The appreciation is mutual. We have no other ethnicity besides OKPE. If we refuse to identify with and protect our ethnicity, it is ridiculous for us to expect others to do this for us. Therefore, it is preposterous for any one of us, including those vying for the governorship, to claim the ethnicity of any other ethnic nationality. God bless us all.
[11:51, 25.12.2021] Kenneth Eni: I am in total agreement sir.
[11:52, 25.12.2021] O. Igho Natufe: God bless you, my dear Brother.
Since its inception in 1930, Okpe Union has been the unquestionable voice of the Okpe Nation and Okpe people in articulating, promoting and protecting Okpe interests in a multiethnic Nigeria, including Delta State. Its struggle for the restoration of the Okpe monarchy made it possible for us to have Esezi ll (1945-1966), Orhoro l (1972-2004) and Orhue l (since 2006). Unfortunately, the purported dissolution of the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Okpe Union by Orhue l, Orodje of Okpe Kingdom on October 3, 2020, conspired to momentarily deny the Okpe Nation its voice on national and local issues. However, it is worth noting that the Okpe Union remains steadfast in its commitments to the ideals of its founding fathers as the voice of the Okpe Nation. It is a welcome relief to the Okpe Nation that the General Assembly, which is the highest decision-making organ of the Okpe Union, that comprises delegates from the various branches unanimously adopted the resolution which rejected the purported dissolution of the elected NEC of the Okpe Union. That resolution simply followed the provisions of the Okpe Union Constitution which enshrined in it that no persons shall be involved in the governance of the Union except through the laid down procedures in the Okpe Union Constitution.
The Orodje’s purported dissolution has instigated a false consciousness in a segment of the Okpe population whereby some Okpe nationals, mainly members of the traditional and political class now claim they are Urhobo, a claim which is based on political exigency to facilitate the emergence of an Okpe as the elected governor of Delta State in 2023. Recently, very recently, three Ekakuro informed us that our request to the Delta State Governor for the recognition of Okpe as an independent and distinct ethnic nationality will be assented to when an Okpe is elected Governor of Delta State. The irony of this is that they “revealed” to us that other ethnic groups in Delta State were receptive to an Okpe as governor, a fact which the leadership of the Okpe Union had long known about from its diplomatic engagements with other ethnic nationalities in Delta State. Therefore, it begs the question: why deny your Okpe Identity in favour of an Urhobo ethnicity because you want to be governor, as a stratagem to secure Urhobo endorsement, when you already have the support of other ethnic nationalities in Delta State? The Udogun Okpe, headed by the Orodje of Okpe Kingdom, appears to have assumed the leading role in propagating an erroneous thesis “that Okpe Kingdom is one of the twenty-four (24) Kingdoms of contemporary Federated Urhobo Nationality of Delta Central Senatorial District.” (OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, SEN. DR. ARTHUR IFEANYI OKOWA, GOVERNOR OF DELTA STATE. RE: RECOGNITION OF OKPE AS A DISTINCT ETHNIC NATIONALITY, VANGUARD, Lagos, Nigeria, July 13, 2021, p.20.) The stratagem of denying Okpe ethnicity to embrace Urhobo ethnicity is based on the Udogun Okpe’s erroneous thesis.
As a discipline that concerns itself with the distribution of resources by determining who gets what, when and how, (as articulated by Harold Lasswell in Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, 1936), power and influence are pivotal elements in the relationships between contending political leaders, lobbyists and constituencies. Elected representatives in local, state and federal legislatures play critical role in determining the percentage of infrastructure, services and amenities that flow to their respective constituencies in the form of industries, motorable roads, hospitals, educational institutions, drinkable water and power supply, etc. The number of years an elected representative spends in any of these legislatures becomes irrelevant, if he fails to attract and retain any of these services and amenities to his constituency. His success is measured by actual deliverables to his constituency and not the portfolios he occupied in the legislature.
Okpe Nation is littered with dilapidated schools not fit for animal dwellings, inaccessible roads, hospitals that hardly qualify as glorified drug stores, absence of post-secondary institutions and industries, etc. It is troubling that Okpe nationals have occupied top portfolios in the Delta State Government since the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1999, and yet Okpe Nation is bereft of these essential services and amenities. While these legislators have enriched themselves at the expense of the impoverished Okpe nationals, they are parading themselves as “experienced” and “honest” legislators “qualified” to be a governor of Delta State or re-elected to the State and Federal legislatures. Let us remind ourselves of some of the questions that must be addressed by the Okpe nationals before casting their votes for these contestants for public offices.
What is the basis for entrusting him with your votes?
- How well did he perform when last he asked you to “trust” him?
- Was he effective?
- Was he ethical?
- Was he a credible representative of your ethnic nationality and constituency?
When citizens, as followers, fail to ask critical questions and become praise-singers and paid sycophants due to abject poverty, the future of the society is endangered. Sadly, this has been the tale since 1999 as Okpe Nation systematically drifts into disrepair and neglect. At every election circle contesting political leaders emerge to “empower” the poor and hungry with cups of rice, beans, cooking oil and wrappers, but not with jobs and needed infrastructures, like industries, etc.
IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION
The three principles of leadership advanced by Wilfred Drath offer us a framework to consider our choice of leaders in Okpe Nation. These principles are
personal dominance, interpersonal influence and relational dialogue. We prefer relational dialogue over the other two. It is more democratic and presents itself as a better strategic approach in developing leaders that will be responsive to the needs of the constituents.
Contemporary Okpe society is an integral component of a Nigerian democratic republican political system. That it is also a monarchy underlines the contradiction we have to grapple with in determining who plays what role in the Okpe leadership landscape. This touches on the fundamentals of governance.
As is well known, the issue of poor governance has bedeviled the development of Nigeria, including the Okpe Nation, for decades. It was in search of a pathway to resolving this dilemma that compelled the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida to establish a Political Bureau, chaired by S. J. Cookey to, inter alia, “review Nigeria’s political history and identify the basic problems which have led to our failure in the past and suggest ways of resolving and coping with these problems.” (Federal Republic of Nigeria, Government’s Views and Comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the Political Bureau, Lagos, 1987, p.3. Hereinafter referred to as the Political Bureau).
The Political Bureau examined the role and utility of traditional rulers and proposed as follows:
- ” outright abolition of the institution”;
- “co-optation in government”;
- “democratisation to conform with process of modern government”;
- “maintenance of status quo”; and
- “the determination of their relevance and future by the people.”
It was the view of the Political Bureau that “traditional rulers should have no specific role to play in government beyond the local government level, where they have relevance.” It “also agreed that it is a misnomer, considering the scope and character of the contemporary Nigerian state to call them traditional ‘rulers.’ Therefore, the Political Bureau declared that, it “will make no sense to install in the political system, people whose primary qualifications is ascribed to status at a time when the people are demanding a truly democratic polity.” (Ibid. p.50.) In conclusion, regarding the traditional rulers, the Political Bureau opined: “They possess no special qualities to enable them to be used in enriching the political system or instilling moral rectitude in public life.” (Ibid.)
Two vital issues arose from the report of the Political Bureau. These are, in our view, the “democratisation” of the traditional rulership “to conform with process of modern government” and “the determination of their relevance and future by the people.” Even though the existence of a monarchy in a republican political system is a contradiction, it is, nevertheless, imperative for Okpe nationals to examine this inconvenient duality in a most objective framework anchored on reason and logic. For the two solitudes to coexist in the bowel of the Okpe Nation, a system of division of powers and spheres of influence must be determined. For example, while the Orodje can reign and not rule in the political sense of ruling, the political space must be left as the exclusive domain of politicians and civil societies, including the Okpe Union. Involving the Orodje in public political contest is injurious to the Throne. The independence of the Okpe Union must be considered sacrosanct, as it was envisaged by its founders. The movement towards a “truly democratic polity”, as envisaged by the Political Bureau, requires the disengagement of traditional rulers from injecting themselves into the political space. It also demands the withering away of traditional rulers’ autocratic actions reminiscence of the feudal era.