Timilehin Kolade

Politics is fundamentally a struggle over narratives. Elections are not won merely through projects, slogans, or party structures; they are won through the ability to construct persuasive stories around governance, legitimacy, competence, and hope. That responsibility largely falls on political communicators and spokespersons. When spokespersons perform poorly, they do not merely embarrass themselves; they weaken the credibility of the political tendency they represent.

This is why political communication demands more than confidence, partisan loyalty, and media visibility. It demands historical literacy, message discipline, emotional intelligence, factual consistency, and strategic persuasion. Unfortunately, Michael Ogunsina’s appearance on Success FM 105.3 today reflected many of the recurring weaknesses that have increasingly characterised his media engagements: excessive confidence without sufficient depth, historical selectivity disguised as analysis, and an approach to communication that often prioritises demolition over persuasion.

The first visible weakness was the attempt to elevate Governor Seyi Makinde’s achievements through the systematic reduction of previous administrations, particularly that of former Governor Abiola Ajimobi. This style of communication may satisfy partisan audiences in the short term, but it often alienates undecided observers because sophisticated political audiences understand that governance is cumulative.

No administration governs in a vacuum. Roads built today often sit on planning frameworks developed yesterday. Institutions strengthened today are often inherited from previous governments. Public policy is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

This is where the communication strategy becomes problematic.

To defend one administration by pretending another contributed nothing is not strategic communication; it is historical revisionism.

Former Governor Abiola Ajimobi’s political legacy remains one of the most consequential in contemporary Oyo politics precisely because his administration altered governance conversations in ways that continue to shape political discourse years later.

Ajimobi’s urban renewal agenda fundamentally changed the physical and administrative outlook of major parts of Oyo State. His government invested heavily in road expansion projects, urban beautification, transport infrastructure, environmental sanitation reforms, market restructuring, and institutional reforms designed to strengthen state capacity.

His administration also pursued security coordination more aggressively than many predecessors. Through collaboration with traditional institutions, security agencies, and local intelligence structures, his government attempted to create a more coordinated internal security architecture at a time when urban disorder and insecurity posed significant governance challenges.

In education, healthcare, and public administration, his government introduced reforms that generated both support and opposition, but reforms by their nature are disruptive. The important point is that they existed and produced measurable political consequences.

Perhaps most importantly, Ajimobi attempted to redefine governance around state authority and administrative order. Critics viewed some decisions as overly forceful; supporters viewed them as necessary state-building measures. Regardless of ideological position, it is intellectually difficult to argue that his government lacked impact.

Political communication loses credibility when impact is denied simply because political rivalry demands it.

The second weakness from the media outing was the casual dismissal of Hon. Remi Oseni’s public record.

This is particularly problematic because representation in contemporary Nigerian politics is increasingly measured through visibility, constituency engagement, legislative relevance, and grassroots accessibility.

As Chairman of the House Committee on the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA), Remi Oseni occupies an important oversight and legislative position that extends beyond constituency politics. FERMA is responsible for monitoring, maintaining, and rehabilitating federal roads across Nigeria, making the committee strategically important within Nigeria’s infrastructure ecosystem.

Committee leadership in the legislature is not merely ceremonial; it involves stakeholder engagement, budget scrutiny, oversight responsibilities, project monitoring, regulatory interactions, committee management, and shaping policy conversations around infrastructure delivery.

Under Oseni’s chairmanship, conversations around federal road maintenance, legislative oversight, stakeholder engagement, and advocacy for improved road infrastructure have increasingly placed the committee within broader national discussions around Nigeria’s infrastructure deficits and maintenance culture. His position situates him at the intersection of legislative oversight and infrastructure accountability, particularly within a country where road networks directly affect commerce, security, mobility, and national productivity.

Reducing such responsibilities to political mockery creates the impression that the critic either misunderstands legislative politics or deliberately ignores institutional realities.

Beyond committee leadership, Oseni’s representation of Ido/Ibarapa East has increasingly built a reputation around constituency presence.

His political style has largely revolved around sustained grassroots engagement, intervention programmes, empowerment initiatives, educational support schemes, infrastructure facilitation, youth-focused programmes, and maintaining direct accessibility to constituents.

This does not mean his representation is beyond criticism. No public office holder should be immune from scrutiny.

However, effective criticism requires evidence.

Political communication built around dismissal rather than evidence weakens the communicator more than the target.

More importantly, defending Governor Seyi Makinde’s government requires confronting difficult questions rather than avoiding them.

Governor Makinde’s administration possesses visible strengths. Infrastructure expansion, road projects, educational interventions, agribusiness conversations, and improved national visibility for Oyo State are frequently cited achievements.

Yet strong communication requires acknowledging fault lines because citizens already see them.

Questions around fiscal sustainability continue to emerge as debt profiles and borrowing patterns attract public conversations.

There are persistent concerns regarding whether infrastructural concentration has been evenly distributed across geopolitical zones and whether developmental benefits are sufficiently decentralised.

Local government effectiveness remains contested despite constitutional and political rhetoric surrounding grassroots governance.

There are debates around centralisation of political power and whether excessive concentration around the executive has weakened broader stakeholder participation.

Internal party tensions have periodically raised questions about political management and coalition maintenance.

Project prioritisation also remains debated. Critics argue that governance effectiveness is not merely about project quantity but about alignment with immediate social and economic pressures confronting ordinary citizens.

Communication gaps constitute another fault line.

Governments often lose perception battles not because they fail entirely but because they communicate achievements poorly or respond slowly to criticism.

Ironically, this is where spokespersons become strategically important.

A spokesperson should simplify complexity, defend policy with evidence, acknowledge weaknesses without surrendering narratives, and persuade undecided audiences.

The problem with excessive partisanship is that it transforms communication into performance.

Political communication scholarship consistently shows that audiences are more persuaded by balanced communicators than by absolutists because balance signals confidence.

A spokesperson who cannot acknowledge opponents’ achievements appears insecure.

A spokesperson who dismisses legitimate criticisms appears propagandistic.

A spokesperson who mistakes loudness for persuasion eventually weakens the political project he seeks to defend.

The lesson from the Success FM appearance therefore extends beyond one media outing.

Political communication is not warfare against facts.

It is the disciplined management of facts.

It is not historical erasure.

It is contextual interpretation.

It is not grandiloquence projected as mastery.

It is mastery expressed through clarity.

Ultimately, politics rewards credibility.

And credibility is built not through selective memory, intellectual laziness, or excessive triumphalism, but through evidence, balance, historical awareness, and strategic persuasion.

That is the difference between speaking politically and communicating politically.