By: Temitope Ojo
The ongoing debate over the zoning of the House of Representatives seat in Owo/Ose Federal Constituency is often framed as a contest of ambition, but at its core, it is a test of political fairness and structural balance.
Any serious analysis must move beyond personalities and interrogate the distribution of power within the constituency over time. When that is done, a clear pattern emerges, one that justifies the growing insistence that Ose Local Government should retain the seat.
Since the advent of the Fourth Republic in 1999, representation in state and federal appointments has not been evenly shared. Owo has always been prioritized for appointments, alongside a consistent presence in other high-level political offices. Even in the present arrangement, Owo maintains a commanding advantage within the state’s political architecture, occupying strategic executive and financial positions.
This concentration of influence is not inherently problematic, until it begins to crowd out meaningful participation from the other half of the constituency. That is precisely the concern being raised by stakeholders in Ose.
The argument for Ose retaining the seat is therefore not rooted in sentiment but in the logic of balance. In a constituency made up of two distinct political blocs, stability depends on a conscious effort to prevent dominance by one side. Where one bloc already controls key levers of power, equity demands that the other retains its foothold in the legislative space. Anything contrary risks reinforcing a perception of exclusion, which can erode trust and weaken the very foundation of collective political engagement.
There is also a strategic dimension that cannot be ignored. Political parties do not operate in a vacuum, they depend on the enthusiasm, cooperation, and mobilization capacity of their grassroots base. Ose has consistently contributed to electoral victories within the constituency. To sideline it at a critical moment of candidate selection would not only send the wrong signal but could also dampen morale and participation. In competitive political environments, such miscalculations often come at a cost.
Continuity further strengthens the case. Representation is not merely about occupying a seat; it is about building institutional memory, legislative effectiveness, and sustained engagement with constituents. Ose’s current position in the House of Representatives offers an opportunity to consolidate these gains. A premature shift risks disrupting progress without addressing the underlying imbalance in broader political representation.
Critically, this is not an argument against Owo, nor is it a call for permanent ownership of the seat by Ose. It is a call for proportional fairness within a shared political space. Rotational logic, whether formal or informal, only works when it is respected in spirit and practice. At this juncture, respecting that balance means allowing Ose to retain the seat while broader political distribution evens out.
Ultimately, the health of the Owo/Ose Federal Constituency depends on how well it manages inclusion. Power, when concentrated, creates friction; when shared, it builds stability. Supporting Ose’s retention of the House of Representatives seat is therefore not just politically sound—it is necessary for sustaining unity, reinforcing fairness, and ensuring that every part of the constituency remains invested in its collective future.
Post a Comment