The University of Ibadan’s student union government recently announced an admirable initiative: Project Stomach Infrastructure 1.0. This feeding program aims to support 1,200 indigent students in collaboration with SBJ Foods and Drinks, providing meals without any financial burden on the union. While the initiative itself has been widely praised, the chosen name has sparked controversy and debate, and highlighted deeper issues in student and national politics.
In the grand scheme of things, names carry weight and significance and have the power to shape perceptions and influence narratives. For context, ‘Stomach infrastructure’ is a reality projected by the Nigerian politicians on the vulnerable electorate who, due to the poor living condition, are encouraged to mortgage their fundamental right of freedom to choose who governs them in exchange for immediate gratification.
The term “stomach infrastructure” first gained prominence during the Ekiti State governorship elections poll in 2014, when the former governor, Ayodele Fayose distributed rice, chicken and even cash to residents in anticipation of votes instead of focusing on infrastructural development and other people oriented programs. While he ended up winning the election, it raises deep questions about populist politics and how elections are won and lost in this part of the world.
The term since then is now laden with negative connotations in the Nigerian political landscape. It is often associated with the cynical practice of politicians offering basic needs to gain favor and votes. By adopting this term, the students union inadvertently portrays a patronizing attitude and thus, reduces the recipients of the programme to mere beneficiaries of charity.
The expression, ‘stomach infrastructure’ can make people feel belittled, as if they are just being given handouts. When used for this student feeding program, it gives a similar impression, making it seem like the students are needy and desperate.
The Mirror of National Politics
This situation of belittling names is not unique to the University of Ibadan. It shows a broader trend of how student politicians, consciously or unconsciously, mirror the actions and tactics of national politicians.
Nigerian politics has long been plagued by the use of derogatory or condescending language. At the national level, it is not unpopular to see welfare programs with names that emphasize the recipients’ neediness and are seen as insulting or demeaning. Examples include terms like “stomach infrastructure” or “poverty alleviation.” Names that suggest that the people receiving help are begging or in a bad situation. This practice is a slap on the humanity of the recipients, and seeing the Students Union adopting this same tactics, is another reminder of the influence of national politics on students governance.
Student politicians, in their bid to emulate their national counterparts adopt similar strategies, sometimes without realizing the negative implications. By doing so, they inadvertently carry forward a tradition that can be patronizing and at the same time disrespectful. However, it is crucial for student politicians to recognize this influence and strive to create a different, more positive political culture within the university environment.
A shift in Perspective
For student politicians, the challenge is to break away from these ingrained practices and establish a new paradigm of respectful and inclusive governance. Student politicians have an opportunity to do things differently. They can choose names that are positive and uplifting. Instead of using terms that carry negative meanings, they can pick names that show respect and solidarity. For example, names like “Project Helping Hands” or “Project Pro-People” also focus on community and support, without making people feel ashamed or belittled. This approach can help create a more inclusive and respectful environment. It is important to prioritize compassion and the dignity of those in need.
By consciously choosing names that respect and uplift, student leaders can set a new standard for political communication. It also sends a strong message that the student union is committed to fostering a culture of mutual respect and support, rather than perpetuating a cycle of dependency and shame.
While Project Stomach Infrastructure 1.0 is a commendable effort to address food insecurity among students, its name detracts from its noble intentions. This editorial calls on the student union to reconsider the program’s name, and set a precedent for future initiative. As student leaders, this is an opportunity to model a new kind of politics—one that balances help with mutual respect.
