By Anselm C. Onuorah

Every political metaphor carries a metaphysics. When Governor Chukwuma Soludo spoke of Ndigbo “cutting the tail of the cow,” he invoked not just strategy but a whole conception of time, possibility, and agency. Valentine Obienyem’s essay rightly subjects that metaphor to philosophical scrutiny. For philosophy begins where slogans end: by asking what kind of future a people imagine when they describe their present.

The central question is not whether the “cow” is desirable. All parties agree on the goal of full participation, justice, and national greatness. The deeper question is epistemological and ethical: how should a people act in a world of constraints without surrendering their horizon of wholeness? Must prudence be mistaken for resignation? Must the rejection of unrealistic expectations become the rejection of incremental gains? My argument is that a mature political imagination holds both the ideal and the possible in tension, and that strategy, rightly understood, is the bridge between them.

Mr. Valentine Obienyem’s essay, “Soludo and the Cow’s Tail,” raises an important question: what political imagination should guide Ndigbo and indeed all Nigerians in a competitive federation? His critique of Governor Charles Soludo’s “tail of the cow” metaphor is passionate and philosophically framed. Yet a different perspective is necessary, not to defend any individual, but to question the conceptual binary that frames strategy as surrender and prudence as resignation.

1. The Philosophy of Prudence versus the Metaphysics of All-or-Nothing

Obienyem reads Soludo’s metaphor as a form of reasoning that may inadvertently reinforce existing patterns of exclusion. But political philosophy has long distinguished between telos and tactics. Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics VI.5, defines phronesis or practical wisdom as the virtue of choosing the right means to a good end in contingent circumstances. A hunter who secures the tail when the cow cannot be brought down has not abandoned the cow; he has avoided returning empty-handed while planning the next hunt.

To insist that “no hunter hangs the tail as a trophy” is rhetorically powerful, but it overlooks Machiavelli’s counsel in The Prince, Chapter 25: Fortuna governs half our actions, and the wise leader adapts accordingly. Soludo’s “tail” is not a doctrine of permanent limitation. It is a Machiavellian-Aristotelian reading of Nigerian federal politics: engage current structures, extract maximum value, and expand leverage for the next round. Rejecting partial gains because they are partial may, in practice, lead to outcomes that leave a group with fewer opportunities for influence.

2. Political Theory: Federalism as Bargaining, Not Conquest

Obienyem contrasts the “tail” with the “whole cow,” implying a pursuit of complete political power. But Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution designs a federation, not a unitary prize. K.C. Wheare, in Federal Government, and A.V. Dicey before him, argued that federalism thrives on incremental bargaining, coalition-building, and cooperative advantage rather than outright domination.

Emilokan, referenced by Obienyem, was an assertion of political agency within a party structure. Soludo’s “tail” is, conversely, an assertion of agency within a national structure where no single group holds a majority. To frame both as mutually exclusive risks overlooking the dynamics of democratic politics. As John Rawls argues in Political Liberalism, a plural society advances through “overlapping consensus,” where groups secure achievable gains today while negotiating broader reforms for tomorrow. The “tail” represents today’s consensus-building; the “cow” represents constitutional and political changes that require broader national support.

3. Theology: The Ethics of Stewardship and the Parable of the Talents

Theologically, the impulse to reject incremental gains risks the error of the servant who buried his talent because the master demanded more. In Matthew 25:14–30, the master commends not the one who waited for perfect conditions, but the one who worked with what he had and produced increase. St. Augustine, in City of God, similarly argues that people must seek temporal peace and civic goods even within imperfect political arrangements while keeping sight of higher aspirations.

Applied politically, to insist that Ndigbo must either attain the presidency or disengage from existing opportunities risks overlooking the value of governorships, legislative seats, ministerial appointments, federal agencies, and economic influence that can be secured in the present. These are not merely symbolic gains. They can serve as building blocks for the alliances, capacity, and credibility required for greater political achievements in the future. As Fr. Matthew Kukah has often argued, politics is the art of the possible, and public responsibility requires pursuing attainable progress while striving for broader goals.

4. Peter Obi, Soludo, and the False Dichotomy

Obienyem correctly notes that Peter Obi’s appeal transcends ethnicity. That is precisely why Soludo’s strategic outlook and Obi’s national candidacy need not be viewed as opposing approaches. One focuses on the long-term accumulation of institutional influence; the other seeks executive leadership at the national level. Presenting Ndigbo as having to choose between “tail politics” and “Obi politics” creates a dichotomy that may not fully reflect political realities.

Both approaches can coexist. Obi expands the national imagination of what is possible. Soludo’s approach emphasizes securing practical gains that strengthen institutions and governance outcomes. Roads, digital infrastructure, education, and fiscal credibility in Anambra can become examples of effective governance that support broader political aspirations.

History offers examples of this dual-track approach. The post-civil war recovery of the South-East was not achieved by waiting for a complete political reset. It was advanced through enterprise, education, and strategic engagement with the federal centre while maintaining cultural and economic resilience. Incremental gains, accumulated over time, contributed to broader progress.

5. Toward a Grammar of Wholeness Without Illusions

Obienyem’s call for a Nigeria defined by competence, justice, and national greatness is a destination many share. The difference lies in the path chosen to reach it. A grammar of wholeness does not require pretending that the cow is unguarded. It requires, as Reinhold Niebuhr wrote in Moral Man and Immoral Society, the marriage of moral idealism with political realism.

Characterizing Soludo’s metaphor as an insult may shift attention away from what is fundamentally a debate about political strategy and structural realities. A more pressing concern is whether political approaches can effectively balance long-term aspirations with the immediate needs of citizens for quality education, infrastructure, economic opportunity, and social development.

A people secure their future not only by aspiring to the whole cow but also by developing the discipline to preserve and invest whatever gains they can make while pursuing larger objectives.

Conclusion

Mr. Obienyem’s essay serves as a useful warning against the dangers of low expectations. This response offers a complementary caution against the risks of political abstraction detached from practical realities. Between the tail and the cow lies the difficult work of politics: alliance-building, institution-building, negotiation, and incremental progress.

Ndigbo, like all Nigerians, deserve both the vision of wholeness and the prudence required to secure gains while that vision is pursued. The challenge is not to choose between the tail and the cow. The challenge is to ensure that today’s gains become tomorrow’s foundation for greater achievements.

Dr. Anslem Onuorah is a Nigerian writer, teacher and public affairs analyst. He contributed this piece in response to Valentine Obienyem’s article, “Soludo and the Cow Tail.”