Follow Us on Google
There was a time when Nigeria existed more as an argument than as a country. It called itself a nation, sang an anthem, saluted a flag, pledged allegiance to unity and faith, peace and progress. Yet beneath the poetry of its founding promises, it behaved like a reluctant union stitched together by colonial urgency and sustained by postcolonial improvisation.
Nigeria’s political atmosphere has gradually but unmistakably tilted in one direction. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) has consolidated power with strategic precision, while the opposition struggles with fragmentation, internal distrust, and shrinking influence. Whether this dominance is the result of superior political organisation or a structurally tilted field is a matter of perspective. What is undeniable is that the balance of power has shifted decisively.
The APC has not relied on chance. Since its emergence as a coalition force that unseated an incumbent government in 2015, the party has demonstrated a keen understanding of Nigeria’s political arithmetic. Under President Bola Tinubu, the party has strengthened its hold on federal power while expanding its footprint across the states and the legislature. Incumbency, in Nigeria’s political culture, is not merely symbolic authority; it carries influence over appointments, budgetary direction, patronage networks, and elite negotiations.
One of the clearest expressions of the APC’s consolidation strategy has been its ability to lure governors and lawmakers from opposition parties into its fold. Across the federation, prominent elected officials have defected, often citing the need to align their states with the federal government for development purposes. Others speak of national interest or political stability. Yet the cumulative effect of these defections is unmistakable: the systematic weakening of opposition structures.
Many of these politicians were elected on different party platforms, entrusted with mandates by voters who cast ballots with specific expectations. The Permanent Voter Cards that secured their victories remain in the hands of citizens, not in party headquarters. When elected officials switch allegiance without returning to their constituencies for renewed approval; it raises serious democratic questions. It may be legal within Nigeria’s constitutional framework, but legality does not always equate to legitimacy in the court of public opinion.
The strategy, however controversial, has been politically effective. Power attracts power. In an environment where proximity to the centre can determine access to resources, security backing, and political survival, many politicians calculate that defection is safer than resistance, especially content skeletons dominant in most of these defectors’ cupboard. By absorbing opposition heavyweights, the APC reduces the capacity of rival parties to mount formidable challenges in future elections.
Beyond defections, attention has increasingly focused on the National Assembly under Senate President Godswill Akpabio. Critics argue that legislative decisions regarding electoral processes have reinforced suspicions about the playing field. Central to this debate is the retention of manual transmission and collation of election results. While electronic accreditation has become more widespread, full electronic transmission of results has not been firmly entrenched as the sole binding method.
For many Nigerians, manual collation, whether primarily or as a backup, represents a vulnerability in the system. It is perceived as a window through which manipulation can occur between polling units and final collation centres. Supporters of retaining manual processes argue that infrastructural limitations, network instability, and technical breakdowns make physical backups necessary. But perception remains powerful. In a democracy where trust is fragile, even the appearance of loopholes can erode confidence.
Compounding this skepticism is growing public doubt about the judiciary’s independence in election-related disputes. Courts continue to hear petitions, and rulings are delivered in accordance with legal procedure. Yet a significant portion of the electorate increasingly questions whether aggrieved candidates can truly find impartial redress. When faith in judicial neutrality weakens, democracy itself begins to wobble. Whether this perception is entirely justified or partly shaped by partisan disappointment, its impact is real. A system is only as strong as the confidence it inspires.
It would be simplistic to attribute the APC’s dominance solely to structural imbalance. The opposition has contributed substantially to its own predicament. The Peoples Democratic Party, once the most formidable political machine in Africa, has been mired in leadership disputes, zoning controversies, and factional infighting. Internal conflicts have drained energy that might otherwise have been invested in rebuilding grassroots networks.
The Labour Party, which energised large segments of the youth and urban electorate in the last election cycle, has struggled to convert momentum into durable structure. Organisational cohesion has faltered, and internal disagreements have slowed consolidation. Social media enthusiasm, while powerful, has not fully translated into institutional resilience.
The opposition’s predicament reflects deeper structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s political culture. Ideology remains secondary to personality. Policy distinctions are often blurred. Parties frequently function as vehicles for electoral ambition rather than as coherent platforms for governance philosophy. In such a fluid environment, loyalty becomes transactional, and defections are normalised.
Other News
The consequence is a perception of inevitability surrounding the ruling party. When opposition governors cross over, when lawmakers align with the centre, and when legislative frameworks appear resistant to reform toward full electronic transparency, the impression solidifies that the ruling establishment is insulated from serious challenge.
Yet history cautions against assuming permanence. Nigeria has witnessed political giants fall before. The PDP once appeared untouchable until internal fractures and shifting alliances dismantled its dominance. Public sentiment, particularly under economic strain, can shift swiftly. Inflation, unemployment, currency volatility, and security concerns remain potent political variables. Governance outcomes ultimately shape electoral destiny.
The larger democratic question is not whether the APC has been politically astute; it clearly has. The deeper issue is whether Nigeria benefits from a weakened opposition. Democracy thrives on credible alternatives. Without competitive tension, accountability weakens. A dominant party system can foster stability, but it can also breed complacency if not counterbalanced by robust institutional checks.
Restoring equilibrium will require more than rhetorical outrage. Electoral transparency must be strengthened in ways that rebuild trust, including clearer frameworks around technology and collation processes. Judicial independence must not only exist but be visibly reinforced through transparent processes and timely adjudication. Opposition parties must confront their internal contradictions, rebuild from the grassroots, and articulate policy-driven alternatives that resonate beyond elite circles.
Ultimately, the PVC remains the most powerful instrument in Nigerian democracy. Politicians may defect, alliances may shift, and institutions may tilt, but sovereignty rests with the electorate. If citizens perceive that their mandate is repeatedly diluted or redirected without consent, political consequences will follow, whether gradually through voter apathy or dramatically through electoral backlash.
Nigeria stands at a defining juncture. The APC has expanded its reach through calculated strategy, elite absorption, and legislative leverage. The opposition has faltered through fragmentation and reactive politics.
The judiciary faces skepticism, and electoral procedures remain a contested terrain. Yet the democratic experiment endures.
However, the future will depend on whether dominance evolves into responsible governance or hardens into structural entrenchment. It will depend on whether opposition forces rediscover coherence and courage. Unfortunately for them, there is no history, no central figure to whom allegiance is a debt.
What works well for APC is President Tinubu’s marksmanship. He is, unarguably, a master strategist with unequalled prowess to push the opponents to irrelevance. How Nigerians perceive him is immaterial and not the thrust of this article. The truth remains that Tinubu is a builder of men who turn out powerfully to be loyalists.
This is borne out of the fact that quite a lot of those that benefitted from his large heart were picked from nowhere, groomed and brought to the limelight. There is no known Nigerian that has this credential, and it works well for him. He reaps bountifully for showing bountifully even into the lives of strangers from other tribe.
The opposition need to recalibrate or be prepared to lose the election. And it shall not necessarily be because of the shenanigans of INEC and the electoral process.
And above all, it will depend on whether Nigerians insist that power, however consolidated, remains accountable to the people in whose hands the PVC still rests.
