Nigeria’s political landscape is at a crossroads. The ongoing restructuring of its power dynamics has opened a new chapter, marked by shifting alliances, party defections, and the relentless pursuit of personal and group interests over national priorities. While these trends reflect the vibrancy of Nigeria’s democracy, they also expose deep-rooted weaknesses in its political institutions, threatening to undermine national unity and effective governance.
The state of political fragmentation
Since the return to civilian rule, not a few state governors and legislators have abandoned the parties that brought them to power, often taking state resources and machinery with them as they defect to the ruling party. The trend has intensified, over the last 10 years, reflecting a celebration of personal and group interests disguised as national priorities.
In this Fourth Republic, this behaviour has shaped Nigeria’s unstable centres of power, with politicians gravitating toward opportunities for personal political and economic gains. The result has been the rise of powerful individuals overseeing political empires with little regard for public needs. As these shifting alliances run their course, they tend to be short-lived and collapse due to both internal and external pressures. (The People’s Democratic Party, for example, once boasted it would rule for 60 years; its hegemony collapsed after barely 16 years.)
Despite the robust promise of the Fourth Republic, Nigeria’s democracy remains fragile, plagued by corruption, elite dominance, and persistent ethnic and regional tensions. Political parties often serve as vehicles for personal ambition rather than platforms for coherent national policy. The 2015 merger that created the All Progressives Congress (APC) broke the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) dominance, but the cycle of defections and internal strife soon resumed, reflecting the consequences of an absence of strong ideological foundations.
The 2023 presidential election further highlighted the electorate’s growing disillusionment. The rise of traditional fringe players signalled a popular appetite for alternatives to the APC-PDP duopoly. It demonstrated that issues like economic reform and anti-corruption resonated with millions – especially the youth. It also demonstrated a tangible challenge to entrenched political interests. Yet, the inability of third-force movements to sustain momentum or build broad-based coalitions underscores the systemic barriers to meaningful change.
Nigeria’s drift toward parochialism is not unique. Many countries have grappled with the dangers of centralised power, elite capture, and political fragmentation. Several international examples offer evidence-based lessons for Nigeria’s reform agenda.
Decentralisation and local accountability have shown promising results globally. Countries like Indonesia, Ghana, and Colombia have implemented decentralisation reforms that transfer authority and resources from central governments to local entities. When accompanied by robust accountability mechanisms, such as transparent budgeting, citizen oversight councils, and independent audits, these reforms have improved service delivery, enhanced democratic responsiveness, and reduced corruption.
The implementation of participatory and co-governance models has also yielded positive outcomes. Cities like New York and Paris have pioneered participatory budgeting and permanent citizens’ assemblies, allowing ordinary citizens to directly shape policy and resource allocation. These governance models foster trust, revitalise civic engagement, and create more responsive governance structures. While scaling such initiatives nationally is challenging, they demonstrate the value of institutionalising citizen participation beyond periodic elections.
Successful governance reforms require a sturdy but measured approach. Comparative studies in Brazil and India show that effective reforms in modern times need strong political commitment, technical capacity, and gradual implementation. Quick, sweeping changes often provoke resistance and fail to take root. Instead, incremental reform (such as targeted anti-corruption measures or improvements to civil service accountability) builds public support and delivers tangible benefits, laying the groundwork for deeper structural change.
The importance of peaceful transitions and democratic norms cannot be overstated. Senegal’s peaceful transfers of power through credible elections have bolstered public trust and enabled ambitious economic reforms, contrasting sharply with Nigeria’s history of contested transitions and elite-driven politics. Until recently, the US tradition of “loser’s consent” of accepting electoral defeat as a democratic norm has been critical in maintaining political stability, even amid deep polarisations.
Drawing on these lessons, several concrete steps can help Nigeria arrest its drift toward parochialism and build a more resilient democracy. Parties must develop clear ideological platforms, enforce internal discipline, and democratise candidate selection processes to reduce opportunistic defections and foster genuine policy debates. True fiscal federalism, where states and local governments have greater autonomy and accountability, can reduce the “cake-sharing” fixation and incentivise local innovation and responsiveness.
Toward a more inclusive and effective democracy
Nigeria stands at a pivotal moment. The shifting centres of power, if left unchecked, risk deepening parochialism and undermining the promise of the Fourth Republic. Yet, evidence from within and beyond Nigeria’s borders shows that reform is possible. By embracing decentralisation, fostering genuine citizen participation, and committing to incremental, politically owned reforms, Nigeria can rebuild trust in its institutions and chart a path toward inclusive, effective governance. The challenge is formidable, but the rewards – a stable, prosperous, and united Nigeria – are well worth the effort.
