In 1975, about five years after the bloody Nigerian civil war, the military government of Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo began the process of dismantling parliamentary democracy, a British colonial legacy. The objective, according to the Daily Times of October 19, 1975, was to “discourage institutionalised opposition to the government in power and instead develop a consensus politics”.
Obviously, the military thought that a nation could have consensus without conflict or opposition. Political sociologist, Larry Diamond would later note that the driving goal of the Nigerian military was always to use autocracy in the “containment of political conflict within certain boundaries of behavioural restraint”.
Nigerian politicians still hold this belief; but they have chosen to use coercion, fear and intimidation to achieve the same objective. Rulers of Nigeria, since the colonial era, have not understood the peculiar role of a functional opposition in a democracy.
This lack of understanding of roles has meant that even mundane issues are viewed as political existential threats. This has turned the government and opposition to frequent sparing partners on almost any matter; even non-political issues are politicised. It is not a surprise therefore that Alhaji Abdullahi Ganduje, chairman of Nigeria’s ruling APC, has stoutly defended Nigeria’s drift toward a one-party state, and desires the Chinese model for Nigeria.
According to the APC chairman, “China runs a one-party system and it works for them”. Ganduje’s statement is correct: China is indeed a one-party state governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The party has held power since 1949 and maintains strict control over all political, military, and media institutions. The point that seemed lost to the chairman is that there is a fundamental difference between China’s one-party system and the APC political aspiration; their difference is rooted in structure, legitimacy, and outcomes.
China’s system of government is an explicit, institutionalised one-party state dominated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In this model, the CCP is the sole political authority, with no legal space for opposition parties. The party exercises comprehensive control over the government, military, and media, and actively suppresses dissent.
The model, widely regarded as authoritarian by its western critics, claims to operate a form of internal meritocracy: officials are expected to pass rigorous exams and demonstrate qualifications to advance within the party hierarchy. Merit does play a significant role in the China model, but political loyalty and internal party dynamics also play important roles. The Chinese system is designed to ensure policy continuity, stability, and rapid decision-making, but at the expense of certain checks and balances in an open democracy.
In contrast, Nigeria is constitutionally a multi-party democracy. However, under the leadership of Alhaji Ganduje, there has been a pronounced drift toward de facto one-party dominance. This trend is not the result of formal constitutional change, but rather the product of political manoeuvrings; the APC is fast consolidating its grip on power through high-profile defections and the systematic weakening of opposition parties.
Party switching in Nigeria is typically motivated by personal or geo-political (regional or state) gain rather than ideological commitment. We now are drifting towards a political landscape with little substantive policy difference between parties. APC’s growing dominance has been flagged by many as a threat to Nigeria’s democratic norms, undermining checks and balances and eroding require political diversity in a democracy.
China’s system is ideologically unified, highly centralised, and claims to reward merit, with a clear and consistent mechanism for leadership selection and policy implementation. Nigeria’s drift under the APC, on the other hand, is characterised by opportunism, lack of ideological coherence, and a patronage-based approach to governance managed by political expediency rather than competence.
The vacuum created by a lack of an ideology has formed a gaping hole in the heart of Nigeria’s version of democracy and made democracy a little more than a mere aspiration. What this has produced is endless contestations among factional political elites who have little interest in the demands of democracy when correctly aligned with national objectives.
According to the political theorist, Chantal Mouffe, “the aim of democratic politics is to construct the ‘them’ in such a way that it is no longer perceived as an enemy to be destroyed.” For an inclusive nation-state to emerge, the elites need to reconcile themselves to the fact that all voices need to be heard; not only the sanctioned narratives emanating from one source.
As things stand, even if the APC were to achieve uncontested dominance, it is unlikely to replicate China’s outcomes of policy stability or rapid development. Where the APC is heading risks eroding Nigerian democracy without gaining the purported “meritocratic” benefits of the Chinese system. The reason is not far-fetched given the stark differences in institutional design, political culture, and mechanisms of governance between the two nations.
The hope for Nigeria is for the media to intensify their function as champions of inclusive and integrative national discourses where all voices are heard. If Nigeria must reinvent itself into a nation with a future, the elite must commit to common national destiny in which the hegemonic interests of one political group are not above those of the nation and those of other groups.
