The 2027 general election may still be a long way off, but the political atmosphere is already heating up, with politicians vying to succeed President Bola Tinubu.
This is typical of Nigerian politics. Electioneering never seems to end; it transitions seamlessly from one election cycle to another, with little respite in between. Elected officials rarely get a break once they assume office, as opposition politicians persist with media campaigns and politicking, which inevitably unsettle and distract incumbent officeholders.
The ultimate political prize, of course, is the presidency. Rival politicians spare no effort or expense in pursuing it, utilizing any feasible method to secure power. The political realignments we are witnessing today, even with President Tinubu yet to complete half of his four-year term (as many governors elected alongside him in 2023 are also still in office), are a normal feature of our political system.
However, no political system can survive in an environment of relentless, high-stakes conflicts and tensions. Governance stagnates when development programs and policies cannot be implemented because key political actors are embroiled in infighting over appointments, or when power grabs become the driving force of political action, rather than a focus on the welfare of the people.
What President Tinubu, a governor, or other elected officials are doing wrong should be evaluated and criticized. However, these issues should not be elevated to campaign material or used as ammunition to attack tribal and religious groups by the opposition. Instead, opposition politicians should offer viable and realistic policy alternatives, rather than merely calling for regime change or the dismissal of errant officials. The notion that a politician should not be reelected simply because they didn’t secure a desired appointment or board position is untenable. Such thinking is self-serving and flawed from the outset.
One person’s political misfortune should not be used as a rallying cry to mobilize regions, tribes, religious groups, or demographic bases against a president or governor. For example, the dismissal of a political officeholder in a cabinet reshuffle does not justify launching a tirade or smear campaign against the president, who may have valid reasons for making that decision. Nigeria’s interests should always be the primary motivation for political action.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. What is clear in today’s political climate is the frustration stemming from the fallout of the 2023 election defeat. The widespread indignation within the opposition regarding the president’s policies, appointments, and actions is a direct consequence of their exclusion from power in our winner-takes-all political system. Not being in power means politicians cannot recover the substantial investments made during the elections. For those who are not extremely wealthy, this is a significant setback.
Incumbent officeholders, especially the president, must focus on performance and delivering the dividends of democracy. Wasting energy on daily media skirmishes with the opposition is a dangerous distraction, one that could hurt them come election day. The scorecard of an officeholder seeking reelection will ultimately determine whether they secure a fresh mandate.
President Tinubu is advised to focus squarely on his programs and not dismiss opposition criticisms or public outcry. It is wrong for the federal government to perceive every move or comment from the opposition as an attempt at blackmail or sabotage. Some criticisms are genuine, valid, and legitimate. While street protests should not become a permanent outlet for public frustration, as they risk losing their potency or being hijacked by hoodlums, the federal government should not deny the public the right to protest, as such rights are guaranteed by our constitution.
Our politicians should also understand that opposition in a U.S.-style presidential system operates differently than in a Westminster system, such as that practiced in Britain. In a presidential system, once an election is over, the opposition generally goes into abeyance, remaining active in parliament but not outside it. Until the unique, extraordinary era of Donald Trump, it was rare for a former president to publicly criticize an incumbent president in the United States. The president in power in America does not face a vociferous opposition like we do in Nigeria. What is happening in the U.S. now, with Trump’s policies and controversial actions, is stoking a fire of loud reactions from the Democratic Party.
In Britain, the main opposition party forms what they call a “shadow cabinet,” where opposition members propose policy options for the incumbent prime minister to accept or reject. In contrast, we seem to be mixing up these two models in our practice of the presidential system. While opposition politicians are free to present their ideas, they should not abuse, denigrate, or attack the incumbents in the manner that our opposition politicians often do. A thorough political education is needed to teach our politicians how to properly behave in a presidential system.
Ladi Ayodeji is an author, speaker, counselor. He can be reached on 09059243004(sms only).
Discussion about this post