Editorial
By Chukwudi George Ozalla
There was a time in Nigeria when elections were fierce contests of ideas, personalities, temperaments, and visions. Political parties were living organisms with ideological debates, internal clashes, and rival power blocs vying for supremacy. Today, the landscape looks frighteningly different. The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) dominates the federation, controlling the overwhelming majority of states and holding a firm grip on the centre. With 31 states under its belt, Nigeria is inching dangerously close to a de facto one-party nation.
The danger is not just numerical. It is psychological. It is institutional. It is structural. When opposition parties weaken, fragment, and cannibalise themselves, the ruling party does not need to suppress dissent. It simply waits. The implosion of rivals becomes its greatest ally.
Democracy cannot function without a vibrant opposition. The architecture of representative government rests on tension. It depends on scrutiny and the constant reminder that power is temporary and accountable. Once that tension collapses, governance mutates into dominance. Dominance quietly evolves into entitlement and entitlement breeds impunity.
In recent years, Nigerians have watched opposition strength erode with troubling calm. The Labour Party (LP) rose dramatically in the 2023 elections, galvanising urban voters and energising young people who believed a new political culture was possible. The surge was organic, emotional, and disruptive. It rattled the old order and created the first genuine sense in years that a third force could recalibrate national politics.
Yet almost immediately after that electoral moment, LP descended into crisis. Factions emerged. Leadership tussles intensified. Court cases multiplied. Accusations of hijack and counter-hijack became routine. Instead of consolidating its newfound support base, LP became consumed by internal survival battles. Its national structure appeared weak. Its ideological spine looked uncertain. Many elected lawmakers began drifting, calculating where power would reside in the next cycle.
The tragedy of LP’s crisis is not just about personalities. It reflects a deeper institutional fragility. The party rode on the momentum of a candidate-driven movement but lacked the cohesion to sustain it beyond one election cycle. Political movements require structure, discipline, and long-term strategy. Without these, emotional waves recede quickly.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), once the self-described largest party in Africa, has also struggled to find equilibrium. After sixteen years in power at the centre, PDP still grapples with the trauma of losing federal authority in 2015. Since then, it has moved from one internal crisis to another. Zoning controversies, leadership disputes, struggles among governors, ex-governors, and the national secretariat, and recurring litigation have weakened its capacity to project itself as a credible alternative.
The post-2023 elections period further exposed PDP’s fragility. Internal divisions hardened rather than healed. Influential figures openly disagreed. Some members flirted with alignment to the ruling party. Others retreated into silence. PDP retains pockets of influence in a few states, but its national aura has diminished. It no longer commands the psychological dominance it once enjoyed.
Then there is the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), a party with deep roots in Anambra State and symbolic significance in the South East. APGA has retained control of Anambra but remains largely regional, with internal crises and imposition of candidates at primaries. Attempts at national expansion have yielded limited results. Internal leadership wrangling weakened its structures outside its home base. Though it presents as a progressive alternative, it has not built the nationwide machinery needed to compete robustly at the federal level.
Anambra offers a telling illustration. Local party loyalists defend their platforms passionately. Yet when federal issues arise, many quietly concede that the real contest is elsewhere. APGA governs the state, but at the national level its voice barely registers. The governor openly hobnobs with APC and campaigns for the president to remain in power till 2031. The same pattern repeats across states where smaller parties hold local power but lack federal leverage.
When the ruling party controls the presidency, the majority of the National Assembly, and an overwhelming number of governorships, the gravitational pull is irresistible. Politicians calculate survival. Governors consider access to federal resources. Lawmakers weigh committee appointments and influence. Defections are rationalised as pragmatic. Ideology fades.
Nigeria has seen this script before. During PDP dominance between 1999 and 2015, opposition parties struggled at the centre. Yet enough fragmentation within PDP and resistance from opposition strongholds preserved some competitive tension. What we witness now feels more concentrated.
The late Obafemi Awolowo warned that the price of political complacency is national stagnation. I can add, strangulation. Democracy without principled opposition is democracy in name only. When citizens believe outcomes are predetermined by structural dominance rather than persuasion, cynicism deepens. Voter turnout drops. Faith vanishes.
There is a generational dimension to this crisis. The youth-driven political awakening of 2023 signalled a hunger for alternative leadership and impatience with recycled elites. But when that movement fractures internally, disillusionment sets in. Young Nigerians who queued under the sun now watch court rulings and factional press conferences with fatigue. Democracy becomes theatre rather than transformation.
The collapse of opposition is not solely party leaders’ fault. It reflects a culture of transactional politics. Many politicians treat parties as platforms of convenience. Loyalty shifts with power. The electorate watches convictions dissolve overnight. Politics becomes a marketplace of access, influence, and wealth.
APC’s dominance across 31 states and the FCT creates structural advantages that are difficult to counter. Federal influence shapes appointments, projects, security, and patronage. Governors seek alignment for smoother coordination. Opposition governors face scrutiny and resistance. Over time, the path of least resistance becomes clear.
Yet dominant party systems carry risks. Without credible opposition, policy errors go unchecked. Legislative oversight weakens. Public debate narrows. Even within APC, internal dissent may be suppressed in the name of unity. The result is a reinforced echo chamber.
Economic pressures, inflation, currency volatility, unemployment, and insecurity dominate daily life. In a robust multi-party democracy, opposition would offer counter-proposals, mobilise citizens, and apply consistent pressure. Instead, discourse revolves around intra-party alignments and future defections.
I recall an elderly voter in Anambra telling young activists that democracy dies quietly when citizens stop expecting better. He spoke of the Second Republic, when ideological clashes captured national attention. Today, he said, the script feels written before the play begins.
We have harmed democracy collectively. Political actors prioritised personal gain over institutions. Party leaders failed to build durable internal democracy. Citizens excused defections and opportunism. Media and civil society grew fatigued. Each erosion seems minor but is significant together.
Which way Nigeria.
The answer cannot lie in nostalgia. It must lie in reform. Opposition parties must confront internal contradictions honestly. LP must decide whether it is a personality-driven movement or a structured institution committed to long-term clarity. PDP must resolve zoning disputes, rebuild trust among regional blocs, and articulate coherent policies. APGA must determine whether regional relevance suffices or national expansion is possible.
Internal democracy is not a slogan. Transparent primaries, disciplinary procedures, financial accountability, and ideological education are essential. Without them, parties remain fragile shells vulnerable to manipulation.
APC also bears responsibility. Dominance increases its duty to strengthen democratic norms. A confident ruling party should welcome robust opposition. History is cyclical. Today’s majority can become tomorrow’s minority. Strong institutions protect all actors.
Citizens must reclaim their role beyond elections. Democracy is daily engagement, holding representatives accountable regardless of party. Performance must outweigh propaganda.
A political maxim attributed to Thomas Jefferson states that when the people fear the government, there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people, there is liberty. In Nigeria, when opposition fears the ruling party, democracy trembles. When APC fears vigilant citizens and credible rivals, governance improves.
Media must rise. Journalism cannot become party machinery. It must interrogate power consistently, resisting the reduction of politics to personality drama while ignoring structural decay.
Nigeria stands at a delicate intersection. Over 200 million people cannot afford democratic shrinkage. Diversity demands multiple voices, platforms, and pathways to power. Concentration may appear efficient short-term but is brittle long-term.
There is still time to recalibrate. Parties can reform. Coalitions can emerge. Citizens can demand higher standards. But it requires courage and leaders willing to sacrifice immediate advantage for institutional credibility.
The alternative is managed democracy. Elections occur but outcomes rarely surprise. Opposition exists but rarely threatens. Debate happens but rarely changes direction.
We must decide whether Nigeria remains a competitive republic or settles for quiet uniformity. Fractures within opposition are real. APC’s dominance across 31 states is undeniable.
Democracy survives not by default but by design. Neglect its architecture and it weakens under pressure.
Which way Nigeria.
The answer rests in the conscience of a nation that must choose between convenience and conviction, and in opposition parties that must deliver and live above board.
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, NEWSCOUNT
