Opinion
By Chukwudi George Ozalla
Nigeria’s political leadership structure continues to raise difficult questions about direction, accountability and the meaning of opposition in a democracy that appears stuck in repetition. Each cycle of leadership arrives with expectation, loud promises and renewed hope, but what follows in many cases feels familiar to what came before, only with different faces and slightly adjusted narratives.
At the centre of national politics are the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC). These parties have all moved through power, opposition and internal realignment. Yet for many citizens, the lived experience has remained largely unchanged regardless of which platform holds office at any given time.
I have always stated that there is no political party with an inherent inability to deliver good governance. The real weight sits with the individuals who operate within these structures. Money bags have increasingly hijacked the electoral process, shaping outcomes long before votes are cast. Financial strength now determines visibility, structure and access to political opportunity. In many cases, elections are decided long before citizens arrive at polling units.
Politics in this environment thrives on both popularity and notoriety. Notoriety is no longer treated as a disqualification in many cases. It has become part of the pathway to power. Individuals with controversial backgrounds and credentials, strong financial backing or entrenched networks often find themselves better positioned than those with competence, discipline or quiet records of service but without the machinery to compete.
Many people with the best of intentions are never given the chance. The structure of politics often rewards visibility and popularity, while at times elevating notoriety over competence. Questions of integrity and capacity are frequently pushed aside by political machinery, influence and money-driven control of the process.
The electoral environment reflects these pressures. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) operates within a space where internal party decisions, financial influence and political negotiation often shape outcomes before formal processes conclude. Primaries, not general elections, frequently determine who appears on the ballot, and internal disputes reveal struggles already settled away from public view.
Across media platforms, civil society space, faith based organisations and even among citizens who should ordinarily serve as the conscience of the system, compromise has become visible. Institutions that once provided balance now appear fragmented, selective or weakened by alignment and survival pressure. What should serve as a moral and civic check on power has, in many cases, become muted or inconsistent.
It is what I refer to as progressive retrogressive leadership patterns that we are used to experience. In other words every successful administration tend to grow worst than the previous one forcing citizens to be missing the previous administration. Each transition begins with anticipation, but over time, disappointment begins to feel familiar, and comparison with earlier administrations becomes part of public conversation.
No system survives forever on promises; it survives on what citizens are willing to tolerate. Citizens continue to ask for basic governance outcomes: stable electricity, accessible fuel supply, good roads, reliable healthcare and security that allows daily life to proceed without fear or disruption.
The security situation continues to weigh heavily on national consciousness. The country continues to lose soldiers, police officers and civilians to insurgency and violent attacks across different regions. Each loss deepens public concern about capacity, coordination and the long-term sustainability of current responses.
Governance has drifted further away from the everyday experience of citizens. The state remains visible in announcements and policy statements, but in many communities, the impact of those statements is difficult to feel in practical terms. The distance between leadership and citizens continues to widen, trust continues to weaken. Danger continues to lurk!
So who will truly bell the cat?
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, NEWSCOUNT
