Perspective
By
Chukwudi George Ozalla
I write this not as a spectator of Nigeria’s politics but as one deeply immersed in it. For years, I have interacted with elected officials. I have covered primaries where hope filled the air in the morning and disappointment settled by nightfall. I have monitored elections in tense communities where citizens lined up under the sun believing their votes would shape history. I have reported from legislative chambers where motions were passionately defended and quietly negotiated. I have engaged civil society platforms demanding accountability and participated directly in civic processes. From that lived and sustained experience, I say this with conviction: even if we all become members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) today, it will not automatically translate into good democratic governance.
Democracy is not measured by the size of a ruling party. It is measured by the strength and functionality of institutions, the integrity of processes and the character of those entrusted with authority. There is nothing inherently wrong with any political party in Nigeria. Parties are platforms. They are vehicles through which citizens organise political interests and seek leadership. What is fundamentally wrong is the conduct of key actors who dominate those platforms and treat them as instruments of personal advancement and aggrandisement rather than custodians of public trust.
Over the years, I have watched political actors move from one party to another with remarkable ease. The same faces. The same speeches. The same promises dressed in different colours. Only the party emblem changes. This pattern has steadily wiped out public confidence. Many citizens now conclude that ideology is secondary and access to power is primary. That perception, whether fair or not, is dangerous for a developing democracy like ours.
I have never believed that party manoeuvres should be elevated above individual conscience, patriotic zeal and disciplined focus on broader national development. Yet we constantly hear that party is supreme. Supreme in what sense? Supreme above the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? Supreme above the sovereign will of the people? Supreme above moral and rational responsibility? Party supremacy cannot override constitutional supremacy. When party discipline becomes a tool to silence conscience, democracy begins to thin out.
The recent defection of the Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, to the All Progressives Congress (APC) must be understood within this wider context. Governors are not ordinary party members. They are political power centres within their states. They influence legislators, local government officials, appointees, contractors and party structures. When such a figure defects, the signal travels fast. Commissioners adjust their calculations. Lawmakers reconsider alliances. Political appointees reposition. Across the federation, another familiar question quietly forms: who is next to defect?
Defection is not, in itself, unlawful under certain constitutional conditions. Politics is fluid. Circumstances evolve. However, frequency matters. When defections become common, they expose internal weaknesses within party systems. They reveal unresolved leadership struggles, contested primaries and dissatisfaction with internal governance.
Across different states, party primaries often follow a familiar script. Aspirants invest enormous resources, mobilise grassroots support and build structures, only to confront last minute imposition of candidates. Party executives sideline internal constitutions when powerful interests intervene. Frustration accumulates quietly until the only visible escape appears to be defection. When internal democracy is compromised, loyalty weakens.
Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people. He spoke those words during a civil war, when the survival of the American union was uncertain. His formulation was not poetic decoration. It was a pointer that sovereignty rests with citizens. When party caucuses act as though their resolutions outweigh constitutional principles, they invert that foundational truth.
It is important to avoid simplistic narratives. The shrinking of opposition space cannot be attributed solely to the political strength of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. He is undeniably a seasoned political strategist with decades of experience in coalition building and party organisation. Yet opposition parties have also struggled with internal fragmentation, leadership disputes and inconsistent policy direction. Some of these structural problems existed long before the current administration.
Still, the optics of multiple defections into the ruling party create a perception of consolidation that demands careful reflection. A democracy without credible and viable opposition risks losing balance. Winston Churchill once observed that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. He understood that democracy survives through contestation and accountability. Remove meaningful contestation and the system becomes fragile.
A system where nearly all significant political actors gravitate toward one dominant party may appear orderly and enticing on the surface. It reduces open confrontation. It projects cohesion. But politics and manoeuvring do not stop. They simply shift inward. Factional competition intensifies within the dominant platform. Ambitions collide internally. Without a structured external opposition, those internal rivalries can become destabilizing.
I have covered enough legislative sessions to understand how alignment shapes debate. When opposition benches are thin or fractured, scrutiny weakens. Oversight becomes less forceful. Public policy discussions lose sharpness. The health of parliamentary democracy depends on structured disagreement conducted within constitutional bounds.
John F. Kennedy stated that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. His words speak to fairness as a collective responsibility. If fairness is denied within party structures through imposition and exclusion, it weakens the culture of fairness in governance. Internal injustice eventually reflects externally.
Confucius taught that the strength of a nation derives from the integrity of its home. In political terms, the home is the party structure. If parties cannot administer justice within their own ranks, conduct transparent primaries and respect internal rules, how can they credibly promise justice to a diverse federation?
Nelson Mandela reflected that a leader must act as a shepherd, guiding gently while allowing others to move ahead. His insight underlines humility and restraint. Leadership is not domination. It is stewardship. Nigerian leaders across parties must reflect on whether their decisions strengthen democratic culture or merely consolidate temporary advantage.
There is another dimension that cannot be ignored. The over centralization of political influence at the federal level creates incentives for state actors to align with the centre. Access to federal appointments, fiscal flows and security coordination intersect with party dynamics. In such an environment, defection may appear pragmatic. But pragmatism without principle weakens institutional depth.
Having engaged political actors and civic groups over the years, and participated directly in civic processes, I sense growing public fatigue. Young Nigerians in particular express frustration that political actors seem interchangeable. They ask whether party labels carry real ideological meaning or simply serve as access cards to power. This sentiment is not rooted in apathy but in observation.
Democratic erosion does not occur in a dramatic instant. It unfolds gradually. It begins with tolerated distortions. With silence when internal party rules are bent. With rationalisation of imposition as strategy. With celebration of defections as political victory rather than interrogation of underlying causes.
This is not an argument for hostility toward any administration. It is a call for institutional strengthening. A confident government should welcome strong opposition. It enhances legitimacy and sharpens performance. Structured competition compels clarity in policy and discipline in governance.
We shall begin to get it right the moment the foundations of our political parties are strong enough to administer fairness within their fold first and foremost. Free and fair primaries must replace imposition and abracadabra. Party constitutions must be respected without selective interpretation. Governors must recognize institutional boundaries and resist the temptation to convert party structures into personal fiefdoms. Electoral bodies must operate independently. The judiciary must interpret constitutional provisions without fear or favour.
If nearly all political actors cluster under one ruling umbrella for convenience, the eventual implosion may be difficult to manage. History shows that internal contradictions eventually surface. Democracy breathes through pluralism, accountability and principled disagreement. Let us not suffocate democracy!
Nigeria deserves a political culture where integrity outweighs opportunism, where party loyalty does not eclipse national interest and where conscience guides public decision making. That culture will not emerge from numerical dominance. It will emerge from disciplined institutions and leaders who understand that power is entrusted, not owned.
I say this from years in the field, from observation and engagement, from conversations in corridors of power and in communities far from those corridors. Democracy survives not by uniformity but by integrity. When party supremacy is balanced by constitutional supremacy and guided by conscience, governance improves. When it is not, the system drifts. So who is next to defect to the ruling party?
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, NEWSCOUNT
