Nigeria’s political system is unascertainable, by Tony Iredia

The political system of any society refers generally to how the society concerned functions. History records many types of political systems, the most popular being a) monarchies where rulers come to power through tradition and culture, b) Authoritarianism where certain persons hold office without the consent of the people, c) Oligarchy where a small group of people have control over the governmentand d) Democracywhere the government is elected by the people. Nigeria’s political system is slightly different from what obtains in many other climes because, unlike many other societies, which have had to transit from one system to the other, almost every political system subsists in Nigeria, especially at subnational levels.

Monarchy which was our dominant system in pre-colonial times was changed to a different form of dictatorship in which the British forcefully took over power from our traditional institutions. For a rather long period in history, the military seized power from elected representatives under the guise of ensuring that Nigeria was not dismembered. Although they left power in 1999 and hopefully may not return, their successors in office in what is now known as a democracy are only different from the military in their form of dressing. They still make pronouncements that are to be implemented with immediate effect. We are not under an oligarchy but we have kitchen cabinets made up of asmall group of people that have control over the government. 

Again, although colonialism had put an end to monarchy it is difficult these days to know whether it is better to be a governor than to be an Emir or Oba. In Ibadan, one of the nation’s oldest seats of democratic governance, a former governor for the entire Oyo state is enthusiastically on his way to becoming the traditional ruler of just the city. There are many other examples such as a former governor of the entire Niger State who became the Emir of only the city of Suleja. As at today, our legislators are earnestly finding ways and means of enacting a law that can give legal authorities to our traditional rulers to take charge of certain societal functions. Unfortunately, many of the traditional rulers who are expected to play the role of the undisputed father of all, may be obliged to become partisan thereby incurring the animosity of some groups. 

In truth, the partisanship of a revered royalty could in turn demystify the thrones and complicate the exact nature of Nigeria’s democracy.But not many would readily agree that Nigeria is a democracy considering that the politics of equality by which a democracy is identified is absent in Nigeria. During elections in the country, those in power usually put up a mechanism that disallows a level playing field. Their opponents cannot use state facilities such as the stadium or public media to reach the people with messages that can enable the electorate to make informed decisions. Quite often, candidates of the ruling parties determine which political debate to attend as if they are emperors instead of aspirants seeking to be given a chance to serve. 

Many office holders are known to criminalize dissent and harass their political opponents. At the same time, several political leaders make too many undemocratic statements. One of such is the call by some citizens on a former Vice President Alhaji Atiku Abubakar to step aside from elections and give way to new faces. Such callers miss the point because every citizen has a right to vote and be voted for and there is no law that limits the number of times one can aspire to an office. In other societies where democracy is institutionalized, no one would seek to curtail another person’s political right. What people are entitled to doing to a citizen whose aspiration irritates them is to vote against such a candidate.Not so in Nigeria. 

Leaders of the opposition parties to which Atiku belongs would castigate and accuse him of over ambition but strangely vote for him in the primary election for picking a party flag bearer. In like manner, we attack and describe those who file election petitions as bad losers. But election petitions are the only legal avenues for ventilating electoral grievances. The other way that is certainly undemocratic is political assassination of opponents that rig elections. It is therefore unreasonable to attack those who file election petitions in a society especially ours where elections are neither free nor fair.

In other societies, the people would rather castigate the electoral body that collects huge funds to procure electoral technologies such as server but argue after voting that server was not used. Why for instance was server budgeted for and procured for our 1999 elections?

If we are in a democracy which presupposes the rule of law, why is the period of governance displaced by unapproved electioneering? Before voting, the rules allow for electioneering, after voting and a winner takes office, the real purpose of democracy which is governance is supposed to be at the centre stage at that juncture. The period is critical because it is the opportunity for implementing policies that can improve the living standards of the people. Instead of focussing on that segment, the politicians would continue with electioneering for the next set of elections no matter how far away. Rather than holing them accountable, the media would collect huge adverts from politicians and help them publicise their premature electioneering thereby establishing the triumph of politics in an underdeveloped polity.

During campaigns, political parties pick running mates who are supposed to compliment the work of their principals. But after government is formed, the executives do not only turn their deputies into redundant spare tyres, they begin to work assiduously for the impeachment of such deputies. In one state in the Southeast, a governor in the twilight of his tenure was busy with the impeachment of a third deputy. In another state in the Northcentral, a governor supervised the impeachment of his deputy that was not found guilty of the alleged impeachment charges. Interestingly, the average offence of impeached deputy governors was always that they wanted to succeed their principals. Yet, we all know that ambition is not an offence.

In the immediate past federal government, officials openly stated that those whose votes amounted to 97 percent of the president’s votes were the only ones entitled to favours from him. There are many reasons why that is undemocratic. The first is that it is only a candidate that wears a partisan toga in a democracy, once elected the executive becomes a statesman who is known as president or governor of all. Second, it is irrational to over patronize those who helped an executive to be elected bearing in mind that at installation, the entire society hails him for swearing on oath to treat all citizens equally. Third, our constitution provides for a right to freedom from discrimination. Fourth, Nigeria’s Federal Character Principle is a provision aimed at ensuring representation and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities across the nation.

Thus, the clamour by some groups to get preferential treatment is against the spirit of the politics of equality. But perhaps the latest obvious defect in our political system which distances us from democracy is the feature known as majority rule.  The principle is that the political party which garners the highest number of votes is the one empowered to form a government. It is a democratic aberration for a candidate to reverse the situation by defecting to a party which did not get the popular support of voters during the election. Governors who cherish political defection for selfish reasons have now established a trend whereby the party rejected at the polls can now function as the government of the day.

It is patently unfair for certain privileged elite groups to list Nigeria among democratic nations when our disposition portrays the contrary. It is even worse that we claim to be a constitutional democracy. To start with, too many of our people do not accept our current constitution- that of 1999 as authentic. Those who seem to believe in it and are insisting that whatever defect therein can be rectified do not follow either the letter or the spirit of the law. What is obvious is that our political system helps to enrich the rich while it impoverishes the poor. It is hard to accept that it is a democracy because the most important element of democracy is freedom. Our leaders are black and indigenous unlike the white colonial officials, they wear no uniforms but enjoy impunitylike dictators, perhaps weneed to articulate a special title for our system.

Tonnie Iredia

August 03, 2025

The post Nigeria’s political system is unascertainable, by Tony Iredia appeared first on Vanguard News.