By Suraju Abdulgafar
The Nigerian political landscape is beginning to resemble a funeral parlor. With the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) arguably undergoing its final rites and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) trapped in a spiral of internal crises, a haunting question looms over the nation: Is the Nigerian opposition dead, or was it ever truly alive?
In any healthy democracy, the word “vibrant” is not an adjective, it is a lifeblood. Opposition parties are meant to be the sentinels of the state, watchdogs that growl at corruption, policy critics that dissect mediocrity, and credible governments-in-waiting. But today, the watchdog has lost its teeth, and the “alternative” has become a mirror image of the status quo.
The tragedy of Nigeria’s current reality is not just the weakness of the opposition, but its lack of ideology and direction. Our political landscape is built on sand, a foundation devoid of ideology. In more mature democracies, parties are defined by their philosophies on the economy, security, and social welfare. If our democracy is to be resuscitated, the opposition must move beyond loud press conferences and embrace intellectual rigor. Borrowing from the UK system, the opposition must appoint specialists to monitor specific ministries. We don’t need general critics, we need a “Shadow Minister of Finance” who can provide an alternative budget, and a “Shadow Minister of Defense” with a documented strategy for the insurgency.
In 2012, we all observed the consultation leading to the coalition that forged the All Progressive Congress (APC) as a formidable opposition, starting with the coalition that merged different parties and groups. The party focused on shared national reform priorities (fighting corruption, security, economy, and governance) to sustain unity beyond regional loyalties.
APC used national conventions and policy conferences to amend its constitution, adopt manifestos, and elect key officers from the Ward, local government, state, and national organs. A multi-tiered structure aimed to decentralize decision-making and involve stakeholders from across states. Dispute resolution mechanisms for internal dispute resolution bodies and appellate processes were utilized to address leadership contests and zoning disputes, albeit with varying transparency. Leadership often reflects a rotation or balance among key zones (north, south, east, west) to maintain national appeal and minimize internal strife. Addressing ideology and internal debates over strategy, appointments, and policy emphasis were common, with internal caucuses and consultative forums used to manage disagreements. But today what we are witnessing is an acquisition where a political party becomes transactional with the big elephant with mighty pockets hijacking a political structure to satisfy their personal aspirations.
Opposition is not about blocking the government. Rather, it is about out-thinking them by collaborating with think tanks and academics, the opposition can present evidence-based alternatives that prove to the electorate that they are ready to lead, not just ready to complain and criticize. Can we boldly say all these former public office holders who destroyed their own party to form an alliance are fit and worthy to govern a country?
Some might even argue that a dominant ruling party brings about stability and ends legislative gridlock. The claim that without an opposition to “interfere,” policies can be implemented faster. This can only be achieve through a political party with an ideology and sense of responsibility, the stability in Lagos State governance is evident of this claim.
Nigeria stands at a crossroads. We can continue down this path where political parties are mere vehicles for personal ambition, or we can demand a “vibrant” multi-party system where ideas clash and democratic processes are dully followed for the benefit of the citizen.
Suraju Abdulgafar writes from Igbogbo.
