One of the most corrosive elements undermining Nigeria’s democracy is the near-total absence of integrity, principles, and personal dignity among a large segment of its political class. Politics, in its ideal form, is meant to be a platform for service — a means by which individuals represent the collective aspirations of the people. In Nigeria, however, the reverse often plays out.
For many politicians, the measure of success is not the transformation of their constituencies or the advancement of public welfare, but rather the amassing of personal wealth, the consolidation of individual power, and the protection of political survival at all costs. Public office becomes a means to private enrichment, while political loyalty is auctioned to the highest bidder.
This self-serving mindset manifests in numerous ways — from the relentless pursuit of financial gain to the calculated exploitation of insecurity for political advantage. Insecurity, now a defining feature of Nigeria’s socio-political landscape, has become both a symptom and a tool of bad governance. Some politicians weaponize it — using the threat of violence, insurgency, or unrest to intimidate opponents or use it for political advantage against their opponents.
Those who once thrived on “easy money” or ill-gotten wealth find themselves, when fortunes change, scrambling to regain relevance. In their desperation, many readily sacrifice their dignity, offering subservience to anyone — no matter how incompetent or morally bankrupt — as long as that person possesses the money, influence, or security apparatus they crave.
Case Studies and Historical Parallels
1. The Party Defection Syndrome
In the Fourth Republic (1999–present), Nigeria has witnessed a parade of politicians switching political parties not for ideological alignment, but purely for political survival. The mass defections during the 2014–2015 transition from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) — and the reverse defections after APC took power — revealed how shallow party loyalty truly is.
2. The Godfather Phenomenon
The case of Anambra State in the early 2000s remains a vivid example. Chris Uba, a self-styled political “godfather,” was alleged to have installed a governor with the expectation of total control over the state’s resources. When the governor resisted, the state was thrown into a political crisis, showing how personal interest and the need to please powerful benefactors override governance responsibilities.
3. Money Politics and Vote-Buying
This not only degraded the dignity of voters but also demonstrated how politicians see elections as investments to be recouped later — often through corrupt access to public funds.
4. The Obasanjo–Atiku Rift
During the early 2000s, the public fallout between then-President Olusegun Obasanjo and Vice President Atiku Abubakar illustrated how personal ambition can destabilize governance. What started as a partnership for leadership quickly devolved into a bitter struggle for control over political machinery and access to resources — a conflict that distracted the administration from pressing national issues.
5. Insecurity as a Political Currency
From the manipulation of ethnic and religious tensions to the quiet tolerance of armed groups in exchange for electoral support, insecurity has often been sustained — if not deliberately encouraged — by those who benefit from chaos. The escalation of banditry in the North-West, communal clashes in the Middle Belt, and secessionist agitations in the South-East are not just failures of governance but also reflections of a political culture that sometimes finds disorder politically profitable.
2023–2025: The New Faces of the Same Old Politics
Recent events have proven that Nigeria’s political culture has not fundamentally changed.
• 2023 Post-Election Defections: Following the general elections, several high-profile politicians who lost out under their party platforms switched allegiance within months — not to align with a better vision for governance, but to secure ministerial appointments, political protection, or immunity from corruption probes.
• Security and Political Bargaining: In states ravaged by violence, negotiations with armed groups are sometimes conducted not to secure long-term peace, but to secure electoral advantage or suppress voter turnout in opposition strongholds.
• Control of State Resources: Power is fought over through backroom deals, court rulings, and open alliances with political godfathers. In Rivers, alliances shifted almost weekly as rival factions traded loyalty for political survival.
• National Assembly Leadership Contest: The 2023–2024 race for Senate President and Speaker of the House once again revealed that legislative priorities are secondary to political patronage. Alliances were shaped not by national security needs or economic recovery, but by which camp could offer better insurance for political survival.
• Economic Crisis and Political Opportunism: During the current hardship (2024–2025), instead of pushing for reforms to address inflation, unemployment, and the insecurity strangling local economies, many politicians have been more focused on securing their 2027 positioning. Relief measures became politicized tools, distributed more as political rewards than as genuine solutions.
The Broader Consequences
When politics is reduced to a marketplace for personal gain, four major consequences follow:
• Weak Institutions: Decision-making is based on political debts, not policy merit.
• Corruption as a Culture: Public resources are treated as spoils of war, not as tools for nation-building.
• Entrenched Insecurity: Violence and instability become tools for political leverage, making peace a moving target.
• Loss of Public Trust: Citizens disengage from the democratic process, believing — often correctly — that elections are contests between self-interested elites rather than opportunities for real change.
Breaking the Cycle
Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive under these conditions. True progress demands a political class guided by vision, values, and an unwavering commitment to the common good. Integrity must be restored as the cornerstone of public service, insecurity must be confronted without political calculation, and politics must return to its core purpose: the upliftment of the people.
History has shown us — from the collapse of the First Republic due to political opportunism, to the ongoing instability in the Fourth Republic — that when personal ambition supersedes national interest, the result is always stagnation, instability, and loss of public confidence. Unless this trajectory changes, politics will remain less about building a nation and more about trading influence — with the people as the perpetual losers, and insecurity as their constant shadow.
