ELECTIONS in any liberal democracy are ideally won through vision, credibility, and the free choice of the people. Strong leadership, a clear and people-centred manifesto, effective grassroots mobilisation, and public trust are widely acknowledged by scholars as the legitimate foundations of electoral victory.
Yet, in Nigeria’s contemporary political experience, these democratic ideals increasingly co-exist with a troubling reality: the deliberate weakening and absorption of opposition parties by the ruling party as a strategy for retaining power.
Democracy is not merely about winning elections; it is about preserving pluralism, protecting dissent, and ensuring that political power remains contestable. When the ruling party actively “swallows” the opposition, the system tilts toward a de facto one-party dominance, even if multiparty structures formally remain.
In democratic theory, leadership strength is measured by ideas, integrity, and performance. Political thinkers such as Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Dahl emphasize that democracy thrives on competition—where parties present alternatives and citizens decide freely. In such a system, strong leadership persuades voters through policy clarity, responsiveness to public needs, and moral authority. Electoral victory, therefore, reflects public confidence rather than coercion.
ALSO READ: At A Moment Of Political Crossroads, A Good Man Is Needed; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
Bursting Nigeria’s 60-Year Coup Myths With Nuclear-Headed Missiles; By Owei Lakemfa
However, Nigerian politics often reveals a different pattern. Once a party controls state power, leadership strength can shift from persuasive authority to institutional dominance. Scholars of African politics have long observed that incumbency in weak democracies provides access to state resources, security institutions, and political patronage, which can be deployed not only to govern but also to reshape the political landscape in favour of the ruling party. In this context, “strong leadership” risks becoming a euphemism for political control rather than democratic legitimacy.
One of the clearest manifestations of this trend is the growing culture of political defections. Across Nigeria, opposition politicians—some of whom were elected on rival party platforms—have crossed over to the ruling party shortly after elections. These defections are frequently justified as pragmatic alignment with power or as a response to “national interest.” Yet, as political analysts argue, such movements are rarely driven by ideology or policy convergence. Instead, they often reflect fear of political marginalization, pressure from powerful interests, or the lure of access to federal influence and resources.
From an intellectual standpoint, this phenomenon undermines the core principles of liberal democracy. Larry Diamond warns that democracy erodes not only through coups but through gradual processes that hollow out competition and accountability. When opposition parties are systematically weakened by defections, elections lose their competitive character. Voters who elected candidates based on party platforms and promises find their mandate diluted, if not outright betrayed.
Ultimately, the critical question confronting Nigeria is whether elections are being won by vision that genuinely convinces the electorate, or by suppression that side-lines alternatives. Strong leadership should be tested at the ballot box through ideas, performance, and public trust—not through the erosion of opposition and the consolidation of unchecked power.
The Nigerian situation illustrates this danger vividly. Governors, legislators, and influential party leaders who won elections under opposition banners have, in several instances, defected to the ruling party soon after securing victory. Such actions blur the line between genuine popularity and manufactured dominance. The ruling party’s expanding ranks may appear as proof of nationwide acceptance, but critics argue that it instead reflects a survival-driven political culture rather than authentic public consent.
ALSO READ: Iran, Beware The Fangs Of January, The Scourge Of February, The Ides Of March; By Hassan Gimba (1)
Framing A Political Philosophy For Nigeria; By Jibrin Ibrahim
15th January And The Gamjiphobia Of Northern Political Elites; By Aminu Habibu Jahun
The implications are profound. A weakened opposition struggles to perform its constitutional role of checking power, scrutinizing policies, and offering alternative visions of governance. Public dissatisfaction with economic hardship, insecurity, or governance failures may persist, yet citizens are left with fewer credible political choices. Over time, elections risk becoming symbolic exercises rather than meaningful instruments of accountability.
From the perspective of democratic theory, this trajectory places Nigeria’s liberal democracy at risk. Democracy is not merely about winning elections; it is about preserving pluralism, protecting dissent, and ensuring that political power remains contestable. When the ruling party actively “swallows” the opposition, the system tilts toward a de facto one-party dominance, even if multiparty structures formally remain.
Ultimately, the critical question confronting Nigeria is whether elections are being won by vision that genuinely convinces the electorate, or by suppression that side-lines alternatives. Strong leadership should be tested at the ballot box through ideas, performance, and public trust—not through the erosion of opposition and the consolidation of unchecked power.
The answer to this question will determine whether Nigeria’s democracy deepens in substance or survives only in name.
Comrade Danlami popularly known as Baba Lawan writes from Haliru Umar Street, Dorayi Karamar Unguwar Yamma, Gwale LGA, Kano State, Nigeria. He can be reached via email: lawanmusa363@gmail.com
