NIGERIA’s contemporary political landscape is increasingly defined by opportunism rather than ideology. Where earlier generations of leaders anchored political action in coherent philosophies, moral responsibility, and long-term national planning, today’s politics is largely transactional and fluid.
The nation’s founding fathers – Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, Sir Ahmadu Bello, and Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa – remain central figures in political science and history not merely because of the offices they held, but because of the ideas they articulated and institutionalised. Yet in modern Nigerian politics, their legacies have been reduced to ceremonial references – invoked rhetorically during campaigns but rarely reflected in policy or political conduct. In this sense, Nigeria’s founding fathers have become footnotes in a political order dominated by opportunism.
Contemporary leaders resist emulating the founding fathers because such emulation demands intellectual discipline, moral restraint, and a willingness to subordinate personal interest to collective goals. The founding fathers wrote books, articulated philosophies, and governed with an awareness that history would judge them. Many present-day leaders, by contrast, govern with an eye on the next election, the next appointment, or the next political realignment. As Frantz Fanon warned in The Wretched of the Earth, postcolonial elites often abandon transformative politics in favour of “the politics of consumption,” replacing national vision with personal gain. This dynamic is clearly evident in Nigeria’s contemporary political class.
Chief Awolowo exemplified the ideological clarity that is conspicuously absent in contemporary politics. His commitment to free education, regional development, and social welfare was rooted in a clearly articulated philosophy of social democracy and collective progress. As Toyin Falola notes, Awolowo’s political thought fused moral purpose with economic realism, demonstrating that leadership was fundamentally a tool for societal transformation rather than personal enrichment. By contrast, today’s political agendas are often unstable, reshaped by party defections, elite negotiations, and short-term electoral calculations rather than enduring principles or coherent policy frameworks.
ALSO READ: Tinubu And The US-Nigeria Health Cooperation Of Controversy; By Zainab Suleiman Okino
Dr Azikiwe, Nigeria’s first President, championed what Claude Ake described as ideological nationalism – a belief that political leadership must educate, mobilise, and unify the citizenry around a shared national vision.
Azikiwe understood politics as a pedagogical project, not merely an electoral exercise. Contemporary leaders, however, frequently treat elections as transactions and public opinion as a commodity to be manipulated. Policies are reactive, inconsistent, and often contradictory, reflecting the absence of a guiding ideological compass. Ideology – once the backbone of Nigerian politics – has largely been abandoned in favour of tactical manoeuvring and political survival.
Sir Ahmadu Bello’s leadership further underscores the centrality of principled politics. His vision for Northern Nigeria emphasised gradual development, discipline, social cohesion, and cultural sensitivity.
Richard Sklar observed that Nigeria’s founding leaders operated within a “moral economy,” where political legitimacy was derived from service, restraint, and ideological consistency. In contrast, contemporary Nigerian politics – dominated by patronage, elite bargaining, and personal ambition – has hollowed out these values. Political office is increasingly perceived as an avenue for personal accumulation rather than a platform for national or societal transformation.
ALSO READ: Rivers Of Wike And Fubara; A Theatre Of The Absurd; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
A crucial question therefore arises: why do contemporary Nigerian leaders refuse to emulate the founding fathers, even while constantly citing them as examples? The answer lies in the structural transformation of Nigerian politics itself. Unlike the founding generation, which operated within an environment that rewarded ideas, sacrifice, and long-term vision, today’s political system incentivises immediacy, personal survival, and material accumulation. Ideological consistency is no longer politically profitable; it is often viewed as rigid, risky, or electorally inconvenient.
Contemporary leaders resist emulating the founding fathers because such emulation demands intellectual discipline, moral restraint, and a willingness to subordinate personal interest to collective goals. The founding fathers wrote books, articulated philosophies, and governed with an awareness that history would judge them. Many present-day leaders, by contrast, govern with an eye on the next election, the next appointment, or the next political realignment. As Frantz Fanon warned in The Wretched of the Earth, postcolonial elites often abandon transformative politics in favour of “the politics of consumption,” replacing national vision with personal gain. This dynamic is clearly evident in Nigeria’s contemporary political class.
In a nutshell, Nigeria’s founding fathers were not flawless, but they governed with purpose, ideological depth, and a consciousness of history. Contemporary leaders’ refusal to emulate them stems from a political system that rewards opportunism over principle, immediacy over vision, and loyalty over ideas. By prioritising short-term gains and personal survival, incumbents fail to leave meaningful legacies for future generations to remember or learn from.
The erosion of institutional culture further explains this refusal to emulate past leaders. The founding fathers invested in institutions – universities, regional development agencies, civil services, and policy frameworks – designed to outlive their tenure. Modern leaders, however, often personalise power and deliberately weaken institutions, fearing that strong institutions may limit individual control.
ALSO READ: Why They Must Attack Iran, Again, And Again; By Hassan Gimba
Nigeria In Trump World: The Dangers Ahead; By Jibrin Ibrahim
Julius Nyerere argued that leadership without institution-building condemns nations to cyclical failure, as progress becomes dependent on individuals rather than systems. Nigeria’s persistent governance crises reflect this institutional neglect.
This reality explains why contemporary leaders rarely leave behind intellectual or ideological legacies. Unlike Awolowo’s Path to Nigerian Freedom or Azikiwe’s nationalist writings, few incumbents articulate comprehensive visions that future generations can study, critique, or build upon. Their legacies are often reduced to slogans, temporary projects, or physical infrastructure divorced from broader developmental philosophy. As a result, once they leave office, their political relevance quickly fades.
Fear also plays a decisive role. Emulating the founding fathers requires moral courage – the willingness to confront entrenched interests, resist corruption, and endure political isolation in defence of principle. In a political culture dominated by patron-client networks, such courage is costly. Mahmood Mamdani argues that the collapse of ideology in African politics produces clientelism and transactional governance, where loyalty to individuals replaces commitment to ideas. Nigeria exemplifies this condition, rewarding opportunistic alignment while penalising principled dissent.
The consequences of this ideological vacuum are profound. Joseph Schumpeter emphasised that democratic competition must occur within shared frameworks of long-term objectives. Where ideology is absent, leadership becomes performative, policy incoherent, and public trust eroded.
ALSO READ: Between Sovereignty And Security Of Nigerians – A Response To Jibrin Ibrahim; By Amos Aar
In Nigeria, this manifests in frequent party defections, weak institutions, populist rhetoric, and a citizenry increasingly disillusioned with politics. Hannah Arendt warned that leadership devoid of reflective thought inevitably suffers crises of legitimacy and effectiveness – an observation that resonates strongly with Nigeria’s insecurity, policy inconsistency, and governance instability.
Ironically, by refusing to build legacies grounded in ideas and institutions, contemporary leaders ensure their own historical insignificance. History remembers those who leave behind philosophies, institutions, and transformative visions – not those who merely occupy office. While the founding fathers continue to dominate political discourse decades after their passing, many of today’s leaders will leave little for scholars or citizens to reference beyond electoral statistics and political controversies.
In a nutshell, Nigeria’s founding fathers were not flawless, but they governed with purpose, ideological depth, and a consciousness of history. Contemporary leaders’ refusal to emulate them stems from a political system that rewards opportunism over principle, immediacy over vision, and loyalty over ideas. By prioritising short-term gains and personal survival, incumbents fail to leave meaningful legacies for future generations to remember or learn from.
To reclaim the promise of Nigerian democracy, leadership must once again be anchored in ideology, institution-building, and moral responsibility. Until then, the founding fathers will remain the only enduring examples offered to each generation – studied, quoted, and admired – while the incumbents fade into political obscurity, having governed without leaving a legacy worthy of remembrance.
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
