AmanaOnline

Nigeria: Time (Still Very) Well Wasted

Over two decades ago, Nigeria was already witnessing a now familiar cycle in its politics. New political movements were emerging under different acronyms, each claiming to represent a fresh beginning. Yet the people behind them were often the same individuals who had dominated the power structure since the return to civilian rule. The question that was never seriously asked then remains unanswered today: if these actors truly want to strengthen democracy, why do they not strengthen the institutions that are meant to restrain power?

Nigeria’s democracy was designed with three equal branches of government—the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. In practice, however, the executive branch has continued to overshadow the other two. The National Assembly, which should act as the primary check on presidential authority, has too often failed to perform that role. Instead of serving as the institutional counterweight envisioned in the constitution, it frequently behaves as an extension of executive power.

This structural weakness has long allowed Nigerian presidents to operate with extraordinary latitude. When the legislature lacks independence and courage, the executive naturally expands its influence. What should be a balanced system becomes a concentration of power in one office.

This problem is not new. During the early years of the Fourth Republic, concerns already existed about the possibility of executive overreach. Today, the same concerns persist under different administrations. The names have changed, but the underlying political culture has remained remarkably consistent.

The irony is that Nigeria’s political elite continues to focus almost exclusively on the presidency. Every election cycle becomes a national obsession over who will occupy Aso Rock, while the institutions that are supposed to regulate that office receive far less attention. Yet there will always be only one president. The legislature, by contrast, consists of over one hundred senators and hundreds of representatives whose collective authority can shape or restrain executive action.

If Nigeria truly seeks accountability in governance, then the Senate and the House of Representatives must become arenas for serious national leadership. They should not merely serve as stepping stones or retirement homes for politicians seeking comfort and influence. Rather, they should be populated by individuals who understand their constitutional duty to guard democratic balance.

In mature democracies, political leadership rarely appears overnight. Leaders typically emerge through years of service at local, state, and national levels. The gradual accumulation of experience helps build competence, credibility, and public trust. Nigeria, unfortunately, has developed a culture of instant political ambition. Too many aspirants seek the presidency without ever demonstrating effective leadership in other institutions.

A stronger political culture would treat the legislature as a proving ground for national leadership. A senator who demonstrates independence, competence, and integrity over time naturally becomes a credible candidate for higher office. Such a system would not only produce better presidents; it would also strengthen the institutions that sustain democracy.

Another persistent challenge is the manipulation of regional sentiment. Political actors often frame national issues in terms of regional entitlement, resource ownership, or ethnic competition. These narratives may mobilize supporters, but they rarely improve the lives of ordinary Nigerians. In truth, most citizens see little direct benefit from the distribution battles over oil revenue or federal allocations. For the average Nigerian struggling with inflation, unemployment, insecurity, and failing infrastructure, these elite quarrels feel distant and irrelevant.

Threats of regional boycott or constitutional ultimatums may generate headlines, but they do little to strengthen the democratic project. Nigeria’s presidency has never been decided by any single region. It has always required cooperation among multiple regions and political coalitions. Democracy, by its nature, requires persuasion rather than coercion.

Ultimately, the real crisis in Nigerian politics is not constitutional design but political character. Institutions cannot function properly when those entrusted with them pursue only personal gain. When legislative seats become avenues for wealth accumulation rather than public service, the entire democratic system suffers.

Nigeria needs legislators who have fewer personal needs and a stronger commitment to national development. Such individuals are rare in any society, but they are essential for institutional reform. Without them, democracy risks becoming little more than a competition among elites for access to state resources.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely to elect new presidents or create new political parties. The deeper task is to cultivate a political culture that values institutional responsibility, long-term planning, and principled leadership.

Nigeria’s future will not be determined by dramatic declarations or regional threats. It will be determined by the steady strengthening of the institutions that govern the country.

Until that happens, Nigerians will continue to watch valuable time—time that could have been used to build a stable and prosperous democracy—slip away.

Hf Dauda MoiSoro / Potiskum – March 2026

I wrote this (original version) in 2016; unfortunately, nothing has changed!