DEMOCRACY AFTER THE GOD COMPLEX
One of the enduring ironies of Nigerian politics is how many politicians become passionate advocates of internal democracy only after losing control of the political machinery they once commanded.
As the political permutations ahead of 2027 gather momentum, this contradiction is becoming increasingly visible.
Across party lines, political actors who once presided over tightly controlled structures, determined candidates, imposed consensus arrangements, and centralized decision-making now speak eloquently about consultation, inclusion, fairness, and democratic participation. The vocabulary has changed. The records, however, remain intact.
This is not simply a matter of political hypocrisy. It reveals a deeper structural weakness in Nigeria’s democratic culture: the tendency of political elites to embrace democratic principles only when they are no longer the principal beneficiaries of power.
While in control, consensus was celebrated as party discipline. Dissent was labelled disloyalty. Opposition within the ranks was treated as rebellion. Yet once power shifts elsewhere, the same actors suddenly discover the dangers of imposition and the virtues of internal democracy.
The contradiction is difficult to ignore.
For decades, many governors, party leaders, and influential political figures have treated party structures as extensions of executive authority. Delegate lists emerged from government houses. Candidate selection became an exercise in approval rather than competition. Aspirants who invested time, resources, and grassroots support often discovered that political participation ended where the preferences of powerful individuals began.
Consultation became ceremonial. Decisions were taken elsewhere.
In many instances, democracy within political parties became performance rather than practice.
The consequences have been far-reaching.
Political parties are supposed to serve as nurseries of democratic culture. They are expected to encourage competition, broaden participation, and provide equal opportunities for leadership emergence. Instead, many have become instruments of elite control, where loyalty to individuals often outweighs commitment to institutions.
What gradually emerges is not institutional politics but ownership politics.
The most troubling aspect of this culture is the belief among some office holders that political power is not a temporary public trust but a personal inheritance to be managed, protected, and transferred. Having controlled party machinery, appointments, legislative alignments, and state structures for years, many leave office unwilling to relinquish influence.
The result is the familiar struggle to determine successors, retain control from behind the curtain, and continue exercising authority long after constitutional tenure has expired.
Yet politics possesses its own irony.
Those who once controlled the machinery eventually become vulnerable to the very methods they perfected. Yesterday’s enforcers become today’s reformers. Those who once imposed candidates begin demanding transparency. Those who silenced dissent rediscover the language of consultation. Those who centralized power suddenly become defenders of internal democracy.
Such reversals may offer political irony, but they expose a deeper democratic problem.
The real victims are not the politicians themselves. The real victims are the institutions.
Citizens gradually lose confidence in political parties. Young aspirants become discouraged. Grassroots participation weakens. Public cynicism deepens as more Nigerians conclude that many political outcomes are negotiated long before votes are cast.
Democracy then becomes procedural rather than participatory.
This is why the ongoing debates around consensus, imposition, and internal democracy deserve closer attention. They are not merely disputes among political actors. They reveal the unresolved tension between democratic ideals and the entrenched culture of elite control that continues to shape Nigeria’s political landscape.
A democracy cannot deepen where political actors preach inclusion only in opposition and abandon it in power. Neither can institutions mature when individuals consistently place personal influence above collective rules.
The challenge before Nigeria is therefore larger than any politician or party. It is whether the political class can develop the discipline to respect democratic principles not only when convenient, but also when they possess the power to ignore them.
Power was never designed to be permanent. It was never intended to be inherited, monopolized, or exercised as personal entitlement.
It is a temporary trust.
Until more political actors accept that simple truth, Nigeria may remain trapped in a recurring cycle where yesterday’s imposers become today’s democrats, only to produce a new generation of imposers tomorrow.
And democracy, once again, pays the price.
