Nigeria’s Deepening Partisanship And The Erosion Of Democratic Values

One of the greatest dangers confronting Nigeria’s democracy under the prevailing political dispensation is the alarming depth of partisanship that has come to define political engagement, public discourse and even relationships among citizens. What ought to be a competitive democratic environment in which opposing political interests coexist has increasingly become a battlefield where loyalty to political parties and personalities appears more important than truth, accountability, national interest and the collective welfare of the people.

Indeed, the level of partisanship currently being demonstrated across Nigeria’s political landscape is not only excessive but also undemocratic. It reflects a disturbing departure from the fundamental principles of democracy, which recognize disagreement, accommodate divergent opinions and encourage constructive criticism as necessary ingredients of good governance.

Democracy was never designed to produce a society in which citizens must agree with everything their preferred political leaders say or do. Neither was it established to create an atmosphere where political opponents are treated as enemies who must be humiliated, discredited or eliminated from public relevance. Rather, democracy thrives when opposing viewpoints are allowed to compete freely, when political leaders are subjected to scrutiny and when citizens can hold those in power accountable without fear of intimidation or social persecution.

Unfortunately, Nigeria appears to be drifting towards a political culture in which the ability to defend a political leader, regardless of the circumstances, is increasingly regarded as a measure of political loyalty. In this atmosphere, the merits of an argument are often determined not by its substance but by the political identity of the person making it.

This development is particularly troubling because it undermines the very essence of democratic participation. When citizens become so emotionally attached to political parties and personalities that they cannot acknowledge obvious shortcomings in their preferred candidates, democracy becomes vulnerable to manipulation.

A situation in which supporters defend their political leaders even when their actions contradict their campaign promises, public declarations or the expectations of the electorate does not represent political maturity. It is an expression of blind partisanship that weakens accountability and encourages impunity.

Equally disturbing is the tendency to dismiss every criticism of the government as an opposition-sponsored attack while interpreting every criticism of opposition politicians as evidence of political persecution. Such an approach leaves little room for objective assessment of public policies and governance outcomes.

For instance, when government policies produce hardship, citizens should be able to express their frustrations without being labelled enemies of the administration. Similarly, when opposition politicians make questionable statements or engage in conduct that deserves public scrutiny, their supporters should be willing to acknowledge such shortcomings rather than automatically attributing criticism to political conspiracy.

The tragedy of this growing political intolerance is that it reduces national issues to partisan contests. Matters that should ordinarily attract collective concern, including insecurity, unemployment, poverty, inflation, declining purchasing power, corruption, inadequate healthcare and the state of public education, are frequently subjected to political calculations.

Rather than collectively demanding solutions, political actors and their supporters sometimes expend enormous energy defending or attacking personalities. The result is a society in which the political identity of the person raising an issue can become more important than the issue itself. This is certainly not how a functional democracy should operate.

Nigeria's political environment should be one in which citizens can question the policies of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's administration without being accused of wishing the country to fail. Likewise, supporters of the government should be able to defend its policies with facts and verifiable evidence rather than resorting to insults, personal attacks and the demonization of critics.

The same standard should apply to opposition politicians. Being outside government does not automatically make a politician credible, competent or committed to the national interest. Opposition figures must also be subjected to scrutiny, particularly when they make promises, offer policy alternatives or criticize the administration.

This is where the distinction between constructive opposition and destructive partisanship becomes important. A credible opposition is not necessarily one that opposes everything the government does. Rather, it is one that provides alternative ideas, exposes governance failures, interrogates public policies and offers practical solutions where necessary.

Similarly, a responsible ruling party should understand that winning an election does not confer ownership of the country on its members. Political victory gives a party the mandate to govern within the limits of the Constitution, not the authority to silence dissenting voices or treat political opponents as enemies of the state.

Unfortunately, the increasingly hostile atmosphere surrounding political disagreements suggests that many participants in Nigeria's political process have lost sight of this distinction.

Another unfortunate dimension is the extent to which social media has amplified this culture of intolerance. Platforms that should provide opportunities for democratic participation and the exchange of ideas have, in some instances, become arenas for political abuse, misinformation, character assassination and the deliberate misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints.

It is now possible for an individual to raise a legitimate question about a political leader and immediately become the target of coordinated verbal attacks. Sometimes, the attacks have little or nothing to do with the substance of the argument. The objective appears to be to intimidate the individual into silence or discourage others from expressing similar opinions.

Such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with democratic values. A democracy that cannot accommodate criticism is already experiencing a crisis of confidence. Political disagreement should not be interpreted as disloyalty to the country, just as support for a particular administration should not be mistaken for an endorsement of every action taken by those in power.

Indeed, one of the greatest responsibilities of citizenship is the willingness to place national interest above partisan loyalty. Citizens must understand that political parties are temporary platforms for contesting power, whereas Nigeria is a permanent national project whose survival and development concern everyone.

It is therefore unfortunate when individuals appear more concerned about whether their political party wins an argument than whether Nigeria benefits from the outcome of a particular policy.

This raises a fundamental question: What exactly is the purpose of political participation if citizens cannot independently evaluate the performance of those they elect?

The problem is not that Nigerians belong to different political parties or support different candidates. Political pluralism is essential to democracy. The problem is that partisan attachment is increasingly assuming the character of an unquestionable belief system in which opposing opinions are regarded as threats rather than legitimate contributions to national discourse.

This is particularly dangerous in a country as diverse as Nigeria. Our political disagreements should not deepen existing divisions or create additional barriers to national cohesion. The country already faces enormous challenges arising from insecurity, economic hardship, unemployment, infrastructural deficits and widespread public distrust. Allowing excessive partisanship to further divide citizens only makes these problems more difficult to address.

It is also important to remind political leaders that the consequences of the intolerance they encourage today may eventually become the burden of the same political system they seek to protect. Political power is transient. Administrations change, political alliances shift and yesterday's political adversaries can become tomorrow's allies.

Consequently, politicians who encourage their supporters to attack every opposing voice should remember that the same political atmosphere can be turned against them when circumstances change.

There is, therefore, a need for a deliberate return to issue-based politics. Political parties must be judged by the quality of their ideas, the credibility of their candidates, their commitment to democratic principles and their ability to translate campaign promises into measurable improvements in the lives of Nigerians.

Political communication must also move beyond personality worship and the constant search for enemies. Nigerians deserve discussions about economic policies, security strategies, employment opportunities, educational reforms, healthcare delivery and institutional accountability. They deserve politicians who can explain how they intend to address these issues rather than supporters whose principal contribution to political discourse is defending personalities.

Furthermore, the media, civil society organizations, religious institutions and other stakeholders must continue to promote a culture in which public officials are scrutinized on the basis of their actions and performance rather than their political affiliations.

Journalism, in particular, must resist the temptation to become an extension of partisan propaganda. Its responsibility is to interrogate power, verify claims, expose wrongdoing and provide citizens with the information necessary to make informed decisions. It must not become a platform for protecting political interests at the expense of public accountability.

Ultimately, Nigeria's democracy cannot mature if political loyalty becomes more important than national loyalty. Neither can the country make meaningful progress if citizens are conditioned to defend political leaders even when evidence suggests that such leaders have failed to meet public expectations.

There is nothing undemocratic about supporting a political party, campaigning for a preferred candidate or defending a government policy one genuinely believes will benefit the country. What is undemocratic is the refusal to tolerate opposing views, the deliberate suppression of legitimate criticism and the willingness to sacrifice truth on the altar of partisan loyalty.

Nigerians must therefore recognize that political opponents are not necessarily enemies of the country. In many instances, they may simply have different ideas about how the country should be governed. Such differences should stimulate debate, encourage better policies and strengthen democratic institutions.

The prevailing political dispensation should not be remembered for how successfully political actors divided Nigerians into opposing camps. It should be judged by the extent to which it strengthened democratic institutions, respected constitutional freedoms, improved citizens' welfare and created an environment where people could disagree without becoming enemies.

Nigeria needs political supporters who can think independently, opposition figures who can offer credible alternatives and leaders who understand that criticism is an indispensable part of democratic governance.

Above all, the country needs citizens who understand that no political party, president, governor, minister or political godfather is greater than Nigeria.

The time has come for Nigerians to draw a clear distinction between partisan loyalty and patriotism. Supporting a political leader is a choice; defending Nigeria's democratic values is a responsibility.

If this distinction continues to disappear, the country may retain the outward structures of democracy while gradually losing the tolerance, accountability and freedom of expression that give democracy its real meaning.