Yet political reality, both in Nigeria and globally, is far more complex than this binary narrative suggests. Political scientists have long argued that democracy cannot be measured merely by the number of political parties operating within a system. The influential democratic theorist Robert A. Dahl, in his theory of polyarchy, emphasizes that the health of democracy depends not just on the presence of multiple parties but on effective competition, participation, and institutional accountability. In other words, the mere existence of many parties does not automatically produce meaningful alternatives or better governance.
The current perception of an emerging dominant party system in Nigeria is not entirely unfounded. There has rarely been a moment in the country’s political history when the ruling party at the center has enjoyed such a remarkable convergence of political heavyweights, elected officials, and influential power brokers as it does today under the leadership of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Across the political landscape, defections and alignments appear to favor the ruling party, creating a sense of relative harmony within the governing structure while leaving opposition parties fractured and disoriented.
The situation becomes even more striking when one examines the internal condition of the major opposition platforms. Parties such as the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), the Labour Party (LP), and the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) have all experienced varying degrees of internal crisis, factional disputes, and leadership rivalries. Even newer political movements attempting to emerge as alternatives face similar tensions. The rivalry between supporters of Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi has become a defining feature of opposition politics, and analysts often predict that such divisions could deepen further once presidential primaries approach, potentially weakening the opposition’s ability to present a united national alternative.
In contrast, the ruling All Progressives Congress currently projects a rare image of internal cohesion. Ironically, this unity exists within what is arguably the largest and most politically diverse party in Nigeria’s history, a party that might ordinarily be expected to experience intense conflicts of interest. Instead, there appears to be an emerging consensus, whether formally declared or quietly understood that the incumbent president may remain the party’s central figure heading into 2027 presidential election. Such alignment naturally reduces the likelihood of open internal rebellion.
The numerical reality reinforces this perception of dominance. The ruling party currently commands the support of a remarkable number of state governors with more than thirty at this moment of political alignment, while the remaining governorship seats are scattered across smaller opposition platforms.
The opposition landscape is therefore fragmented among a handful of parties, each struggling with internal survival. Observers increasingly speculate that additional defections could further expand the ruling party’s reach, leaving smaller parties with little option but to negotiate alliances for political survival.
This imbalance creates a dramatic political imagery: a contest resembling a massive elephant confronting a group of scattered rats. The metaphor captures the asymmetry of strength, organization, and influence. In some cases, even those rats appear willing to cooperate with the elephant without formally abandoning their own platforms. What emerges from this scenario is not necessarily a legally enforced one-party state but something political scientists describe as a “dominant-party system,” a situation in which one party repeatedly outperforms others because of structural advantages, political alliances, or the weakness of its rivals.
Ironically, this growing dominance is unfolding in an atmosphere of intense public dissatisfaction. Across Nigeria, economic hardship, security challenges, and political frustration have produced some of the loudest anti-government sentiments in recent memory. The coexistence of strong public discontent with weak opposition structures creates a paradox that deserves serious examination. If dissatisfaction with government is widespread, why has it not translated into stronger political alternatives?
To answer this question, it is important to first clarify what constitutes a one-party state. Nigeria remains far from that reality. The country currently maintains more than twenty registered political parties recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Recently, additional parties such as the Democratic Leadership Alliance and the Nigeria Democratic Congress were approved ahead of the next electoral cycle. These developments demonstrate that there are no legal barriers preventing the formation of political parties. On the contrary, Nigeria’s political system arguably allows one of the most liberal environments for party registration.
Ironically, this openness may itself contribute to the weakness of opposition politics. When political parties proliferate endlessly without strong organizational foundations, ideological coherence, or national structures, fragmentation becomes inevitable. Instead of strengthening democracy, excessive party multiplication can dilute opposition strength and reduce electoral viability. Thus, the emergence of a dominant party cannot be attributed solely to the actions of the ruling leadership. It is also partly a consequence of the choices made by political actors and citizens who continually create new platforms rather than consolidating existing ones.
Nigeria’s political history provides further insight into this pattern. Since independence, many political parties have been defined less by ideology and more by personalities. During the First Republic, the Northern People’s Congress was strongly associated with Ahmadu Bello and Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, while the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons revolved around Nnamdi Azikiwe and regional elites. The Action Group was shaped by the intellectual and political influence of Obafemi Awolowo.
The same pattern continued through subsequent republics. The National Party of Nigeria rose around figures such as Shehu Shagari, while the Peoples Redemption Party was defined by the populist appeal of Aminu Kano. Later, the short-lived Third Republic featured the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention built around prominent individuals rather than enduring ideological traditions. Political scientists often describe this phenomenon as “personalistic party systems,” where loyalty to individuals outweighs loyalty to ideas.
Research in comparative politics consistently shows that parties built primarily around personalities tend to have short life spans and weak institutional resilience. Once the central figure loses power, influence, or relevance, the party itself begins to decline.
This structural weakness raises an uncomfortable question: has Nigeria truly benefited from the existence of many political parties if those parties rarely offer meaningful policy differences? When elections become contests between personalities rather than competing visions of governance, the advantages of a multi-party system become less obvious.
Indeed, Nigerian political transitions often appear less like ideological shifts and more like leadership substitutions. Governments change, but policies, political culture, and governance style often remain remarkably similar. As a result, the promise that a multi-party system would automatically guarantee better governance has not always materialized.
Another intriguing question emerges from political theory itself: should a democratic leader actively encourage opposition against himself? In practice, politics has never worked that way. Politics is fundamentally competitive. A successful political leader naturally seeks to expand alliances, consolidate influence, and attract supporters. This is not necessarily a sign of authoritarian ambition but rather a reflection of political strategy. What distinguishes democratic leadership is not the deliberate strengthening of opposition forces but the protection of fair political space in which opposition can organize freely.
Thus, the responsibility for preventing a one-party state cannot be placed on the ruling party alone. It is a collective responsibility shared by citizens, opposition parties, independent institutions, civil society organizations, and the media. Democratic theorists argue that opposition strength depends primarily on the ability of alternative political forces to organize effectively, present credible policies, and inspire public confidence.
Nigeria’s opposition politics often struggles precisely at this point. Personal ambition, regional calculations, and conflicting interests frequently undermine attempts at unity.
In some cases, opposition leaders publicly criticize the ruling government while maintaining close political or familial ties within it, creating the impression of strategic ambiguity. When prominent opposition figures maintain parallel relationships with the ruling establishment through allies or family members, public skepticism naturally grows. The result is a curious paradox: a loud opposition rhetoric combined with weak opposition organization. This contradiction may explain why the perception of a dominant ruling party continues to grow despite widespread dissatisfaction among citizens.
Globally, the existence of dominant-party systems is not unusual. Countries such as Japan, South Africa, and Singapore have experienced long periods during which one party consistently dominated elections while opposition parties remained legally active. Some scholars argue that such systems can still produce stability and development, although they carry risks of reduced accountability if opposition forces remain weak for too long.
Ultimately, the debate over one-party dominance in Nigeria raises deeper questions about the nature of democracy itself. Democracy is not sustained merely by counting the number of parties on an electoral ballot. It survives through vibrant competition, strong institutions, responsible leadership, and an engaged citizenry willing to demand better alternatives.
The fear of a dominant party may therefore be less important than the deeper challenge it reveals: the urgent need for stronger political institutions, credible opposition movements, and a democratic culture that values ideas as much as personalities. Only then can Nigeria move beyond the illusion that the number of parties alone determines the quality of governance.
Bagudu can be reached via bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com or 07034943575.
