We keep expecting government to act “public,” but it often runs like a private enterprise. The reason is simple: politics is costly, and the winners repay their network.
Presidential campaigns in Nigeria cost billions. Candidates like Tinubu, Atiku, Obi, and Amaechi fund those campaigns with personal time, money, and social capital. Once in office, the expectation that they turn around and make “neutral” appointments to strangers clashes with how human networks actually work.
This is why nepotism feels inevitable. It’s not just corruption, but what sociologist James Coleman called, social capital. People rely on trusted ties: kin, friends, tribe, and classmates to reduce risk and get things done. Political scientist Jean-François Médard captured it in the idea of the neopatrimonial state, where public office is treated as personal property to distribute to allies.
Add to that the reality of homophily: people naturally surround themselves with those who share their identity and worldview. So even when an ethnic quota must be filled, leaders consult close allies for recommendations. The “unknown” outsider only gets in if they bring unique expertise that can’t be sourced internally.
The result is what you see: appointments feel like a private distribution within a public office. That’s why we call it “Tinubu’s administration,” not “Nigeria’s administration.”
The disappointment comes from our own expectation. We demand neutrality from leaders in situations where we ourselves would prioritize family and friends. If we want less of a private-style government, the fix isn’t just moral lectures, but reducing the private cost of winning office and strengthening institutions that limit discretion.
Bagudu Mohammed
bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com
