WHEN DEMOCRACY BECOMES PERSONAL: The Nigerian Politics of “If No Be My List, E No Go Work”

By Vivian Iwu 

***

Nigeria’s democracy increasingly appears trapped in a dangerous contradiction: everybody speaks the language of democratic ideals, yet many political actors seem unwilling to accept democratic outcomes unless the process delivers personal or factional victory.

The recent rejection of the ADC presidential primary in Imo State by loyalists of Rotimi Amaechi offers yet another window into this recurring National Dilemma. Their argument — that the process lacked transparency and fairness — deserves scrutiny and, if proven, remedy. Democracy cannot survive where electoral processes are manipulated or perceived as manipulated. But beyond the immediate accusations lies a deeper, unsettling pattern in Nigeria’s political evolution: a culture in which legitimacy is often measured less by process and more by outcome.

A troubling political proverb seems to have emerged in Nigerian public life: “If no be my list, e no go work.”

This phrase, though colloquial, captures a growing political psychology — one in which many actors defend institutions only when institutions favour them and denounce them when outcomes become inconvenient.

The question is no longer simply whether elections are flawed. Nigeria has always wrestled with imperfect electoral systems. The more disturbing question is whether political elites themselves still believe in democratic defeat.

DEMOCRACY WITHOUT DEMOCRATS?

The problem with democracy is not merely elections; it is the willingness to lose.

In mature democratic systems, disputes happen, allegations arise, and litigations follow. Yet the legitimacy of institutions survives because political actors ultimately recognise that public systems must be bigger than individual ambition.

Nigeria’s democratic experience often seems different.

Political defections happen with astonishing speed. Ideologies remain weak. Yesterday’s Enemies become today’s allies, and tomorrow’s rivals may once again share the same platform. Party lines blur so frequently that ordinary citizens struggle to distinguish principle from convenience.

This fluidity creates public cynicism.

For many Nigerians, political parties no longer represent competing visions of Governance but competing coalitions of interests.

It is difficult to persuade citizens to trust democratic structures when politicians themselves move through parties with minimal ideological consistency.

Indeed, Nigeria’s political culture sometimes resembles a marketplace more than a contest of ideas.

THE MYTH OF POLITICAL DIFFERENCE

A central irony of Nigerian Politics is that fierce political combat often exists without corresponding ideological difference.

Many of the individuals who now occupy rival camps once shared the same political spaces. Numerous figures within the ruling APC today were previously influential members of the PDP or allied formations, reflecting how elite mobility has become a defining feature of Nigerian politics. Public discourse frequently centres less on policy distinctions and more on personalities, alliances and access to power.

This fuels the perception that democracy has gradually shifted from collective aspiration toward elite competition.

Citizens hear promises of reform, restructuring, development and prosperity every election cycle. Yet after victory, many feel abandoned to inflation, insecurity, unemployment, infrastructural decay and declining trust in institutions.

Under such conditions, voters begin to suspect that elections change actors more often than systems.

RECONSIDERING THE HISTORICAL STORY

However, political frustration should not erase factual history.

The argument that the APC emerged in 2007 and “swallowed” the PDP is historically inaccurate. The APC formally emerged in 2013 through a merger of opposition parties and later defeated the PDP in the 2015 presidential election — a landmark moment because it marked Nigeria’s first peaceful transfer of power from a ruling party to an opposition party.

WHY DOES ACCURACY MATTER?

Because serious political criticism gains strength from precision.

Nigeria’s democratic decline — where it exists — cannot be analysed through mythmaking. It requires honest examination of institutions, incentives, corruption, governance failure, elite bargaining and citizen disengagement.

HAS POLITICS MADE TINUBU APPEAR "SAINTLY"?

One provocative argument emerging from public frustration is that the behaviour of opposition actors inadvertently strengthens the image of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The logic is simple: if every rival eventually appears consumed by personal interest, factional conflict or elite ambition, incumbency begins to look comparatively stable — even amid hardship.

This does not necessarily mean citizens are satisfied with Governance.

Many Nigerians continue to express anger over inflation, living costs, insecurity and poor public services. Yet disillusionment with alternatives can strengthen incumbents politically.

Politics is Comparative.

When voters perceive no clear ideological or moral distinction among elites, some retreat into resignation: “Better the person we know than chaos from those fighting to replace him.”

That perception — fair or unfair — may partly explain why incumbency often remains resilient despite Economic suffering.

WHY CITIZENS FEEL IGNORED

Another dangerous consequence of elite-centred politics is emotional distance between rulers and citizens.

When politics becomes primarily about survival, succession and personal networks, governance risks becoming secondary.

Citizens then begin asking:

Who is fighting for outcomes?

Who worries about food prices, hospitals, schools, electricity, wages, housing, roads and jobs beyond campaign speeches?

Why does political energy seem highest during contests for power and weakest during Governance?

These questions do not arise from ideology alone. They arise from lived frustration.

IS NIGERIA DOOMED?

No.

But neither is recovery automatic.

The idea that colonial history permanently condemned Nigeria oversimplifies a complicated reality. Colonial institutions undoubtedly shaped structural inequalities and governance problems, but post-independence leadership choices, corruption, institutional weakness, military interruptions, elite bargains and citizen accountability have also profoundly shaped Nigeria’s trajectory.

History influences Nations.

It does not imprison them.

Countries with painful colonial experiences have succeeded; others have stagnated. Outcomes depend heavily on institutions, leadership, civic culture and public accountability.

Nigeria’s greatest democratic threat may not be any one politician or party.

It may be the normalisation of cynicism.

The moment citizens conclude that everybody is the same, politics becomes vulnerable to apathy, manipulation and transactional survival.

THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE 2027

The issue is no longer merely who wins.

The deeper question is this:

Can Nigeria rebuild politics around ideas instead of personalities, institutions instead of godfathers, outcomes instead of patronage, and citizens instead of political camps?

If every alliance becomes another gathering of personal ambition, then 2027 may simply reproduce familiar disappointments.

But if political actors begin to recognise that legitimacy comes not from “my list” but from transparent systems — and if citizens insist on accountability rather than emotional loyalty — Nigeria’s democratic story remains unfinished.

The country is bruised.

It is frustrated.

But history shows Nations collapse not only when leaders fail, but when societies surrender the belief that improvement is possible.