From opposition to power: The erosion of progressive ideals in Nigerian politics

Nigeria is an ideological free zone. Our political parties are bereft of political philosophy or overriding ideology providing a framework for governance and operating the national economy. Governments are therefore formed without proper political and economic orientations. The consequence is a rudderless administration lacking direction and failing to draw from the experience and time-tested principles of past governments with similar leanings.

But that is not to say our politicians don’t throw political labels around. They do, often. And one of the most abused terms is ‘progressive.’ The term in a political context should connote left-leaning ideas that support social welfare programmes, minority and civil rights, environmental protection and economic regulations. That is in a broad sense, of course, as every society will have to contextualize it to suit its own peculiar environment.

In Nigeria, progressive politics should mean electoral integrity, welfarism, and, especially, restructuring—the policy and legislative actions leading to a more decentralized union, a weaker centre and stronger sub-national units—and resource control, where states substantially control their affairs and funds generated within their borders. At least those were the issues dear to the Southwest intellectuals, who wore the ‘progressive badge’ with pride when they were in opposition at the centre.

At that time, the ruling PDP was framed as conservative, a right-leaning platform not particularly invested in pro-poor programmes. That it was the home turf for retired generals and the army being one of the least radical institutions also helped to burnish the PDP’s image as nonprogressive.

The AD and then the ACN, which drew most of its support from the southwest, made those progressive issues cause celebre. Forum after forum, these ideas were pushed as alternative agendas for the country. But since 2015, the ACN, which along with other political parties metamorphosed into the APC, has formed the federal government, and suddenly everything has been quiet on the ideological front.

The major ideas it championed while in the opposition and even contained in the APC’s manifesto have been deliberately ignored. Like the PDP, the only political framework the APC appears to understand is how to remain in power by any means necessary. On the economic front, it is the same thing, with no coherent economic agenda for the central government and the states it controls.

This is disheartening. It appears that progressive is a dubious term exploited by Nigerian politicians to dupe the electorate into thinking that they have a well-thought-out agenda that is forward-looking and socially dynamic. It is a lie.

For the APC, the only progressive thing about it appears to be the word in its name. This has been demonstrated with Presidents Muhammadu Buhari and Bola Tinubu. Buhari ran a nepotistic administration, one bereft of an overriding economic and political agenda, outside his obvious northern-centric bias. But being honest, Buhari was not given to intellectualism and was apparently disinterested in the day-to-day management of anything. Such a man therefore could not be counted to understand, let alone provide a political philosophical framework for his administration.

The question that arises then is this: Why did the (southwest) intellectuals and ‘progressives’ who pushed for the formation of the APC choose a person with the most nonprogressive credentials to carry the party’s torch? The question is rhetoric, as Buhari had fanatical support in the north and only he could guarantee the party’s victory in 2015, which the APC eventually won. Could one then say the APC sacrificed its lofty ideas for the pragmatism of winning?

If that explains Buhari, what about President Tinubu? For years, he was the rallying point for opposition politics in Nigeria and for politicians who articulated the ‘progressive agenda.’ It is over one year since he took over as president and enough time to rate his progressive credentials. The result is apparent as the President, like his predecessor, has been silent on big progressive issues he advocated as an opposition politician. If anything, he appears to be going in the opposite direction, disavowing the ideals he once championed.

For instance, instead of the states growing stronger at the centre’s expense, under President Tinubu, the reverse is the case with the federal government grabbing more powers. The administration has gone gung-ho about implementing the recent Supreme Court’s ruling, which effectively removed the local governments from state control, dismissed the call for state police, and vowed to confiscate the powers of states to conduct local government elections.

Nigeria is a perplexing case. One would think that politicians run for office because it provides a vehicle to implement their ideas and values. Same for political parties. Or is the country so complex to govern that it does not allow for the luxury of a political philosophical framework; that the exigency of governance is too heavy and makes this a luxury? If so, how does that explain a country like Brazil, a much more heterogeneous society; yet its political parties and politics can be situated in an ideological spectrum? Perhaps, we are too lazy to think deeply and remain committed to the ideals we espouse. Or we are just a people without true ideals.

All who consider themselves true Nigerian progressives can yet redeem themselves. They should outline their principles and vision for Nigeria in a book and other print forms. Questions that should be answered should include: What does it mean to be a Nigerian progressive? What are the values they hold dear? What should constitute the priorities of a progressive government? And other ideas on politics, the economy, and even religion.

Someday, in the future, those thoughts may save the country.