Power Tussle: The Constant Thread in Nigeria's Political Parties

By KORO-UFUOMA GEORGINA OGHENEAKPOBOR

Power is the driving force of politics, and in Nigeria, the struggle for power has become a defining feature of nearly every political party. Beyond campaign promises and election slogans, internal battles for control, influence, and relevance shape the country's political landscape. From the ruling party to the smallest opposition group, these struggles often determine who secures party tickets, who becomes governor or president, and, in some cases, who ultimately governs.

Power within Nigeria's political parties extends beyond holding public office. It determines access to party structures, nominations, financial resources, and the authority to influence future political decisions. In a winner-takes-all political system, reinforced by a strong culture of political godfatherism, controlling the party structure is often considered more important than winning the general election itself. As a result, the competition for dominance is intense.

No political party is exempt from internal power struggles. One of the most common conflicts is between the national leadership of a party and elected governors or the president. Governors usually control party structures within their states and influence delegates, while the national leadership controls the party's identity, national convention, and administrative machinery. Whenever these interests clash, parallel executives, court cases, and prolonged internal crises often follow.

Another recurring source of conflict is the rivalry between founding members and wealthy newcomers who join political parties shortly before elections. Long-standing members often accuse these newcomers of attempting to buy influence, while the newcomers argue that the party has become stagnant and resistant to fresh ideas. Such disagreements frequently result in factionalism and internal division.

The principle of zoning, introduced to promote fairness among Nigeria's regions, ethnic groups, and religious interests, has also become a source of political tension. Whenever a political office becomes vacant, different regions and interest groups claim it is their turn to produce the next candidate. Consequently, contests for presidential, governorship, and even local party positions are often accompanied by prolonged disputes and negotiations.

Internal disagreements rarely end after elections. Candidates who lose party primaries often accuse the leadership of imposing preferred candidates or engaging in anti-party activities. Those who emerge victorious are, in turn, accused of marginalizing other members. These disputes frequently give rise to caretaker committees, splinter groups, defections, and endless legal battles.

The consequences of these power struggles extend far beyond party politics. Party primaries are often disrupted, consensus becomes difficult to achieve, and capable candidates may lose to individuals with stronger factional support. Elected officials sometimes devote more attention to managing internal party conflicts than to governance and policy implementation. In many cases, political defections during a government's tenure can be traced to unresolved disputes within political parties.

Perhaps more importantly, these conflicts continue to weaken public confidence in Nigeria's democratic system. When citizens observe political parties spending more time fighting among themselves than discussing policies and national development, many conclude that political parties are driven more by personal ambition than by ideology or public service.

Several factors continue to sustain this cycle of internal conflict. Although party constitutions provide guidelines for discipline and internal elections, these rules are often manipulated by those who currently control party structures. Many political parties also revolve around influential individuals rather than strong institutions or clear ideological principles. Consequently, whenever such individuals lose influence or leave the party, internal divisions quickly emerge.

The increasing cost of election campaigns has further intensified the struggle for control. Access to party funds, campaign financing, and state resources has made political office highly attractive, raising the stakes in every internal contest.

Political parties that have remained relatively stable often share certain characteristics. They enforce clear internal rules, ensure transparent leadership succession, and build institutions that are stronger than individual personalities. Efforts by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to promote transparent party primaries and greater accountability are also intended to reduce arbitrary power struggles within political parties.

It is important to recognize that competition for political leadership is not inherently harmful. Healthy political competition allows new ideas to emerge, strengthens democratic participation, and provides opportunities for capable leaders to rise. The challenge in Nigeria is not the existence of competition itself but the tendency for political contests to become prolonged conflicts that weaken both political parties and the governments they produce.

The influence of money has further complicated Nigeria's political environment. Campaign financing has transformed elections into expensive contests where financial strength often outweighs competence, ideology, or commitment to public service. Wealthy political sponsors frequently support candidates who will protect their interests, leaving the broader needs of ordinary citizens unattended.

Social media has also become a powerful force in shaping political discussions. While digital platforms encourage public participation and civic engagement, they have also become channels for misinformation, political propaganda, and divisive rhetoric. Rather than encouraging dialogue and cooperation, online political debates often deepen existing divisions and make consensus more difficult to achieve.

Despite these challenges, many Nigerians continue to demand better leadership. Citizens are becoming more politically conscious and increasingly expect accountability from elected officials. Young people, who constitute a significant portion of the electorate, continue to advocate for leaders who place national development above personal or partisan interests.

As Nigeria approaches future elections, political parties must recognize that endless internal struggles cannot replace effective governance. The focus should shift from the pursuit of political dominance to delivering meaningful policies that improve the lives of citizens.

Achieving this transformation will require the collective efforts of political leaders, civil society, the private sector, electoral institutions, and the electorate. By promoting transparency, inclusiveness, internal democracy, and responsible leadership, Nigeria can gradually build a political culture where service takes precedence over personal ambition.

Power struggles may remain an inevitable part of Nigeria's democratic journey, but they should never become obstacles to national progress. Until political parties move beyond the question of "Who controls the party?" and begin asking "What do we stand for?", power tussles will continue to dominate Nigeria's political headlines long after every election has ended.