0
0
On the long road of human history, the struggle for change has often unfolded like a familiar tale told in different eras and settings. In ancient communities, elders warned that when brothers fought over land and legacy, outsiders quietly took possession of what once belonged to the family. In more recent times, reform movements across nations have risen with passion, clarity, and moral urgency, only to falter when internal rivalries eclipsed their shared purpose. These stories are not merely folklore or distant history, they are enduring political truths. Nigeria today finds itself standing within this historical pattern, where the greatest threat to transformation is not the strength of opposition forces, but the fragmentation of those who seek change.
Within Nigeria’s contemporary political space, two influential movements have emerged with remarkable energy and popular engagement. The Atikulates, supporters of Atiku Abubakar, and the Obidients, supporters of Peter Obi, have each mobilized citizens who are dissatisfied with the direction of governance and hungry for national renewal. These movements have ignited conversations, awakened political consciousness, and restored a measure of hope among segments of the population. Yet, instead of forging a common front, both camps increasingly direct their passion toward rivalry, suspicion, and mutual delegitimization. This dynamic risks undermining the very objectives that brought them into political relevance.
The Atikulates draw their strength from Atiku Abubakar’s long and deeply rooted involvement in Nigeria’s political evolution. They point to his experience in national administration, economic policy formulation, and political coalition building across Nigeria’s diverse regions. To his supporters, leadership is not an abstract moral ideal, but a demanding responsibility that requires deep institutional knowledge, strategic negotiation skills, and an understanding of Nigeria’s complex federal character. They argue that governing a country of Nigeria’s scale and diversity demands tested competence and the ability to navigate entrenched structures of power.
The Obidients, by contrast, represent one of the most significant civic awakenings in Nigeria’s recent political history. Their movement has energized young people, professionals, and citizens who previously felt alienated from politics. Anchored in principles of accountability, prudence, transparency, and ethical leadership, the Obidients argue that Nigeria’s crisis is fundamentally one of values and stewardship. They insist that leadership by example, fiscal discipline, and moral credibility are indispensable foundations for national recovery and institutional trust.
Despite their contrasting emphases, both movements are driven by remarkably similar frustrations and aspirations. They speak against corruption, economic hardship, insecurity, institutional decay, and widening inequality. They articulate a shared desire for a Nigeria where governance serves the majority rather than a privileged elite. This convergence of purpose makes their ongoing hostility not only unnecessary, but deeply counterproductive. When groups with overlapping goals choose confrontation over collaboration, the collective vision they seek becomes increasingly distant.
As Atikulates and Obidients contest one another, a third political bloc, the Batists, supporters of Bola Ahmed Tinubu, quietly benefits from this division. Political history consistently shows that dominant parties often retain power not because of exceptional performance, but because their challengers fail to coordinate. Division among reform forces has always been one of the most reliable allies of political continuity. In such circumstances, the ruling establishment does not need to persuade the electorate anew, it only needs to wait.
Nigeria’s own democratic experience reinforces this lesson with striking clarity. Major political shifts have rarely occurred through isolated efforts or fragmented opposition. They have required broad alliances, strategic compromise, and disciplined coordination across regions and interests. Where opposition forces splintered, incumbents consolidated their advantage. The lesson is harsh but consistent, unity threatens entrenched power, while division preserves it.
The rivalry between Atikulates and Obidients also risks reducing political engagement to personality driven loyalty rather than substantive policy debate. When supporters devote their energy to defending individuals and discrediting rivals, urgent national issues are pushed aside. Inflation, unemployment, insecurity, food scarcity, education decline, and healthcare inadequacy demand serious attention. A politics consumed by internal battles deprives citizens of meaningful discussions about solutions and governance outcomes.
From a philosophical perspective, politics is not a contest of moral purity, but a practical pursuit of collective welfare. Thinkers such as John Stuart Mill emphasized that political action should be evaluated by its impact on societal well being. Applied to Nigeria, this suggests that the value of political engagement lies in its capacity to improve lives, strengthen institutions, and expand opportunity. Ideological pride without practical results offers little comfort to citizens burdened by daily hardship.
Democracy itself flourishes through pluralism, compromise, and cooperation. No single leader or movement possesses a monopoly on wisdom, patriotism, or national vision. Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi represent different leadership styles, experiences, and constituencies. Viewing these differences as irreconcilable antagonisms rather than potential complements weakens the broader reform agenda and narrows the space for strategic collaboration.
In established democracies, coalition building is not interpreted as weakness or ideological betrayal. Rather, it is recognized as political maturity and strategic wisdom. Alliances between diverse actors have often been the means through which entrenched systems were peacefully challenged and replaced. Nigeria’s political environment is no different. Effective opposition requires humility, mutual respect, and a willingness to prioritize national interest over group supremacy.
Redirecting political energy toward rigorous scrutiny of the Batists would significantly elevate the quality of public discourse. It would refocus national attention on governance records, policy decisions, economic management, and social outcomes. It would compel those in power to account for inflationary pressures, security failures, and declining living standards. Accountability thrives when power is interrogated, not when opposition forces exhaust themselves fighting one another.
Such a recalibration does not demand ideological surrender from either Atikulates or Obidients. Differences in vision, method, and emphasis are natural and even healthy in a democracy. However, debate must be purposeful and constructive. It should sharpen ideas, refine strategies, and clarify priorities, not deepen divisions that ultimately benefit a shared opponent.
Nigeria’s political future will not be determined by online skirmishes or the intensity of partisan rhetoric. It will be shaped by the ability of reform minded forces to understand the mathematics of unity and the ethics of cooperation. Power rarely yields to fragmented pressure. It responds to coordinated resolve, credible alternatives, and disciplined organization.
If Atikulates and Obidients continue to face each other as adversaries, history offers a predictable outcome. The entrenched establishment will endure, strengthened by the disunity of its challengers. If, however, both movements recognize the larger task before them and reserve their energy for confronting the real obstacle to reform, they may yet alter Nigeria’s political trajectory in a meaningful way.
Nations do not fail because they lack passionate citizens or capable leaders. They fail when those who seek change cannot align their efforts long enough to achieve it. Nigeria stands at such a crossroads today. The moment demands restraint, political maturity, and strategic wisdom. Above all, it demands an understanding that unity, not rivalry, remains the most potent instrument for democratic renewal and national progress.
Akin Samuel KAYODE.
Assistant Secretary, Monitoring and Feedback Committee,
The Narrative Force.
SB E-news .
About the Author
