“Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, or ‘French’.” — Awolowo, 1947.
Nearly 80 years on, this warning still haunts our politics. As 2027 approaches, many speak again of whose ‘turn’ it is—as if the presidency were a rotational title among regions, not a national office. For the record, the Nigerian Presidency is not a birthright of any group or individual. And if we are ever to become a true nation, we must reject this thinking.
We must appreciate how the concept of Federalism is shaping the current political setting, especially among opposition parties. Whether by design or proxy, they are guided by federalism—a setting where public solutions and compromises emerge. So far, the coalition has managed to sit at the table alongside parties and individual politicians. Although discussions are ongoing, the predicted outcome is looking positive.
And unlike the APC rhetorical slogan, “it is the turn of the South,” and their continuous endorsements of Tinubu for a second term, the opposition parties are building on the idea of listening to Nigerians. This idea is derived from the original federal concept of the American model, which aimed to allow decisions to be made at the most local level.
American founders did not believe that hundreds of millions of people could choose a good president based on loud campaigns and slogans. They designed a system that aimed to allow citizens at the local level to make decisions together. Even if the decisions might be a little bit worse than they would be if made by elected officials, the feeling of being allowed to choose their own leader was worth it.
That idea of federalism was built on face-to-face decisions at each stage, where people could choose someone they had known well for years. It offered a more local form of democracy and encouraged a different, more personal type of conversation.
Currently, in American Presidential primaries, party members choose their preferred candidate based on the counting rules, regardless of the state or region from which they come. States hold primaries, or caucuses, where voters pick delegates pledged to candidates. These delegates then attend the party’s national convention to vote for the nominee.
Nigeria adopts a similar model where political parties choose their presidential candidates through primaries. Parties may hold direct, indirect, or consensus primaries, as allowed by the 2022 Electoral Act. In direct primaries, all registered party members participate in the voting process. In indirect primaries, selected delegates vote to choose the candidate. Consensus means party leaders agree on a single candidate, with others stepping down in writing. Whatever the choice, it is expected that party members would have a say. Therefore, registering with a political party of your choice is a crucial step in making your voice heard.
As it stands, fringe opposition politicians across the country are pushing to bypass the selection process with a misguided political slogan: “It’s the turn of the South.” The instigators of this divisive slogan are not unaware that it is myopic and ill-intended. They are only using it as the only available trick left for them to whip up sentiment from the Southern voters, like what the 2023 Muslim-Muslim ticket did to voters of both faiths.
If the opposition persists in arguing that it is the turn of the South, they will lose the national debate before the campaign begins. At the general election, they will find themselves isolated—framed as regional candidates with no foothold in the North. Tinubu will not run as a southerner—he will run as the candidate of northern religious interests. He will wrap himself in the language of religion and identity familiar to northern voters. The opposition, boxed into a southern identity, will struggle to appeal to Northern voters and will be seen as outsiders. It would be political suicide for the opposition.
But there is a silver lining. Since the advent of the Fourth Republic, it is evident that our democratic experience has matured sufficiently to enable Nigerians to choose their president, regardless of region, tribe, or religion. Therefore, it would be misguided for any one person, group, or region to argue for giving the ticket to a Southerner in 2027. And if we count years, by 2027, the South would have had 17 years against 11 years for the North.
Of the five presidents since 1999, only two have been re-elected, one from each region—Obasanjo and the late Buhari of blessed memory. Goodluck Jonathan (GEJ) was elected in 2011 and served only one term. Of course, he completed the late Umaru Yar’Adua’s tenure. GEJ’s election was successful because Nigerians did not argue for the power to remain in the North for a second term. Clearly, 2011 was a demonstration of political maturity. Nigerians had the option to reject GEJ’s election, just as they did against Obasanjo’s third-term bid in 2007, but they did not. It was even mooted that the Tinubu-led ACN formed a coalition to help in GEJ’s coast-to-victory.
Similarly, when GEJ wanted a second term in 2015, Nigerians rejected him. He realised that arguing for a turn or right was futile. Many who supported him in 2011 formed the APC to oust him. That is when it was proved that no region owns Nigeria.
These lessons tell us that the office of the president is not the entitlement of anyone, any group, or region. Obviously, in 2023, religion, region, and ethnicity played a role. But 2027 will be different because all political experiments have been exhausted. Yes, Nigerians had played politics of ethnicity, religion and region, but that is because they fell victim to an inferior system. However, there is a strong feeling that improvements are coming in 2027 due to an upgrade in the standard of the present political coalition. We all agree that Nigeria needs competence, not rotation.
Of course, one can argue for using the unwritten rule of rotation in a ruling party; however, after one term, this rule can also be reconsidered for those who advocate for spreading the national cake across all geopolitical zones. Besides, even the PDP constitution—which conforms to the principles of power shift and power sharing by rotating key political offices among the diverse peoples of the country—did not grant entitlement to two terms.
For those who correctly argue that leadership in Nigeria did not begin in the Fourth Republic. Yes, Nigeria did not start in 1999. But we must be clear. Nigerians never consented to military rule, nor do they hope to see it repeated. Military rule was imposed without popular mandate. Counting years under military governments as democratic tenure is misleading. It ignores the absence of free elections and civil liberties that define democracy. Only periods with civilian rule, chosen by the people, can be correctly considered democratic governance.
We must declare enough for this ‘turn’ madness; 2027 must be the time for Nigerians as a whole. Those who designed our democratic and federal systems know that a collective decision, however imperfect, is worth more than any individual outcome.
Source: Daily Trust
