Democracy in Nigeria: Dynasties are dangerous for democracy – Dr Alada, political scientist

In this interview, Dr Abdulrasheed Mohammed Alada, a political scientist and former acting Head of the Department of Political Science, University of Ilorin, dissected the phenomenon of political dynasties in Nigeria, implications, challenges, transformation and threat the concept poses to genuine democratic practice.

How did the concept of political dynasty emerge in Kwara State?

SPONSOR AD

The root of the political dynasty in Kwara State can be traced to the era of the late Dr Olusola Saraki. At that time, politics in Kwara was still evolving and had not matured ideologically. Saraki, with his grassroots appeal, capitalised on the political vacuum, and overtime, built an empire that wielded enormous influence. He was not just a political leader, he was the kingmaker. Those who occupied elective and appointive positions did so with his approval. That influence extended beyond the state to the national level.

During the National Republican Convention (NRC) and Social Democratic Party (SDP) era, a former military president, Ibrahim Babangida, attempted to ban old-breed politicians, but in reality, many of them still pulled the strings behind the scenes. Even when it appeared that they had stepped back, they remained the architect of political outcomes. In 1999 when Mohammed Lawal became governor, it was also under Saraki’s structure.

When did the dynamic between godfathers and godsons begin to shift?

There was a turning point, particularly around 2003. By then, some friction had begun to emerge between godfathers and their political godsons. There were reports and speculations that Saraki was persuaded, or perhaps even pressured to bring his son, Bukola Saraki, into the political fold. Some said it was his supporters’ idea, others believed it was a deliberate move to consolidate the dynasty, which also tried but failed to install Gbemisola after the emergence of Bukola Saraki in a continuation of the family’s hold on power.

How would you assess the present political structure in Kwara, in relation to politics of dynasty?

Although there’s no official declaration of a dynasty today, the patterns suggest some form of continuity. The present governor, by virtue of his background, also has political roots. His father was a lawyer and a well-known politician, and one of his siblings had contested for office in the past but failed. Through his actions and affiliations, the current administration appears to be forming a new thread linking past power structures to the present authority. So, in essence, while the names and faces have changed, the legacy of dynastic politics still echoes in the system.

The 2019 Otoge movement was widely celebrated. What sparked the movement?

The Otoge movement wasn’t primarily a result of a superior political alternative; it was born out of public dissatisfaction. Many felt excluded or neglected under the prevailing system. What fueled the movement significantly was the rise in civic awareness among the populace. The increase in information flow, which can be attributed to the proliferation of radio stations and independent media outlets, enabled Kwarans to access diverse perspectives. Journalists and ordinary citizens began to challenge the status quo. Some even wrote under pseudonyms to bypass censorship and air their grievances.

So, the Otoge revolution wasn’t just political, it was social and intellectual. It marked a phase where people started asking critical questions. I won’t be surprised if a similar uprising occurred again, especially if people feel that promises remain unfulfilled.

What are the inherent weaknesses in political dynasties?

The major issue is sustainability. In the early days, you might witness impressive governance because the founder is visionary or well-intentioned, but as the dynasty continues, the strength of good governance naturally reduces. Successors may not share the same passion or competence. Governance becomes transactional, and public interest is often sidelined.

Moreover, when you build leadership on inheritance rather than merit, you sacrifice innovation. Political dynasties often replicate themselves without inviting fresh ideas. And that’s detrimental to a democratic society that should thrive on diverse opinions and dynamic leadership.

Some argue that political dynasties ensure continuity and stability. Is that not a valid point?

That argument is common, but it is misleading. Continuity shouldn’t mean recycling the same people or ideologies endlessly. True stability comes from institutions, not personalities. In a dynastic setting, political succession becomes a family affair. It discourages capable individuals from stepping forward because the odds are stacked against them. It is an elitist setup, where access is limited to those within the circle.

We have seen this, not just in Kwara but across Nigeria. Hajiya Bola Shagaya’s son is now in the House of Representatives. Bukola Saraki took over from his father. In Delta, James Ibori’s political legacy still casts a shadow, with his daughter now at the National Assembly. These examples show a pattern of elite perpetuation masked as youth participation.

Speaking of youth involvement, has the Not Too Young To Run law made a difference?

On paper, yes, but in practice, not really. The law gave legal backing to youth inclusion but failed to address the structural challenges. Politics in Nigeria is heavily monetised. Campaigning requires millions, if not billions of naira. How many ordinary youths can afford that? What is happening is that wealthy elites are now fronting their children as candidates under the guise of youth empowerment. Many celebrated the passing of the bill without realising that it served as a legal stamp for the sons and daughters of the powerful to dominate even further. In reality, it has opened another channel for dynastic politics.

What are the long-term implications of sustained dynasties on political diversity?

The major danger is ideological stagnation. A dynasty often maintains the worldview of its founder. Successors, being beneficiaries, rarely challenge this vision. They see it as a legacy to protect, not a model to reform. This stifles alternative perspectives. When political power is spread across individuals from different backgrounds, you get a healthy mix of ideas. That is the essence of democracy. But in dynasties, debate is replaced with obedience. The public becomes passive because they feel their votes can’t change much. And that’s how apathy sets in.

Do dynasties also encourage political exclusion and rivalry?

Absolutely. Political dynasties thrive on control. They often exclude potential challengers through various means, which include manipulation, suppression and sometimes, even intimidation. When a new entrant attempts to break in, it becomes a zero-sum game. The dynasty will resist it at all cost, viewing it as a threat to their hegemony.

In extreme cases, this competition becomes violent. You have seen clashes between political factions. At the heart of such tension is the fear of losing influence, not a genuine ideological disagreement.

Some of these concerns seem to mirror elite theory. Would you say Nigerian politics reflects that?

Precisely. Nigeria is a textbook case of elite circulation. The same group of people rotates positions – governor today, senator tomorrow. Their wives, children and allies occupy strategic offices. Take President Tinubu’s family for example: His wife was a senator, and now, his son is being groomed. Aguiyi Ironsi’s son became an ambassador. Ojukwu’s wife is holding a diplomatic office. It is a closed loop. These elites are not interested in mass inclusion. Their goal is to stay relevant, remain powerful and preserve influence. The rest are simply spectators.

Can anything positive emerge from such a system?

Not really, except maybe when a reform-minded individual emerges from within and is bold enough to challenge the status quo. Otherwise, it is mostly cosmetic changes. Real transformation requires a break in the chain and injection of new blood, not a reshuffle within the dynasty.

The belief that dynasties are better at governance is misleading. The same results, if not better, can be achieved in open, competitive and merit-based political systems. Until we dismantle the myth of inherited leadership, our democracy will remain stunted.

What’s your final word to Nigerians on the future of political leadership?

We need to move beyond names and lineage. Our focus should be on competence, integrity and vision. Dynasties may offer comfort or some level of improvement, but comfort and progress are different things. We must ask tough questions and demand transparency. Nigeria has the human resources. Only then can we truly say that we are practising democracy and not some feudal arrangement dressed in democratic robes.