By: Folorunso Fatai Adisa
(Published in the Punch Newspaper on Friday, 17 April, 2026).
When the merger of the Action Congress of Nigeria and the Congress for Progressive Change produced the All Progressives Congress, it carried with it a rare national expectation. For many Nigerians, weary of the long and often turbulent years under the Peoples Democratic Party, the emergence of a new political coalition felt like the opening of a different chapter. The mantra of “Change” was not just an ordinary slogan but a psychological contract with the people. It suggested renewal, redirection, and a break from the habits that had come to define governance. Over time, that mantra evolved into “Renewed Hope,” another powerful phrase that promised continuity of reform and a consolidation of democratic dividends. These were not empty words in themselves. If translated faithfully into governance, they possessed the potential to reshape both the material and emotional condition of the nation.
It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that nothing has changed. At both national and subnational levels, there have been policy directions and interventions that indicate attempts at stabilisation and reform. Even when we have found ourselves in a global climate marked by volatility, particularly with geopolitical tensions such as the United States, Israel, and Iran conflict influencing energy markets, Nigeria has not experienced the kind of prolonged petrol scarcity that once defined its economic fragility. Similarly, while the naira continues to face pressure, the feared extremes of total collapse in certain moments of global instability have not fully materialised. These are not insignificant developments. They show that, in certain respects, governance has attempted to respond to structural vulnerabilities.
However, governance is not judged by isolated improvements alone. It is measured by patterns, by consistency, and by the integrity of the political process that produces leadership. It is at this level that troubling signs begin to emerge. Beneath the surface of policy gains lies a reappearance of familiar tendencies that once undermined public trust in governance. The politics of consolidation of power within narrow circles, and the subtle transformation of public office into private inheritance are gradually resurfacing. These are not new problems in Nigerian politics, but their persistence within a party that rose on the promise of change raises troubling questions about continuity and contradiction.
Recent developments within parts of Ogun State exemplify this tension with uncomfortable clarity. Reports circulating across various platforms suggest growing dissatisfaction among constituents regarding the quality of representation at the state level. Odeda Local Government serves as a case in point, where questions are mounting over a high-ranking representative’s decade-plus tenure at the Ogun State House of Assembly. Despite a mandate stretching back to 2011, the prevailing sentiment among the populace is that his long years in office have yielded a deficit of measurable impact. Representation, in its truest sense, is not just about occupying a seat, but about serving as a bridge between the people and the structures of governance. When that bridge weakens, the people feel abandoned, and democracy loses its meaning at the grassroots.
A similar pattern appears to be surfacing in Yewa South, where internal resistance within party structures has reportedly greeted the ambition of another ranking legislator seeking an extended tenure. The reported boycott by a significant proportion of local party executives signals more than routine disagreement. It shows a festering unease about the direction of internal party democracy and the perceived imposition of candidacies. When party members themselves begin to resist, it is often an indication that the legitimacy of the process is under strain.
Within this climate of growing unease, another strand of concern has surfaced in public discourse across Ogun State. In some of the widely circulated commentaries referenced earlier, attention is drawn to what is perceived as a pattern of political consolidation around influential figures. Take the case of a senior party leader in Ogun State, a man whose portfolio includes the APC chairmanship and multiple federal appointments. According to circulating commentaries, his influence is being used to solidify a family legacy within the corridors of power. With one son serving as a Special Adviser to the governor of Ogun State and eyed for a legislative seat while another son is already established in local government leadership, the perception of a family forced upon the electorate is becoming a central theme of political discourse.
Individually, each of these roles may admit their own justification within the framework of democratic participation. However, when placed side by side within the context of public perception, they provoke a more difficult question, not necessarily of legality, but of optics and equity. At what point does legitimate political participation begin to resemble concentration of access? At what point does representation quietly narrow into inheritance? And how should a party that rose on the promise of renewal respond when segments of its own base begin to interpret such patterns as exclusionary?
If history and current realities are any guide, President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu has not forced his son upon the Lagos electorate for the next elections. Given this high-level restraint, where exactly are these unenviable and undemocratic antecedents coming from? The chasm between national leadership standards and our local realities is becoming impossible to ignore.
It was from the meritorious Mike Awoyinfa’s Press Clips page that I encountered a reflection on Obafemi Awolowo that lingers with unusual force. “Part of the mystery of Awolowo’s strong appeal lies in his moral authority. He represented a politics driven by ideas rather than personal ambition. Even his critics acknowledged his integrity. Unlike many politicians, Awolowo lived modestly and projected the image of a disciplined, austere leader committed to public service. That personal example created a powerful political myth, one that continues to inspire younger generations.” Today, one is compelled to ask whether those who claim lineage, mentorship, or ideological inheritance from that tradition have truly absorbed its discipline or only appropriated its language. This question does not exist in a vacuum. It speaks directly to these revealing realities in Odeda Local Government, my ancestral home, where the tension between the political class and the populace remains palpable.
This development is particularly significant when viewed through the lens of political theory. Robert Michels, in his seminal work on political parties, advanced what he termed the “iron law of oligarchy.” His argument was plain but incisive: all complex organisations, regardless of how democratic they begin, tend to evolve into oligarchies dominated by a few individuals. Leadership, once consolidated, develops mechanisms of self-preservation, often at the expense of broader participation. The patterns emerging within segments of contemporary Nigerian politics appear to validate this thesis. What begins as a movement for change can, if unchecked, harden into a structure that resists renewal.
This path is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Democratic systems possess internal correctives, one of which is the voice of the people. The resistance observed in local party structures, the dissatisfaction expressed by constituents, and the increasing demand for credible primaries all point to a political consciousness that is still alive. People may tolerate continuity when it is justified by performance, but they resist it when it appears to be driven by entitlement. This distinction is quite important.
Contrast the current stagnation with leaders who have secured their mandates through a meritorious track record. Take Senator Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, FCA (YAYI); his time in the Lagos State House of Assembly was defined by fiscal reforms that strengthened the state’s institutional bedrock. This performance served as the launchpad for his progression to the National Assembly and midwifed the historic ‘West-to-West’ agenda. Moving his political base from Lagos to Ogun, he silenced critics by sprinkling the landscape with feelable, high-impact projects. His path proves an unassailable truth in the Public Sphere that the populace does not tire of a familiar face; they tire of a familiar failure.
This is in consonance with another important strand of political thought. Joseph Schumpeter, in his theory of democracy, described it not as a system where the people rule directly, but as one where they retain the power to choose and replace their leaders through competitive processes. The health of a democracy, therefore, lies in the openness of its political competition. When access to candidacy becomes restricted, when outcomes appear predetermined, the competitive essence of democracy is weakened. What remains is a form without substance.
The history of the Peoples Democratic Party offers a sobering parable in this regard. At the height of its dominance, the party projected an image of invincibility, even boasting of a capacity to govern for decades. That confidence, however, masked internal contradictions. Over time, issues of imposition, disconnection from grassroots realities, and the concentration of power eroded its legitimacy. Its eventual decline was not sudden. It was the cumulative effect of choices that distanced it from the people it claimed to represent.
Today, the All Progressives Congress occupies a position of similar dominance. It enjoys political reach, institutional control, and public visibility. But with dominance comes responsibility. The same factors that weakened its predecessor remain present as potential risks. If the party fails to address internal imbalances, if it allows the logic of entitlement to override the principles of fairness, it may gradually reproduce the very conditions it once opposed.
A political party is beyond being an electoral machine. It is the conduit through which governance is shaped and delivered. Its internal processes determine the quality of leadership it gives. When those processes are compromised, governance suffers as a consequence. The people, ultimately, bear the cost. Democracy thrives when opportunity is open, when merit is recognised, and when leadership remains accountable. It weakens when access is restricted, when performance is secondary, and when power becomes personalised.
The choice before the APC, and indeed before Nigerian politics more broadly, is therefore a clear one. It is a choice between building institutions and building dynasties. Institutions last because they are anchored in rules, transparency, and collective ownership. Dynasties may appear stable in the short term, but they carry within them the seeds of exclusion and eventual resistance. A democracy that tilts too far towards inheritance risks losing its legitimacy.
The language of “Change” and “Renewed Hope” must, therefore, be reclaimed not as slogans, but as standards. They must be measured against the realities of political practice. They must reflect both policy outcomes and the processes through which leaders emerge. Nigerians have shown, time and again, that they are capable of discernment. They reward performance. They question entitlement. They respond to leadership that recognises their agency.
In the end, the survival of any political party is tied not to its control of power, but to its relationship with the people. Power can be held for a time, but legitimacy must be earned continuously. Where that legitimacy is absent, decline becomes a matter of when, not if. The lesson from history is clear. The question is whether it will be heeded.
The conversation does not end here. You can continue it with me on X via @folorunso_adisa, LinkedIn: Folorunso Fatai Adisa, or on Facebook at Folorunso Fatai Adisa.
#folorunsofataiAdisa
'
'Do you want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need publicity for a product, service, or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Kindly donate any amount HERE
