Since Nigeria’s 2015 general elections, the country’s political scene has steadily shifted. What was once a competitive—albeit flawed—multiparty democracy now increasingly resembles a one-party system dominated by the All Progressives Congress (APC). With prominent defections from rival parties and weakened opposition voices, critics argue that Nigeria is inching toward a dangerous concentration of political power.
By Usman Mohammed Binji
But what does this trend mean for Africa’s most populous democracy? Are there benefits to having one dominant political force, or are Nigerians trading away accountability for the illusion of stability?
While Nigeria remains constitutionally a multiparty democracy, the growing number of defections to the ruling APC, especially following the 2015 and 2023 elections, reveals a practical reality: real political power is becoming concentrated in a single party. This article critically examines the merits and dangers of such a system, drawing on political theory and international examples from China, Russia, Zimbabwe, and Kenya.
The Case for Stability and Efficiency
One of the primary arguments in favour of a dominant party system is political stability. Functionalist theory posits that political institutions exist to maintain equilibrium and prevent conflict (Parsons, 1951). In a deeply divided country like Nigeria, marked by ethnic, religious, and regional tensions, a dominant party can arguably reduce the friction of intense electoral competition.
Following the 2015 elections, the APC gained control of the executive and legislative arms of government. This facilitated quicker passage of budgets and smoother implementation of national policies, unlike previous years when partisan deadlock often stifled governance.
China’s one-party rule under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) offers a relevant comparison. Although criticized for authoritarianism, China has leveraged its centralized political system to pursue long-term development strategies, lifting millions out of poverty (Shambaugh, 2008). This aligns with Huntington’s Authoritarian Modernization Theory (1968), which argues that strong centralized states can effectively drive economic modernization even without liberal democratic institutions.
Nigeria under the APC, has also shown signs of greater policy continuity—something that has historically been elusive. Projects such as railway expansion, agricultural reform, and social investment programs have benefited from sustained attention. Structural Functionalism supports the idea that political institutions perform essential functions for societal stability and continuity (Easton, 1965).
Moreover, a dominant party system may reduce post-election violence. In some northern states, the APC’s dominance has arguably contributed to more peaceful elections, given that outcomes appear predetermined. Singapore, under the long-standing rule of the People’s Action Party (PAP), is frequently cited for leveraging political dominance to achieve socio-economic progress while maintaining civil order (Rodan, 2004).
Democratic Erosion and the Risks of Elite Capture
Despite these benefits, the risks of a dominant party system are profound, chief among them, the erosion of democratic accountability. Pluralist theory maintains that democracy thrives through competition among multiple political actors (Dahl, 1971). A one-party system neutralizes such competition, weakening checks and balances.
In Nigeria, the APC’s dominance has blunted legislative oversight and judicial independence. Many opposition lawmakers have defected to the ruling party, leading to a lack of robust debate and accountability. This reflects the dangers of elite theory, which suggests that when a narrow group monopolizes power, governance becomes self-serving (Mosca, 1939).
Russia’s United Russia party under Vladimir Putin exemplifies this trend. Although nominally a multiparty system, real power is consolidated in one party, with opposition leaders harassed, imprisoned, or exiled (Golosov, 2011). Nigeria risks a similar path if institutional safeguards continue to weaken.
Another critical issue is corruption and impunity. Without effective opposition, dominant parties often grow complacent. In Nigeria, several corruption cases involving APC members have been ignored or stalled, while opposition figures face swift prosecution. Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF under Robert Mugabe followed a similar trajectory—using one-party dominance to entrench corruption and authoritarianism (Bratton & Masunungure, 2008).
Marginalization, Discontent, and Secessionist Tensions
Dominant party systems also tend to marginalize minority groups. In Nigeria, the Southeast has repeatedly complained about exclusion from federal appointments and decision-making under APC rule. This exclusion has fueled agitation and strengthened movements like the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Participatory democratic theory emphasizes inclusive governance, which is undermined in such a context (Pateman, 1970).
Kenya’s experience provides a cautionary tale. Under President Daniel Arap Moi, Kenya became effectively a one-party state. This resulted in the suppression of dissent, human rights abuses, and economic mismanagement. Widespread protests eventually forced the reintroduction of multiparty democracy in 1992 (Barkan, 1992).
Ideological Vacuum and the Politics of Defection
A final weakness in Nigeria’s current trajectory is the lack of ideological clarity among political parties. Frequent defections—especially by losing candidates—suggest that many politicians are more interested in power than in principle. This undermines Rational Choice Theory, which assumes political behaviour is based on consistent preferences and policies (Downs, 1957).
When voters cannot distinguish between parties based on vision or ideology, elections lose their meaning, and the political process becomes a contest of convenience rather than conviction.
Conclusion
While a dominant party system may offer short-term advantages like policy continuity and reduced electoral violence, it threatens the long-term health of Nigeria’s democracy. As the Nigerian case demonstrates—when viewed through the lenses of Functionalism, Pluralism, Elite Theory, and Participatory Democracy—unchecked one-party dominance can erode institutions, marginalize dissent, and foster authoritarian tendencies.
To prevent democratic backsliding, Nigeria must strengthen its institutions, enforce internal democracy within parties, reform its electoral laws to discourage opportunistic defections, and encourage parties to articulate distinct ideologies.
If not, the line between democratic leadership and authoritarian rule may continue to blur—at great cost to Nigeria’s democratic future.
Binji is a journalist and Chairman of the Sokoto State Council of the Nigeria Union of Journalists
