CHRISTIAN ABURIME
Whenever the national discourse borders on policies, polity and politics, Anambra State Governor, Professor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, CFR, is in his most perceptive, dispassionate, blunt elements.
In his most provocative intervention yet, in his Democracy Day speech, Governor Soludo diagnoses what may be Nigeria’s most fundamental political ailment: the absence of ideological foundation in its party system.
His frank assessment that contemporary Nigerian politics consists of “one party, ‘Nigerian Elite Plc’ (NEP), with the sole goal of grabbing power and governing ‘as the spirit directs’” represents perhaps the most dispassionate review of the country’s democratic adventure.
Governor Soludo’s prescription is equally bold: “…We must give our politics a soul by intentionally orchestrating ideologically driven political parties.” This clearly goes beyond just prescribing political reform to advocating the very survival of Nigerian democracy.
To understand the depth of Nigeria’s current politics, Governor Soludo invites us to examine what we have lost. His nostalgic reflection on the Second Republic (1979-1983) reveals a period when political parties actually meant something distinct. The six parties, GNPP, NPN, NPP, PRP, UPN, and NAP, were not just electoral vehicles but represented genuinely different visions for Nigeria’s future.
“I can still remember their ideologies and cardinal programmes,” Governor Soludo reminisces, “and I miss the rigorous ideological debates among parties of those days.” This is a resonant nostalgia for a time when politics had substance.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s UPN states uniformly implemented “free education and free medical services,” while NPN states pursued “mass housing and green revolution” programmes. Citizens could then predict policy outcomes based on which party governed their state. Even the Third Republic’s brief experiment with ideologically defined parties, NRC as right of centre and SDP as left of centre, represented a more sophisticated approach to democratic organisation than today’s ideological vacuum.
Indeed, Governor Soludo’s concept of “Nigerian Elite Plc” brilliantly captures the reality of contemporary Nigerian politics. Rather than competing ideologies, what we have are “different factions of the NEP, largely split by quarrels over exclusion or inclusion in the ‘dining table’.” This analysis exposes the transactional nature of modern Nigerian politics, where principles matter less than proximity to power.
The governor’s observation that individuals who “can’t get a sit at the table suddenly realise that ‘nothing is working’” and either form new parties or join opposition movements “to fight for a better Nigeria”, which he correctly identifies as “a euphemism for ‘bring me closer’”, reveals the cynical foundation of much political opposition in Nigeria.
This dynamic explains why Nigerian politics feels so predictable yet chaotic. Predictable because regardless of which faction wins, the fundamental approach to governance remains unchanged. Chaotic because without ideological anchors, policy directions shift with personnel changes and political calculations.
Then, Governor Soludo poses a poignant question about Nigeria’s two dominant parties: “Can you tell an APC or PDP state if you see one? What is the difference?” The inability to answer this question definitively exposes the bankruptcy of contemporary party politics. In healthy democracies, party control typically produces visible differences in policy priorities, governance approaches, and developmental outcomes.
The “speed with which people switch parties,” as Governor Soludo notes, testifies to the reality that “political parties are mere platforms of convenient opportunism, no principles, no public purpose, only personal convenience!” This political nomadism would be impossible if parties represented genuinely different worldviews. Even the APC, which began as a merger designed to challenge PDP dominance, represents what the governor describes as “a marriage of convenience” rather than ideological coherence. After “10 years of governing at the centre and controlling most states of Nigeria,” the party still lacks clear ideological foundations.
Perhaps, Governor Soludo’s most candid assessment concerns the registration process for political parties. His review reveals that party manifestos are “largely ‘copy and paste’, to scale through registration by INEC, with little or no substantive differences.” This bureaucratic approach to party formation ensures that new parties emerge not from genuine ideological movements but from administrative requirements.
The result is what Prof. Soludo identifies as an ideological paradox: “In substance, almost all the political parties subscribe to the social democratic ideals (left of centre). Ideologically speaking, there are no opposition political parties in Nigeria.” In other words, when everyone claims the same ideological space, ideology becomes meaningless. This explains why “the executive would still have to ‘lobby’ members of its own party in the legislature to support its agenda.” Without ideological discipline, party membership provides no guarantee of policy alignment.
So, what is the redemptive path forward? Governor Soludo’s solution is as radical as his diagnosis. He argues that “organising Nigerians around ideological divides is the sustainable way to mobilise citizens across ethnic and religious divides.” This represents a fundamental reimagining of Nigerian politics, moving from ethnic and regional calculations to ideological alignments. If done, the potential transformation would be profound. Instead of politics organised around “turn by turn” ethnic rotation or what he calls “Chop I Chop politics,” ideologically driven parties could create “transformational politics of development” that transcends parochial interests.
Yet, the governor also acknowledges uncertainty about implementation, as he says “I don’t know how the authentic parties will emerge”, but advocates for intentional intervention through “legislation or regulation.” This suggests that ideological party formation may require state intervention via constitutional guidance rather than organic development.
The timing of Governor Soludo’s intervention is really significant. Speaking on Democracy Day, he essentially argues that Nigerian democracy lacks its most essential component: meaningful ideological choice. Citizens can change governments but not governance approaches because all parties represent variations of the same elite consensus. His assertion that “the time for both was yesterday but today is still on time. Tomorrow may be too late” creates urgency around political reform. The warning also suggests that without ideological grounding, Nigerian democracy may continue to struggle with its current challenges.
On a more profound praxis, the Anambra State Governor’s vision extends beyond party politics to fundamental questions about Nigerian nationhood itself. Ideological parties could serve as vehicles for the “new Nigerian” he advocates, citizens organised around shared values rather than ethnic identities. Even the connection to his earlier theme of creating rather than rebuilding Nigeria becomes clear: ideological politics could provide the organising principle for national unity that ethnic federalism has failed to deliver.
Thus, Governor Soludo’s exposition forces uncomfortable questions about Nigeria’s democratic trajectory. If political parties are merely factions of the same elite club, can elections produce meaningful change? If all parties advocate similar policies, what does political choice really mean? This discussion implies that Nigeria’s political crisis runs deeper than corruption or bad leadership; it is about the absence of competing visions for the country’s future. Without ideological competition, politics becomes purely transactional, and democracy loses its transformative potential.