This question probes the heart of Nigeria’s national crisis: the dangerous disconnect between political power and developmental outcomes.

Northern Nigeria, having historically held a disproportionate share of political, military, and bureaucratic control at the federal level, theoretically possesses the leverage and resources to transform its security landscape.

The fact that it remains the epicenter of terrorism, banditry, and mass kidnapping is a profound indictment of the region’s ruling class, revealing a systemic failure known as "Politics over Governance."

The region is caught in a vicious cycle where a powerful elite class benefits from political dominance but fails to translate that power into genuine security, inclusive governance, and socio-economic development for the masses.

1. The Paradox of Political Power Without Governance

Northern Nigeria's political power is concentrated, but the resulting governance is shallow and fragmented, creating a significant gap between the elites and the citizenry.

A. The Primacy of Power Acquisition over Service Delivery

For many in the Northern elite class—politicians, generals, and top bureaucrats—the ultimate goal is the acquisition and retention of power at the federal level, not the arduous, long-term work of governance at the state and local levels.

• Political Patronage and Clientelism: The political system is heavily reliant on a patronage network where resources are distributed to maintain loyalty and secure votes, rather than being invested in public goods like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This system generates massive personal wealth for the elite but leaves the general population impoverished and without basic state services.

• Elite Fragmentation: Even among the Northern elite, there is fragmentation and rivalry. This disunity hinders a coordinated, coherent response to security threats, as competing factions often prioritize political maneuvering over cooperation on regional security strategies. This lack of a unified political will prevents the implementation of tough, long-term reforms.

B. Internal Colonialism and Resource Capture

Critics argue that the Northern elite often acts as a class that captures the state’s resources for its own benefit.

• Underdevelopment for Control: Some theories suggest a calculated strategy of keeping the mass population in a state of underdevelopment and dependency to ensure political obedience. By neglecting quality education (as evidenced by the high number of out-of-school children, or Almajiris) and economic opportunities, the elite maintains a large, easily mobilized, and subservient voting base. This dependency ensures their continued control, but also produces the desperate, disenfranchised youth who become recruits for extremist and criminal groups.

• Corruption and Misappropriation: The substantial federal allocations and security budgets meant for the region are frequently siphoned off or mismanaged due to systemic corruption. This starves the security apparatus, prevents the purchase of necessary equipment, and undermines the morale and professionalism of troops, thereby hindering effective counter-insurgency.

2. Weakening of Traditional and State Institutions

The insecurity crisis is exacerbated by the deliberate or neglectful erosion of the very institutions meant to maintain order.

A. The Eclipse of Traditional Authority

Northern Nigeria has a powerful, deeply entrenched traditional ruling structure (Emirs, Sultans, etc.) that historically played a crucial role in maintaining local security, settling disputes, and administering justice.

• Politicisation and Loss of Power: Over time, the formal political power of traditional rulers has been eroded by the state governors, making them dependent on political leaders. Their ability to enforce sanctions, mediate conflicts, and address local grievances has diminished. While they still command moral authority, they often lack the constitutional and financial capacity to intervene decisively against armed groups, especially those with advanced weaponry.

B. Security Sector Incapacity and Politicisation

The security institutions themselves—often led by appointees from the region—are structurally compromised.

• Politicisation of Appointments: Appointments within the security sector (military, police, and intelligence) are frequently based on political patronage and ethnic or regional balancing rather than on merit and competence. This leads to a security architecture that is inefficient, lacks coordination, and is less motivated to protect the citizenry than to serve political masters.

• Military Overstretch and Ineffectiveness: The Nigerian military is overstretched, fighting a complex array of threats from Boko Haram in the Northeast to banditry in the Northwest and communal violence in the Middle Belt. Inconsistent policies, poor intelligence-gathering, and a lack of necessary community trust have hampered its effectiveness.

3. Elite Manipulation of Identity and Grievances

The elite often exploit the deep fault lines within the region for political gain, ironically feeding the very instability that consumes their communities.

• Instrumental Use of Religion and Ethnicity: Political and religious elites sometimes use ethno-religious identity to mobilize support and distract the masses from their governance failures. For example, politicians may inflame tensions between farmer and herder communities to secure their own base, rather than working to resolve the underlying land, climate, and resource issues through non-partisan development.

• The Neglect of the Almajiri System: The failure to integrate the millions of Almajiri (un-schooled street children) into a formal educational system has created a vast, alienated demographic. These individuals, already suffering from extreme poverty and lacking family structure, become prime recruits for groups like Boko Haram and bandit gangs, who offer food, money, and a sense of belonging or purpose. The elites who benefit from the existing social structure have been slow to reform this politically sensitive system.

In essence, the Northern elite have successfully monopolized power without democratizing its benefits. Their political leverage has secured them positions at the federal center, but they have fundamentally failed in their obligation to govern their home region inclusively and justly. The result is a region rich in political power but crippled by poverty and a crisis of legitimacy, making its rural populations vulnerable prey for any armed group that can offer an alternative means of survival, however violent.