Democracy, in its truest form, is the governance of a people by their free will — a system where leaders are chosen based on competence, ideas, and vision for collective progress.

Yet, in Nigeria, and indeed much of Africa, elections are often less about ideas and more about identity. Rather than being contests of policy and performance, they become referendums on ethnicity, religion, and regional loyalty.

When citizens vote primarily for candidates because they share the same tribe or region, the spirit of democracy is subverted. What emerges is not a government of the people, but a government of tribes.

The question, therefore, is urgent and uncomfortable: Can Nigeria’s elections be considered truly democratic if tribal allegiances consistently override competence and ideas?

The honest answer is no. For while the process may appear democratic — with ballots, campaigns, and results — the essence of democracy, which is informed choice and equal representation, is hollowed out when identity politics becomes the main criterion for leadership selection.

1. The Historical Roots of Tribal Voting in Nigeria

To understand Nigeria’s tribalized democracy, one must revisit its historical formation. The modern Nigerian state was an artificial creation of British colonialism — a fusion of over 250 ethnic groups, each with distinct languages, cultures, and governance systems. The 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates was not driven by a shared identity or common destiny but by administrative convenience and economic exploitation.

The British reinforced ethnic divisions through their policy of indirect rule, governing through traditional rulers and establishing unequal systems of education and political representation. The North was largely isolated from Western education, while the South developed a Western-educated elite. By the time of independence in 1960, Nigeria’s major political parties were already regionally aligned:

• The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) represented the predominantly Hausa-Fulani North,

• The Action Group (AG) drew its strength from the Yoruba West, and

• The National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) was led by the Igbo-dominated East.

This structure meant that elections were never about national integration, but regional dominance. Independence did not erase tribal politics — it institutionalized it. Every election since has carried the heavy imprint of ethnicity.

2. How Tribal Allegiance Overrides Democratic Ideals

a. Voters Choose Tribe Over Vision
In many Nigerian elections, the average voter does not evaluate candidates based on manifestos, competence, or integrity. Instead, they ask: “Where is he from?” or “Is he one of us?” This mindset turns elections into ethnic censuses rather than democratic exercises. The assumption is that leaders from one’s tribe will protect “our share” of national resources — a logic born out of decades of distrust in federal fairness.

Thus, democracy becomes transactional. Votes are cast not for the best candidate but for the most familiar one. This perpetuates a vicious cycle: politicians no longer need to perform; they only need to appeal to tribal sentiment to secure loyalty.

b. Political Parties Exploit Ethnicity as a Tool
Rather than bridging divisions, Nigeria’s political parties often deepen them. While many parties claim to be “national,” their leadership and voter base are typically regionally skewed. Campaigns are filled with coded ethnic messages and alliances that appeal to local identity rather than national unity. Candidates are chosen not for ideological alignment, but for their ability to deliver votes from their ethnic bloc.

During presidential elections, the informal practice of “zoning” — rotating power between the North and South — further reinforces this ethnic arithmetic. While zoning may aim to ensure inclusivity, it often prioritizes balance over competence. The result is a democracy managed by ethnic negotiation rather than meritocratic competition.

c. Competence and Ideas Become Secondary
In a system dominated by identity politics, capable candidates who lack ethnic or regional backing stand little chance of winning. Ideas about reform, governance, or innovation rarely drive campaigns because they do not mobilize the same emotional energy as ethnic loyalty. As a result, elections fail to elevate visionary leaders and instead reward those with the most powerful ethnic machinery.

3. The Consequences for Democracy and Governance

a. Weak Leadership and Policy Stagnation
When leaders rise to power primarily through ethnic loyalty, they owe their allegiance not to the nation, but to their tribal base. This distorts policy priorities. Instead of pursuing national reform, they spend political capital maintaining regional alliances. Ministries and key appointments are distributed to satisfy ethnic quotas rather than performance needs. The outcome is weak governance, where loyalty trumps results and accountability is replaced by patronage.

b. National Disunity and Political Tension
Elections in Nigeria often deepen divisions instead of healing them. After every major election, the losing regions feel marginalized, and accusations of rigging and bias emerge. For instance, the 2015 and 2023 presidential elections reflected deep north-south polarization, with voting patterns almost entirely split along ethnic and religious lines. Such outcomes erode the sense of shared nationhood and fuel secessionist sentiments, as seen in the renewed calls for Biafra and Yoruba autonomy.

c. Corruption and Impunity
Ethnic-based politics breeds corruption. Once in office, leaders use state resources to reward their own tribe or maintain their ethnic patronage network. Citizens, in turn, tolerate such behavior, justifying it as “our turn to eat.” This culture of selective morality normalizes corruption and impunity, as wrongdoers are protected by ethnic solidarity rather than held accountable by law or conscience.

d. Erosion of Citizen Trust
The greatest casualty of tribalized democracy is trust — trust in institutions, in fairness, and in one another. Citizens no longer believe that elections reflect genuine will but rather ethnic arithmetic and elite manipulation. Voter apathy grows, and faith in democracy weakens. When people no longer believe competence matters, they disengage, leaving the system to those who manipulate it.

4. A Case Study: Nigeria’s Presidential Politics

Every major presidential election in Nigeria illustrates how deeply tribalism shapes outcomes.

• In 1999, the return to democracy was engineered to appease the Yoruba after the annulment of the 1993 election won by M.K.O. Abiola. Olusegun Obasanjo’s emergence was as much a product of ethnic balancing as democratic choice.

• In 2015, Muhammadu Buhari’s northern identity and reputation as a “disciplined leader” won massive northern support, while skepticism remained high in the south.

• In 2023, Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s campaign slogan, “It’s my turn,” reflected the deeply ingrained expectation that power should rotate ethnically, not necessarily follow meritocratic lines.

Across these elections, patterns of regional voting persist, confirming that tribal allegiance remains the dominant determinant of victory.

5. Can Democracy Survive in a Tribalized State?

For Nigeria’s democracy to mature, it must transcend the prison of ethnic politics. This requires both institutional and cultural change.

a. Strengthening Electoral Integrity
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must not only conduct credible elections but also intensify civic education emphasizing issue-based voting. Electoral reforms should ensure transparency and reduce opportunities for manipulation of ethnic sentiments.

b. Reforming Political Parties
Parties must evolve from regional coalitions into genuine ideological movements. They should articulate clear economic, social, and governance agendas that appeal to all Nigerians, regardless of ethnicity.

c. Promoting National Civic Identity
Education systems, media, and civic programs must emphasize Nigerian identity over tribal affiliation. The younger generation must be taught that leadership is not about where one comes from, but what one can deliver.

d. Encouraging Meritocracy in Governance
Appointments and development projects should reflect fairness and capacity, not ethnic bias. When citizens see competence rewarded, they will begin to trust the system again and vote accordingly.

6. The Illusion of Democracy

Nigeria holds elections regularly, but the mere act of voting does not make a democracy. A democracy driven by tribal loyalty rather than informed choice is democracy in form, but not in substance. It creates governments that represent ethnic power blocs, not the collective will of the people.

Until Nigerians learn to evaluate leaders based on ideas, ethics, and ability rather than identity, elections will continue to reproduce mediocrity and division. True democracy demands courage — the courage to vote beyond tribe, beyond sentiment, and beyond fear.

Nigeria’s path to genuine democracy lies not just in ballots, but in consciousness — a shift from “my tribe, my turn” to “our nation, our future.” Only when competence, not ethnicity, becomes the currency of political success will Nigeria’s elections reflect the true meaning of democracy.