It is now time for the nation to re-evaluate its understanding of multi-party democracy and the notion that political parties are sovereign in the struggle for power and candidate nominations.

Continuing to claim that our party system remains in its early stages is hypocritical, considering that Nigeria’s party system is marked by opportunism and a lack of ideological foundation.

This explains why prominent members of different political parties often switch allegiances.

Those who voice complaints cannot do so openly because some have changed parties multiple times and lack the moral authority to complain.

Therefore, it is time to reconsider our view on multi-party democracy and assess whether a zero-party system or a complete restructuring of the existing political parties along ideological lines might be more beneficial for the people of Nigeria.

I support multi-party democracy characterised by clear ideological boundaries.

These boundaries and clarity of issues help voters make informed decisions based on what a political party represents, offers, or promises to deliver, and sometimes, on what it has achieved when in power or in making decisions on behalf of the people.

In such cases, party leaders and their members are deeply committed to the party, its principles, and ideology, leaving no doubt about what the party stands for and supports.

However, when political parties are formed and operate based on individual personalities within the party, and when party leaders lack commitment and frequently switch parties, it undermines the principles of multi-party democracy.

t raises questions about whether the multi-party system, as currently practised and defined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), is truly the best option for the country.

Which political party in Nigeria advocates a conservative ideology? Which one is progressive? Which promotes socialist principles?

Are there parties with a centrist stance in Nigeria? Do Nigerians vote based on a party’s ideological leanings, or are other factors more influential?

Three issues shape Nigeria’s political and electoral landscape. First, there is no clear ideology.

Second is opportunism, and third is transactional deals between party leaders and voters.

In all these, political parties do not dominate but operate behind the scenes.

In charting the way forward, it is vital to examine the past and understand the reasons behind the near collapse of Nigeria’s political party system.

One of the main reasons may be the framers of our constitution’s decision to enshrine the ideological foundations of political parties in the Grundnorm of our country.

By doing so, all parties are restricted to a single ideological trajectory, resulting in a confusing mix of freemarket economy and socialist principles. Section 224 of the constitution clearly states that the aims and programmes of a political party must conform to the provisions of Chapter II, effectively uniting all parties around a common ideological direction.

Section 15 of the same constitution further emphasises the state’s role in promoting a mixed economy and social welfare, resulting in similar party programmes and constraining the scope for distinct ideological positions.

The only differences among them are the personalities that form the parties and the main reasons for their creation.

This explains why it is easy for individuals to abandon their political platforms and switch seamlessly to another.

However, it is equally important to recognise that the ideological weakness of Nigerian political parties cannot be attributed solely to constitutional design.

The erosion of ideological commitment also results from decades of military intervention in politics, entrenched patronage systems, and the gradual replacement of issue-based mobilisation with personality-driven alliances.

These deeper structural and historical factors have significantly contributed to weakening party cohesion and making ideological clarity nearly impossible to sustain.

It is worth remembering, however, that Nigeria’s political landscape did not always lack ideological foundations.

In the early post-independence period, parties such as the Action Group (AG), the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), the

National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), and the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) were distinguished by clear ideological tendencies and contrasting visions for governance.

This history demonstrates that ideological diversity is not unfamiliar to Nigeria’s political development, but rather that it has been gradually diminished over time by shifting political incentives and weakened institutional structures.

The most unusual aspect of our political party system is the opportunism inherent in elected officials switching parties.

That a governor elected on a specific political platform can easily and overnight adopt the mandate of another party and abandon their original party to steer the state towards the centre of Nigerian politics is not a matter of ideological disagreement.

None of those who defected claimed it was due to ideological reasons. None stated that the progressive or conservative views of their former party had been diluted or abandoned.

None acknowledged the fact that section 221 of the constitution states that no association other than a political party shall canvass for votes for any candidate at an election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate.

Nor did they consider that section 29 of the Electoral Act 2022 requires every political party to submit, at least 180 days before a general election, to the Commission, in the prescribed forms, a list of candidates the party intends to sponsor at the polls, who must have come from valid primaries conducted by the party.

None of them put themselves to a referendum by those who elected them. This is understandable because most political parties’ leadership operates within the state government house.

The party leadership is not independent and lacks authority without the incumbent governor’s backing. Most parties are controlled and funded by the ruling government, either at the federal or state level.

Consequently, they are not true political parties. During elections, the only “ideological” question is which candidate has more resources and funds to see, buy, and influence votes.

Voter inducement and, in some cases, voter intimidation or suppression, become normal and determine who is elected and who is not.

In all these cases, where are the political parties and their ideologies? More often than not, the list of candidates is arranged in government houses, and those who disagree migrate to other political parties.

So, where is the party apart from being a compulsory vehicle for ascending to political power?

In these circumstances, might it not be better for Nigeria to operate a zero-party system, under which Nigerians would vote for individuals based on what they stand for or what they can offer?

A zero-party structure would move focus from party labels to the competence, character, and vision of individual candidates, allowing voters to judge each aspirant based on personal merit rather than allegiance to platforms lacking ideological importance.

This model could reduce opportunistic defections, diminish patronage networks centred around parties, and restore a more direct link between the electorate and those they aim to govern.

Nigerians cannot continue to pretend that we have a multi-party system when there is ideological and opportunistic convergence among the current political parties.

In countries like the United Kingdom and India, political parties maintain clear ideological identities that influence voter choice and uphold internal discipline, resulting in stable, issue-based competition.

Conversely, in nations such as Kenya and Uganda, political parties are often weak, personality-driven, and fluid, leading to patterns similar to Nigeria’s current experience.

These examples demonstrate that Nigeria’s ideological and structural weaknesses are not inevitable, and that reforms aimed at restoring issue-based competition and enhancing party cohesion are both achievable and pertinent.

To make progress, Nigeria must implement practical reforms that enhance the integrity and effectiveness of its political parties.

These could include repealing section 224 of the constitution, enabling parties to adopt distinct ideological positions, enforcing transparent party financing, fostering internal democracy within parties, clarifying constitutional and legal provisions that unintentionally promote ideological uniformity, and expanding civic education to help voters make informed choices.

By combining these reforms with a renewed emphasis on issue-based political competition, Nigeria can start to restore ideological clarity, reduce opportunistic defections, and strengthen the connection between the electorate and their representatives.

Alternatively, the country could consider adopting a zero-party system, allowing candidates to run independently of political parties.