Unity Not Enough: Why Nigeria Must Think Carefully About Opposition Alliances

By Tony Mbah

In periods of deep national hardship, unity is often presented as the ultimate solution. Across Nigeria today, opposition alliances are being promoted as the pathway out of economic pain, insecurity, and public frustration. While unity is important, Nigeria’s history clearly shows that unity without substance has repeatedly failed the people.

For any opposition alliance to truly deserve national trust, it must offer more than collective strength or familiar political figures. It must present a clear economic recovery plan, a credible security framework, a governance philosophy beyond personalities, and a moral argument for national renewal. Without these, unity becomes an elite arrangement—not a people’s solution.

What History Tells Us:

Nigeria’s political transitions—whether military or civilian—have followed a consistent and painful pattern. From the military handovers of the 1970s and 1980s to the return to democracy in 1999, and through subsequent changes of government, transitions have often triggered economic shocks rather than immediate relief.

In 1999, the return to civilian rule was followed by fuel price increases and inflationary pressures.

In 2012, a sudden fuel subsidy removal led to nationwide protests, soaring transport costs, and increased hardship for low-income Nigerians.

-In 2016, following a change in economic direction, the naira was devalued from about ₦197 to over ₦300 to the dollar, pushing inflation above 18% and shrinking household purchasing power.

-In 2023, another transition again began with fuel subsidy removal and currency adjustments, sending fuel prices above ₦600 per litre and driving inflation beyond 28%, according to official figures.

In each case, reforms were described as “necessary sacrifices.” Yet the sacrifice was borne almost entirely by workers, farmers, traders, and the urban poor—while political elites adapted quickly.

The Cost of Disruptive Politics:

Opposition politics in Nigeria has too often been driven by disruption rather than alternative solutions. Economic difficulties are amplified, and insecurity becomes politicised. History shows that insecurity often worsens during intense political competition, when governance is undermined by ambition.

From rising banditry and farmer–herder conflicts to kidnapping along major highways, insecurity has repeatedly spiked during periods of political uncertainty. Communities are destabilised not only by weak institutions but by political desperation, where national stability becomes collateral damage in the struggle for power.

When insecurity is used to label an incumbent government as weak—without presenting a superior security architecture—it is the ordinary citizen who pays with fear, lost livelihoods, and lives.

Alliances Without Ideas:

Nigeria’s political problem is not a shortage of alliances; it is a shortage of ideas and policy continuity. Political coalitions built mainly around personalities and ambition often unravel once power is secured. Policy reversals follow, institutions weaken, and the cycle of pain restarts.

Nigeria has paid dearly for abandoning reforms midstream. Every new administration tends to discard its predecessor’s policies, even when those policies require time to mature. The result is a country perpetually “reforming” but rarely stabilising.

Why Time Matters in Governance:

Major economic and security reforms operate in cycles, not election calendars. Disrupting policies halfway often resets hardship without delivering benefits. This is why a growing number of Nigerians argue that allowing an incumbent government to complete its constitutionally provided eight years offers a fairer basis for judgment.

This argument is not about defending incompetence or silencing criticism. It is about recognising that constant political resets have historically intensified suffering. Governments should be scrutinised, benchmarks should be demanded, and accountability should be firm—but destabilisation should not be mistaken for reform.

You do not uproot a crop halfway through planting because hunger is loud; you nurture it and judge the harvest. Nations are no different.

The Moral Question Nigerians Must Ask:

Perhaps the most important issue is moral. Every political transition in Nigeria is sold as “change.” Yet nearly every change begins with higher fuel prices, currency devaluation, and rising food costs. The poor are told to endure, while the elite renegotiate power.

A genuine moral argument for national renewal cannot begin by asking citizens—already struggling—to suffer again without a clear and credible pathway to relief. Change that repeatedly starts with mass hardship is not reform; it is recycled pain.

Stability with Accountability, Not Endless Upheaval:

Nigeria does not lack opposition voices. What it lacks are credible, detailed alternatives that protect citizens from the historical shocks of transition. Unity without plans is deception. Transition without preparation is cruelty.

As Nigerians reflect on the future, the critical question should not be who wants power next, but who is prepared to govern without restarting our suffering. Until opposition alliances can convincingly answer this, the call for unity alone should be approached with caution, not excitement.