Re: ADC: The opposition that cannot save itself
By Abubakar Ibrahim
Ali Abare’s article, “ADC: The opposition that cannot save itself,” presents itself as a critique of Nigeria’s opposition politics, but beneath its confident tone lies a shallow understanding of democratic principles and an evident bias that weakens its analytical credibility.
At the heart of the piece is a fundamental misconception: the portrayal of opposition as an optional or even undesirable inconvenience in governance. This is not just debatable—it is democratically untenable. In any functioning democracy, opposition is not a decorative accessory; it is an essential pillar.
Without opposition, democracy degenerates into majoritarian dominance, where accountability weakens and power becomes insulated from scrutiny.
Abare’s framing of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as a “vehicle” for recycled politicians attempts to discredit the legitimacy of opposition through the personalities involved rather than engaging with the institutional necessity of their role. Yes, figures such as Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi and David Mark have long political histories. But experience in governance does not invalidate one’s right—or responsibility—to participate in opposition politics.
In fact, democratic systems often rely on experienced actors to challenge incumbents effectively.
Abare’s argument rests heavily on the claim that these individuals are responsible for Nigeria’s current problems and, therefore, lack the moral authority to critique the present administration. This reasoning is logically flawed. If prior participation in governance permanently disqualifies individuals from opposition, then, democratic competition would be reduced to a cycle of inexperienced entrants versus entrenched incumbents—an outcome far more dangerous than the one he critiques.
Democracies thrive not on moral absolutism but on continuous contestation, where past records are weighed by voters, not pre-emptively dismissed by commentators.
More troubling is Abare’s implicit defense of the current administration under Bola Tinubu, framed through selective reasoning. He credits recent fiscal reforms for attracting governors to the ruling party while dismissing the possibility of political pressure, patronage networks, or strategic alignment.
This is a reductive analysis. Political defections in Nigeria have, historically, been influenced by a complex mix of incentives, including access to federal resources and survival within a dominant-party system. To suggest that such movements are purely rational economic decisions ignores decades of political science literature on party systems in emerging democracies.
The discussion around Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is another example of Abare’s selective reasoning. While it is true that INEC acted in response to a court order, the broader issue raised by the opposition concerns institutional trust and perceived neutrality. In democracies, institutions must not only act lawfully but, also, maintain public confidence.
Dismissing opposition concerns outright, rather than engaging with the legitimacy of those concerns, reflects a narrow understanding of democratic accountability.
Abare also criticises opposition leaders for failing to enact reforms while previously in power. While this point has merit, it is incomplete. Democratic evolution is iterative. Many reforms in established democracies were implemented by actors who had previously operated within flawed systems.
The expectation that political actors must have been perfect reformers in the past to advocate for change in the present is unrealistic and ahistorical.
Furthermore, the article overlooks a critical function of opposition: providing alternative narratives and policy choices. Even if the ADC coalition is imperfect—as most political coalitions are—it still contributes to pluralism. The suggestion that internal disagreements disqualify the coalition ignores the reality that political contestation often involves negotiation, compromise and even conflict. These are not signs of failure but indicators of political engagement.
Abare’s tone also raises questions about objectivity. His consistent framing of the opposition as unserious, contrasted with a largely uncritical portrayal of the ruling party’s actions, suggests an alignment that goes beyond neutral analysis. It is understandable, as public discourse often reflects institutional affiliations or ideological leanings.
However, if Abare is, indeed, connected to or sympathetic toward an APC-led government, this makes the need for analytical rigor and balance even more important—not less.
A credible political critique should interrogate both the strengths and weaknesses of all actors involved. Yet, Abare’s article reads more like a prosecutorial brief against the opposition than a balanced examination of Nigeria’s democratic landscape. There is little attempt to scrutinise the ruling party with the same intensity applied to the ADC coalition. This asymmetry undermines the intellectual seriousness of the argument.
Importantly, Nigerian democracy is still consolidating. In such a context, weakening opposition through dismissive narratives is not just analytically flawed—it is politically risky.
Strong democracies are built on competitive politics, institutional checks and vibrant dissent. To deride opposition as “noise dressed up as purpose” is to misunderstand its role entirely.
The real issue is not whether the ADC is perfect. At its inception in 2014, the ruling party, APC, which started as an opposition was not perfect either. Thus, the real issue is whether Nigeria benefits from having a viable opposition capable of challenging power, offering alternatives and holding leaders accountable. The answer, unequivocally, is yes.
Abare’s critique would have been more persuasive had it acknowledged this foundational principle and then proceeded to evaluate how well the ADC meets that standard. Instead, by questioning the very legitimacy of opposition through the lens of past participation in governance, he, inadvertently, argues against one of democracy’s core tenets.
In the end, the strength of a democracy is not measured by the dominance of its ruling party but by the resilience and effectiveness of its opposition.
On that measure, dismissing opposition outright is not just analytically weak—it is democratically unsound.
