The Psychology of Atiku’s Desperation for Power May Push Nigeria to the Brink of Disintegration

MaTaZ ArIsInG
Dallas, Texas

By Idowu Ephraim Faleye +2348132100608

There is a difference between a politician who wants to become president and one who feels he must become president at all costs. The transformation can occur quietly as years of ambition, and electoral defeats begin to weigh on the mind. Every eligible Nigerian has the constitutional right to contest for the highest office, and repeated attempts to win are not inherently wrong. The danger arises when the desire to serve becomes an overwhelming personal necessity, driven by the fear that advancing in age may be closing the window of opportunity.

Years of contesting, financial investment and repeated defeats can create intense pressure. As a politician grows older, another election may begin to feel less like another democratic contest and more like a final chance. The fear that another defeat could end his presidential ambition may turn the desire to lead into an overriding personal mission. Under such pressure, political developments may be judged less by their implications for the country than by whether they advance or frustrate that ambition.

Repeated electoral failure does not automatically produce desperation. Many politicians maintain their composure and democratic values despite disappointment. The danger begins when the fear of time running out and the craving for victory override sound judgment and political restraint. A desperate politician may begin to see every arrangement favouring a rival not as part of a broader political understanding, but as an obstacle that must be removed by any available means.

In Nigeria, this becomes particularly dangerous when it threatens the informal understanding of rotating presidential power between the North and South. Since the return to democracy in 1999, this arrangement has helped manage the country’s diversity and promote inclusion. Although it is not guaranteed by the Constitution, it has acquired political significance by reassuring different regions that they have a meaningful opportunity to lead. Muhammadu Buhari governed from 2015 to 2023, after which Bola Tinubu assumed office in 2023.

If Tinubu wins re-election in 2027, his second term would end in 2031, completing eight years of northern and eight years of southern presidencies in the current sequence. The issue is not whether Atiku Abubakar or any other eligible politician has the constitutional right to contest. That right is clear. The question is whether political leaders can exercise their ambitions while recognising the importance of established political understandings to national trust. A politician who believes another opportunity may never come could begin to regard the rotational presidency as a personal obstacle rather than a mechanism for managing the country’s diversity.

This mindset can change how opponents are viewed and campaigns conducted. Political rivals may cease to be fellow citizens with competing ideas and become enemies who must be defeated by any means. The recent slogan chanted in the North “Tinubu must go” is not, by itself, evidence of desperation or ethnic hostility. It can be a legitimate expression of democratic opposition. Nigerians have every right to criticise the president’s policies, question his performance and vote against him.

The critical distinction is between opposing a president because of his record and rejecting him because of his ethnic or regional identity. When identity takes precedence over performance, democratic competition risks becoming a struggle for regional dominance. A politician under intense pressure to win may find it easier to mobilise ethnic resentment than to persuade voters through evidence, policies and credible alternatives. The campaign then shifts from accountability to the argument that a president from a particular region must not remain in office.

Ethnic identity is a powerful political tool because it appeals to belonging, historical grievances and fears of exclusion. A politician struggling to win support through performance may be tempted to frame an election as a contest between ethnic groups. Citizens are then encouraged to judge government actions according to regional advantage rather than their actual impact. Selective criticism can also emerge, with failures excused under a preferred leader but condemned when a rival is responsible.

Where evidence establishes the deliberate spread of false or misleading claims, such tactics can deepen suspicion and hostility. They may generate immediate political support, but they weaken the public’s ability to judge candidates on merit. The dangerous psychological shift occurs when a politician begins to see ethnic division not as a threat to national stability, but as an opportunity to exploit for personal gain. At that point, the pursuit of victory may be encouraging conduct that undermines the very country the politician hopes to lead.

The same distortion can affect how political actors judge governance failures. Nigeria experienced serious security challenges under Buhari, including the abductions of schoolchildren in Dapchi, Kankara and Jangebe, as well as attacks involving Yauri and Greenfield University. Serious security concerns have continued under Tinubu. These failures deserve scrutiny regardless of who occupies the presidency. Yet when political actors excuse failures under a president from their preferred region while condemning similar failures under another, they create a damaging double standard.

Such selective judgment suggests that ethnic loyalty matters more than the safety and welfare of ordinary Nigerians. Human suffering becomes political ammunition rather than a problem requiring urgent solutions. Security, poverty, education, healthcare and economic hardship must be assessed by consistent standards. Genuine accountability demands evidence, fair comparisons and workable alternatives, not selective outrage directed at political opponents.

The consequences extend beyond election campaigns. Misinformation, ethnic stereotyping, unsupported allegations and deliberate efforts to discredit legitimate political processes can deepen public cynicism. When leaders repeatedly portray national institutions as instruments of regional dominance, they weaken confidence in the institutions that hold the country together.

As political hostility grows, compromise can begin to look like betrayal, while cooperation is mistaken for weakness. A candidate may gain short-term advantage through divisive tactics but leave behind a more fractured electorate. Political victory is not the only measure of success; the methods used to achieve it can strengthen or damage the nation. No leader can build a stable country on the ruins of public trust and national unity.

The danger becomes greater when existing grievances are deepened. The Biafra-related agitation, the Yoruba Nation campaigns, and the longstanding resource-control grievances have different histories and causes; where people already feel marginalised, hence the perception that political power is being monopolized can intensify their grievances.

If citizens lose faith in the unity which rotational presidency offers, some may become more receptive to demands for greater autonomy, restructuring or separation. Meanwhile, local security outfits reflect community concerns about protecting lives at the regional level, although they do not automatically indicate support for secession. However, jettisoning the political mechanism that binds the nations together can cause dissatisfaction with federal arrangements. A region might secure the presidency while the wider federation deteriorates politically.

This is the ultimate contradiction of political desperation: winning the presidency at all cost while weakening the nation that comes with it. The office is powerful, but it cannot guarantee national cohesion. A politician may achieve a lifelong ambition only to inherit a country fractured by mistrust and ethnic hostility. No region can secure its future by making another feel politically irrelevant.

The fear of another defeat, especially when a politician believes time is running out, is understandable. But we must distinguish legitimate ambition from destructive desperation. Contesting repeatedly, opposing Tinubu, challenging rotational arrangements or criticising government policies are not, in themselves, evidence of desperation. The stronger evidence lies in conduct: whether a politician knowingly promotes falsehoods, exploits ethnic hostility, applies double standards or treats national unity as expendable.

The presidency is an office to be won through constitutional means, but protecting national unity is a responsibility that extends beyond election day. No politician should become so consumed by the fear of losing his last chance at power that he loses sight of the country he hopes to lead. When the hunger for power becomes greater than the responsibility to protect the nation, ambition ceases to be merely personal and becomes a danger to everyone.

Idowu Ephraim Faleye is a freelance political writer based in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria +2348132100608

1SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER NOW

Support MATAZ ARISING’ journalism of integrity and credibility.

Good journalism ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

We ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

0.00USD

Amount
0.00

TEXT AD: To advertise here – Email ad@matazarising.com

LATEST POSTS