By Oyigu Elijah.
Political parties are judged not by their past victories but by their present strength and future direction. In every democracy, there comes a point when a political organisation must confront its own reality without excuses.
Nigeria’s political space has reached such a moment with the People’s Democratic Party.
Once a dominant force that shaped national leadership for years, the party now stands at a difficult crossroads, burdened by internal divisions and a fading sense of purpose.
The concern goes beyond routine political setbacks. What is unfolding is a deeper crisis that touches on identity, cohesion, and relevance. The party no longer speaks with a clear voice, nor does it present a united front capable of inspiring confidence among its members or the electorate.
Those who remain within its fold appear uncertain whether to rebuild or to withdraw, and that uncertainty has prolonged a situation that demands a firm decision.
The People’s Democratic Party appears to be postponing its political burial. In practical terms, many observers already consider it politically lifeless. The structure remains in place, yet the vitality that once defined it has weakened to a troubling degree.
The situation raises a simple but pressing question. When the grave is prepared and the casket is ready, what explains the delay in bringing the process to its natural conclusion?
A look at recent political history offers a clear contrast. In 2014, the Congress for Progressive Change, the Action Congress of Nigeria, the All Nigeria Peoples Party, and a faction of the All Progressives Grand Alliance recognised the limits of their individual strength.
They set aside separate identities and formed the All Progressives Congress. That decision was not driven by sentiment but by strategy, and it produced a result that reshaped national politics.
The 2023 presidential election presents another lesson that cannot be ignored. Had the People’s Democratic Party aligned with the Labour Party, the combined electoral strength of both platforms might have altered the outcome.
According to figures released by the Independent National Electoral Commission, the margin of victory recorded by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was narrow, while the total votes secured by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi were significantly higher when viewed as a single bloc. The figures speak for themselves and highlight a costly lack of coordination.
Current realities suggest a party struggling to remain relevant. Its influence has diminished, and its public engagements often reflect a defensive posture rather than a forward-looking agenda. Many citizens now view the organisation as one that is engaged more in internal survival than in national leadership.
Political experience also offers a practical observation. Participation within a ruling structure, even without immediate access to high office, often provides greater room for influence than remaining in an opposition weakened by division. Influence grows where access exists, and access is rarely found in fragmented opposition platforms.
A fundamental question therefore arises. If committed individuals still remain within the party, when will they take responsibility for drawing a clear line and allowing the political space to stabilise?
When a tenancy has effectively ended, continued arguments over occupancy serve little purpose. A timely exit often preserves dignity and opens the door to new possibilities.
Energy spent on repeated reconciliation efforts has yielded limited results. Those who remain may need to consider a quieter and more decisive course of action.
Political success is not tied to a single platform. Many leaders have achieved their ambitions through realignment and fresh alliances when circumstances required it.
The movement of a significant number of governors and key figures toward the ruling All Progressives Congress adds further weight to the situation. Such large-scale shifts are rarely accidental.
They reflect a calculation about where political survival and influence are most likely to be secured. Under such conditions, the reluctance to close an ailing structure becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
The question then becomes unavoidable. Why should it be so difficult for the remaining leadership to formally wind down the party’s operations and explore integration into other platforms such as the African Democratic Congress or emerging coalitions? Political structures are created to serve purposes, and when those purposes can no longer be met, change becomes necessary.
From a political science perspective, the first recommendation is clarity of assessment. Leaders must evaluate the true condition of their organisation without sentiment.
A party that can no longer mobilise effectively or command loyalty across its ranks must either undergo a deep transformation or give way to a more viable structure.
A second recommendation concerns coalition strategy. Modern democratic competition favours alliances that bring together diverse strengths. Fragmentation weakens electoral prospects, while unity, even among former rivals, can produce unexpected victories. Any future political effort must therefore prioritise cooperation over isolation.
A third recommendation relates to public trust. Voters respond to discipline, coherence, and purpose. Internal conflict erodes confidence and discourages support. Any attempt at renewal, whether within a reformed structure or a new coalition, must begin with a clear commitment to order and credibility.
The moment demands honesty and courage. The People’s Democratic Party stands at a point where indecision may prove more damaging than defeat. Political history shows that decline is not always final, but recovery requires decisive action.
Whether through closure, merger, or complete reinvention, those who remain must act with clarity. The future of their political relevance depends on it.
– Oyigu Elijah writes from Abuja.
