In a country as diverse and politically dynamic as Nigeria, the struggle to hold two truths together has become increasingly evident. Too often, public debates are framed in black and white, leaving little room for nuance. Yet, in politics and governance, the reality is rarely absolute. Sometimes, one truth does not have to be false for another to be right.
The popular refrain, “Vote for competence, not tribe,” has gained currency across Nigeria’s political landscape. It is a powerful call for merit, performance, and a rejection of ethnic bias in leadership selection. Few would contest that competence should form the backbone of governance in a country yearning for development and stability.
However, another truth exists beside it—one that speaks to fairness, equity, and inclusiveness. Democracy, after all, is not merely about who governs well but also about ensuring that all groups and regions feel a sense of belonging in the larger political arrangement. Competence and fairness are not mutually exclusive; both can and should coexist.
Across the world, several leaders have remained in power for extended periods—Vladimir Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in China, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, to mention a few. Their longevity is often justified on the grounds of competence, stability, or continuity. There is nothing inherently wrong when a people choose to retain a leader who is performing well and meeting their expectations.
Conversely, there is also nothing wrong when a society opts to rotate leadership in the spirit of inclusion and equity. Each approach can be valid, depending on the values, experiences, and aspirations of the people involved.
This ongoing debate finds resonance in Kogi State, where questions of power rotation have remained a recurring theme. Some argue that if Governor Usman Ododo, or any leader from a particular region, demonstrates competence and delivers good governance, tenure or succession from the same zone should not be an issue. Others, however, insist that after years of political dominance by one part of the state, it is only fair for another zone—particularly Kogi West—to have a chance at the helm.
Both perspectives are legitimate. Competence knows no tribe, but democracy equally demands inclusion and equity. The challenge lies not in choosing one over the other but in finding a balance that sustains both governance efficiency and social harmony.
It is important to note that democracy is not a system where power is handed down à la carte; rather, power is mobilised through participation, negotiation, and consensus. Every group or region must engage constructively in the democratic process to achieve its aspirations. Still, that engagement should take place within a framework that respects fairness and mutual understanding.
If Kogi West believes it is its turn to produce the next governor, its people have every right to mobilise, campaign, and seek support. Such a demand does not negate competence—it simply broadens the circle of opportunity and belonging. After all, in a truly democratic setting, leadership should reflect both capability and collective representation.
One must also ask: if a region had been told decades ago that it would have to wait thirty years for a chance at the top seat, would it have accepted such a timeline? Most likely not. It is, therefore, neither just nor pragmatic to insist on a rigid “16-16-16” succession pattern that ignores fairness and the evolving realities of political inclusion.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s democracy—and indeed that of any state—must learn to embrace coexistence between competence and equity. A political culture that prizes merit while fostering fairness will always be stronger than one that elevates one at the expense of the other.
For in truth, competence without fairness breeds exclusion, just as fairness without competence breeds inefficiency. The future of Nigeria’s democracy depends on our collective ability to hold both truths together and govern with wisdom, justice, and balance.
– Adebowole Muyiwa wrote from Abuja.
