27/05/2026
Opposition or Illusion: The Missing Alternative in Nigeria’s Politics- Muhammad Yahaya Abubakar
In every functioning democracy, governance is a relay race, not a solo performance. When an administration stumbles or is perceived to have failed the natural expectation is that the opposition rises, not merely to criticize, but to convince. In Nigeria’s current political climate, where many citizens express frustration with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s policies and their harsh socio-economic consequences, a pressing question emerges: what exactly is the opposition offering as an alternative?
It is easy perhaps too easy to catalogue the grievances against the present administration. From inflationary pressures triggered by fuel subsidy removal to the volatility of the naira following foreign exchange reforms, many Nigerians feel squeezed between policy ambition and lived reality. Economic reforms, no matter how well-intentioned, demand patience but patience is a luxury often unavailable to citizens battling daily survival.
Yet, criticism alone does not equate to leadership. The opposition’s role in a democratic society like ours is not merely to amplify discontent but to channel it into credible and actionable alternatives. In here lies the dilemma: Nigeria’s opposition, fragmented and often reactive, has struggled to move beyond rhetoric into the realm of coherent policy articulation.
Where is the shadow budget that offers a different fiscal path? Where are the clearly defined economic models that address inflation without stifling growth? Where is the unified voice that reassures Nigerians that there is a ready, capable government-in-waiting? Those are some of the things to fonder upon for checkmating the opposition integrity.
Instead, what Nigerians often witness is a cycle of press statements, social media outbursts, and post-election litigations that, while politically significant, do little to no in addressing the immediate concerns of governance. The opposition appears more invested in delegitimizing the present than in legitimizing itself as a viable future.
This is not to say that the ruling administration should be absolved of accountability far from it. Democracy thrives on scrutiny, and the Tinubu government must answer for the impact of its decisions. But accountability is a two-way street. If the government must justify its record, the opposition must justify its readiness.
A credible opposition must do three things: diagnose, prescribe, and inspire. Diagnosis involves a clear-eyed understanding of the country’s challenges beyond populist slogans. Prescription demands detailed, realistic policy alternatives. Inspiration requires building public trust through consistency, unity, and competence.
At present, the opposition’s greatest weakness may not be a lack of ideas, but a failure to communicate them effectively or to unify behind them. Political fragmentation has diluted its strength, turning what could be a formidable counterweight into a chorus of disjointed voices.
Nigerians deserve more than a choice between dissatisfaction and uncertainty. They deserve a political landscape where both the ruling party and the opposition compete not just in words, but in vision, strategy, and credibility.
If President Tinubu has indeed failed in the eyes of many, then the burden shifts—not just to the electorate but to the opposition. The question is no longer whether the government is underperforming; it is whether the alternative is prepared. Until the opposition answers that question with clarity and conviction, criticism no matter how justified will remain politically potent but practically insufficient.
The opposition should be able to justify the idea that democracy is not only about holding power accountable. It is about proving that power, if transferred, would be better exercised. And that is the test the opposition has yet to pass.
