The popular belief in Nigeria today is that it was the emergence of one strong opposition political party that gave victory to the All Progressives Congress APC in the 2015 presidential election.

Of course, whereas the coming together of many groups may have played a role in the outcome of the election, there is no proof that it was that factor alone that really mattered. For example, it is simplistic to play down what many have come to accept as the benevolence of the then president, Goodluck Jonathan.

If he had abused his office and mobilized state institutions to rubbish the votes of many people, the then ruling Peoples Democratic Party, PDP would have declared its candidate the winner as has been the culture in virtually all of Africa. It is therefore naïve to assume that victory is assured in an election in Nigeria as soon as many opposition parties unite to fight the incumbent.

There is nothing in the general disposition of the G100 to show that mobilizing different groups will achieve anything. Instead, it is more likely that some leading members are there to achieve two main purposes. The first is to work for the emergence of a particular candidate who probably mobilized them for the task, while the second is to serve as secret agents of the ruling party to create confusion within the G100 itself.

It is therefore possible that the entire G100 or a segment of the body has a hidden agenda that may only come to light after the election.

History reminds us of several examples where such interventionist groups served as spoilers or persons with their own personal interests far higher than the publicised main interest of the larger group. One is immediately reminded of how the then Social Democratic Party SDP which won the June 12 1993 election was easily diverted into supporting the annulment of the election.

As soon as some of the leading members were promised top offices in the coming government, they abandoned their victory and joined anti-democratic forces to work against the outcome of an election internationally recognized as Nigeria’s best. 

Even when democracy returned later, politicians were known to have abandoned their flagbearer. The late President Muhammadu Buhari was a victim of that when both his party’s national chairman and other executives left him at the election tribunal to join his opponents so as to be appointed into what became known as the government of national unity GNU. Anyone who wants to mislead himself is however free to believe that things have changed in Nigeria and that the current leaders of G100 can be trusted to behave differently. I am not so persuaded.

Indeed, nothing has changed in Nigeria’s fraudulent politics. The position remains one of wisdom after event. We all condemned President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida IBB when he declared that Nigerian politicians are not interested in political parties, they all want to hold political offices.

Till today, there are no professional party leaders or persons who really want to volunteer to manage a political party. Those so deployed are looking forward to how such deployment can bring them closer to holding a government position which in our system is basically lucrative. Once the road to that is closed or uncertain, they begin to form different strategic groups like G100 with lofty claims that are merely a design for getting an appointment.

Unfortunately, unsuspecting Nigerians take the title of the new groups seriously whereas the ultimate goal is to be seen as a great contributor to any success. Former Governor Donald Duke reiterated the point the other day that a two-party system is best for Nigeria.

Why are we never able to unite into two strong principled groups? Quite often, some parties fuse into the ruling party with the argument that their goals are similar. Why do such discoveries of similarities never occur at the formation of parties but only close to voting time?

The G100 was partially blind at the appropriate time when they could have prevented opposition leaders of the African Democratic Congress ADC from moving away to nearby Nigeria Democratic Congress NDC. The two main leaders at the time were Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi; the two are still the main leaders today from whom the opposition wants to pick one. It is not how to bring the two parties together that is the problem. The real issue is that the opposition parties are neither sincere nor courageous enough to take a stand. None of them for instance can plead with Atiku to step down; yet many are aware that this is not the best time for a Northern candidate if we are to follow the convention that after 8 years of Buhari, it is the turn of the South to produce a president.

On the other hand, there is the sentiment that it is good to give Atiku the chance which is probably his last because age may not be on his side next time. The G100 is free to follow the position of Atiku’s followers that the constitution supports their leader’s ambition and that convention is not law. If that is done, the G100 would need not just an appeal to only Obi, it should rather look for miracle workers to convince their members from the South to cool down. But why will the South give up their time?

From the list we have seen so far, it is hard to find G100 members who can openly and courageously pick any of the options and stand by it. Instead, the group is likely to continue to hold different sessions where they will only be speaking double negatives or where they will, in the words of my brother, Igodomigodo continue to ‘engage in circumlocution.’ In order that the body does not get into history as a failed pro-political coalition entity whose aim was to unite opposition parties behind a single candidate, it is suggested that the team should work for a cleaner democratic process. So much has gone wrong with our democracy as too many actors are more attuned to using undemocratic behaviour to win elections. All over the country, there are too many reports of people in authority seeking to introduce violence into the coming exercise.

Yet, there is not enough condemnation by G100 of media reports where we see officials threatening political opponents from operating in certain areas. If every voice in the opposition condemns the trend, those who brazenly issue threats before television cameras will be forced to moderate their unacceptable posture.

For sometime now, a particular political party, the Action Alliance has cried out openly that the

electoral body has refused to obey a court ruling which affirmed Kenneth Udeze as its national chairman. According to the party, INEC refused to update the party’s record to reflect the new legal position. This is a good example where all other opposition parties have remained silent leaving only the party to fight its own battle. Opposition parties in particular ought to speak out because a threat to one is a threat to all. The greater danger however is that elections in which the correct candidates of a party were excluded could be cancelled by the courts.

INEC would take the party ’s case more seriously if others join in condemning the alleged disobedience to court orders. It is perhaps because some parties are oppressed officially that the powerful parties feel they too can threaten smaller parties. INEC and government should take the lead in ensuring a level playing field for all. Disallowing the use of public spaces as well as state-owned media by any opposition party points to ours as a democracy that is yet to be institutionalized.

A better sign of unity will be visible when all opposition parties jointly oppose such aberrations instead of seeing the adoption of a single candidate as the only evidence of coalition.

One of the things that political coalitions can help to create is mature political campaigns based on issues rather than divisive matters. Opposition parties in Nigeria have become champions of intemperate language abusing those in authority instead of persuasively and eloquently explaining different policies.

To make matters worse, some opposition candidates spend ample time denigrating fellow opposition candidates.

This encourages some candidates to opt out of political debates which leaves the voters short-changed having been deprived of the opportunity of hearing all candidates so as to determine the best.

G100 should focus on these issues and allow the rest of us to choose the president we want.

Pretending to gang up against an incumbent whereas some of them are agents of their own unity is unnecessary.