THE CALCULUS OF DEFECTION: Power over principle, by Umar Isa Suleiman
In the grand, often chaotic theater of Nigerian politics, few acts are as brazenly symbolic of the disconnect between power and the people as the spectacle of a sitting governor decamping to the ruling party at the center. This political migration, euphemistically called “defecting” “cross-carpeting,” is rarely a quiet affair. It is often marked by open invitation or massive calls by supporters’ machinery. Yet, amidst these headlines, a crucial stakeholder is conspicuously absent from the calculus: the voter.
The recent political landscape has become a revolving door. Governors elected on the platforms of opposition parties—having ridden to power on the promises, hopes, and votes of their constituents—increasingly find the allure of the “center” irresistible. Their defection is typically framed in the lofty language of “national integration,” “alignment with progressive forces,” or the need to “bring development to my people.” However, the subtext is understood by all: it is a cold, hard political calculation for survival, access, and influence.
The reasons for this pilgrimage to the ruling party are nakedly pragmatic:
- The Magnetism of Federal Might: In a system where the federal government controls vast resources, joining the ruling party is seen as a direct pipeline to federal projects, interventions, and patronage. It is a bid to secure favors, avoid political persecution from federal agencies, and ensure financial viability for their states and, often, for their own political futures.
- Immunity and Political Survival: With the ruling party controlling the federal apparatus, being in opposition can be a precarious existence. Defection is frequently a pre-emptive strike—a move to secure protection, derail corruption investigations, or gain leverage in internal party disputes. It is survivalism, not ideology.
- The Second-Term or Post-Tenure Agenda: For many, the jump is about life after the governorship—a senatorial ticket, a ministerial appointment, or simply retaining relevance under the protective umbrella of national power. The ruling party at the center offers the most guaranteed landing strip.
Where does this leave the voter?
In this high-stakes game of musical chairs, the citizen who stood in the sun to vote is rendered irrelevant. This decampment represents a profound betrayal on multiple levels:
- A Mandate Discarded: The voter elected a candidate based on a party’s manifesto, a set of promises, and an implied allegiance to a certain political vision. When a governor defects, they unilaterally invalidate that mandate. The votes cast for the party’s ideals are transferred, without consent, to a different platform—often the very one the voter consciously rejected.
- The Erosion of Opposition and Accountability: A healthy democracy thrives on a vibrant opposition. When opposition governors routinely defect, it weakens the checks and balances essential for democracy. It creates a hegemonic landscape where one party grows ever larger, not through persuasive governance or public appeal, but through strategic absorption of its rivals. This diminishes political choice and stifles robust debate.
- Cynicism and Disillusionment: Each defection reinforces a public narrative that politics is solely about personal gain, not public service. It breeds apathy and cynicism, convincing the electorate that their votes are meaningless in the face of backroom deals. The message is clear: political loyalty is to the source of power, not to the source of the mandate—the people.
A system designed for betrayal?
The ease with which these defections occur points to a systemic failure. The constitutional provision meant to check this—the doctrine of a “mandate” belonging to the party—has been weakened by judicial interpretations that often prioritize the ambitions of the individual politician over the collective will of the party and its supporters.
Ultimately, the parade of decamping governors is a stark symptom of a democracy where institutions are weak and personal interests are strong. It reveals a system where power is centralized to such a degree that subnational actors feel compelled to bend the knee for survival and access.
In this calculus of defection, voters are mere spectators, their electoral choices rendered negotiable currency in a trade they never authorized. Until this dynamic changes—through stronger party ideologies, internal democracy, enforceable anti-defection norms, and a decentralization of power and resources—the carousel will keep spinning. And with every turn, the fundamental notion that the voter is sovereign will become little more than a wistful illusion, recited during campaigns and forgotten in the corridors of power.
Umar Isa Sulaiman, a law teacher, practitioner and a public affairs analyst, lives in Kano.
