Why tolerating opposition essential to democratic consolidation

Opposition parties are indispensable pillars of liberal democracy because they provide alternative viewpoints, hold governments accountable, and ensure that public policies remain subject to scrutiny. A democracy where opposition voices are silenced or marginalised gradually loses its competitive character and risks evolving into a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

When incumbents use state power to gain disproportionate advantages or suppress opponents, elections may remain procedurally free but lose meaningful competitiveness. Therefore, democratic consolidation requires not only the conduct of elections but also tolerance of dissenting voices and respect for political pluralism.

Nigeria’s democratic journey offers numerous lessons regarding the importance of opposition politics. Since the return to civilian rule in 1999, opposition parties have played a significant role in shaping political discourse and compelling governments to justify their actions. The emergence of strong opposition coalitions eventually contributed to the historic defeat of an incumbent government in 2015, proving that democratic competition can strengthen governance and deepen public participation.

Recent comments by Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the Emir of Kano and former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, have once again brought the issue of political tolerance into national focus. Speaking at the Oxford Global Think Tank Leadership Conference, Sanusi criticised the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu for what he described as an inability to accept criticism and constructive suggestions.

According to him, the government frequently interprets comments or policy recommendations it does not like as attacks rather than opportunities for improvement. He argued that governments should distinguish between hostility and constructive criticism, especially when citizens raise concerns about poverty, inflation, insecurity, and economic hardship.

What makes Sanusi’s intervention noteworthy is that it was not a wholesale condemnation of the government. While criticising its response to dissent, he also acknowledged improvements in some economic indicators under the Tinubu administration, including GDP growth, declining inflation, and improved foreign reserves.

The situation in Sokoto State provides a contemporary example of why political tolerance remains essential. The political rivalry between the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC) has intensified. The contest has been characterised by competing defections, allegations of intimidation, and disputes over political activities.

On one hand, hundreds of APC members reportedly defected to the ADC in parts of Sokoto State, citing economic hardship, insecurity, and dissatisfaction with the ruling party. Many of the defectors argued that they sought an alternative political platform that could better address the challenges facing ordinary Nigerians. On the other hand, the APC also recorded significant gains as numerous ADC members and supporters returned to the ruling party, attributing their decision to development projects and the leadership of Governor Ahmed Aliyu and Senator Aliyu Magatakarda Wamakko.

While defections are a normal feature of democratic politics, tensions escalated when the ADC accused the Sokoto State Government of obstructing its political activities. The controversy surrounding the sealing of the party’s campaign office and allegations of intimidation generated widespread debate about the rights of opposition parties to operate freely. The ADC described the action as a threat to political pluralism and accused authorities of frustrating lawful opposition activities.

The state government, however, maintained that the closure was connected to concerns about property ownership and security issues surrounding the premises. Officials argued that the action was necessary pending clarification of ownership claims and to prevent further disturbances.

Regardless of which side’s arguments eventually prevail, the controversy illustrates the delicate relationship between incumbents and opposition parties in emerging democracies. Democratic consolidation depends on ensuring that political disagreements are resolved through lawful institutions rather than intimidation, exclusion, or the suppression of rival voices.

In Kebbi State, concerns about political intolerance emerged after the African Democratic Congress alleged that its governorship campaign office was demolished. The party described the action as an attempt to suppress opposition activities and limit political competition. Although such allegations remain subjects of political contestation, they underscore the importance of protecting opposition parties’ rights to organize, campaign, and present alternative visions to the electorate. In any democratic society, the destruction or restriction of opposition infrastructure can weaken public confidence in electoral fairness and political pluralism.

Also, in Enugu, it was alleged that Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) was denied access to a campaign venue in the state. Access to venues for rallies and political meetings is a fundamental aspect of democratic participation. When opposition parties face obstacles in securing campaign locations, questions naturally arise regarding the neutrality of political institutions and the commitment of authorities to maintaining a level playing field. Regardless of political affiliation, democratic norms require that all registered parties enjoy equal opportunities to engage voters and communicate their programmes.

The implication of intolerance of opposition parties by the incumbent for democracy is profound. When opposition parties are able to operate freely, criticise government policies, and present alternative programmes without intimidation, democratic institutions become stronger, accountability is enhanced, and citizens are offered genuine political choices.