Awell-known African proverb says: “Let the Eagle perch; let the Hawk perch.” Its meaning finds a close parallel in the English expression: “Live and let live.” Both convey a simple but powerful truth: Space must exist for all to participate and coexist in any shared endeavour. No one should deprive the other the privilege of coexistence and participation in whatever circumstance.

However, the proverb does not end there. It carries a stern warning: “Any bird that says the other should not perch, let its wings break.” This means, in essence, that when coexistence is denied, whether subtly or overtly, consequences inevitably follow.

This wisdom speaks directly to the essence of democracy. At its core, democracy rests on the right of citizens to choose their leaders through open, fair and competitive elections. It guarantees the freedom of qualified individuals to seek public office without hindrance and ensures that both those in power and those in opposition can participate meaningfully in the political process. Any attempt to undermine these principles, therefore, strikes at the heart of democracy itself.

Nigeria operates under a democratic system, but public confidence in that system is increasingly waning. There is a growing sense of unease, driven by troubling developments within the political space. With general election a few months away, the instability afflicting major opposition parties, particularly, is a development many Nigerians find worrisome. It is becoming obvious that anti-democracy forces are systematically weakening the structures that sustain opposition, causing fragmentation and internal strife. This is moreso when the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is at peace with itself and the ultimate beneficiary, daily receiving defecting members of the fragmented opposition political parties.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), for instance, remains divided into rival factions, each claiming legitimacy. The crisis, which started in the political party during the 2023 elections has festered to the uneasiness of Nigerians, who earlier took it as main opposition party. The Labour Party (LP) faces a similar crisis. In both cases, party members have alleged external interference as a major cause of their internal discord. The PDP and LP are not minor political players. They were the second and third strongest contenders in the last presidential election, garnering over six million votes each, to President Bola Tinubu’s 8.9 million votes.

The African Democratic Congress (ADC), a coalition platform bringing together elements from multiple parties, has also been thrown into turmoil. The withdrawal of recognition for its National Working Committee led by Senator David Mark by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has effectively left it without a clear leadership structure. The party, like others, has alleged that external forces are responsible for its predicament.

This week, the ADC went further, accusing the federal government and the APC of plotting to prevent it from fielding candidates in the 2027 elections. This accusation was followed by mass protests at the national headquarters of the INEC by members of the political parties led by bigwigs, like Peter Obi, Atiku Abubakar, Rabiu Kwankwaso, Rauf Aregbesola, Chibuike Amaechi, Aminu Tambuwal and others. This came on the heels of the ADC’s earlier expressions of no confidence in the INEC and the demand for the resignation of its chairman, Prof Joash Amupitan.

Such developments raise serious concerns about the health of Nigeria’s democratic space. A vibrant opposition is not a nuisance. It is an essential pillar of democratic governance. Without it, accountability weakens, excesses flourish, and public trust erodes. A country without opposition is like a kingdom, where the whims and caprices of those in authority prevail without questions, whether good or bad.

More troubling in the polity is the fact that some voices within the ruling party have openly mocked and celebrated the crises in opposition ranks, even suggesting that it would not matter if certain parties failed to field candidates. Heaven will not fall if ADC does not field candidates in 2027 elections, one of them arrogantly said. An inflaming statement like this, especially when left unchecked, risk reinforcing the perception that the weakening of opposition forces is neither accidental nor organic. When such statements and chest thumping coincide with recent surprise amendment of the 2026 Electoral Act that may restrict political mobility, suspicions deepen. The fear that the political playing field is being tilted to favour APC and against the opposition becomes harder to dismiss.

No matter how confident those benefitting from the crisis in opposition political parties feel, the country’s political trajectory has shown that the concentration of power and the suppression of alternative viewpoint are dangerous paths. Democracy thrives on competition. Right from the days of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Obafemi Awolowo and others of blessed memory, the country’s democracy has been based on the contest of ideas, policies, and visions as well as a test of popularity. The notion of a predetermined or unchallenged candidate undermines this process and reduces elections to mere formalities.

The perception of a plot to exclude strong opposition figures from 2027 presidential election is damaging. It breeds distrust, widens divisions, and weakens faith in democracy and institutions directly or indirectly related to this system of government. In a country as diverse as Nigeria, inclusivity is not optional. It is essential.

President Tinubu and others who benefit from the current disarray in the opposition may see no cause for concern. They may celebrate the weakness of opposition parties and dismiss their exclusion from the ballot as inconsequential. However, they should know that democracy is not sustained by elections alone. It depends on the environment in which those elections occur. Where opposition parties are unable to organise, campaign or freely participate, the process becomes fundamentally flawed. Any attempt to edge them out of the electoral process in pursuit of a sole candidate is not a show of strength, but of fear. It signals a reluctance to compete and a preference for control.

History warns against such tendencies. Power ultimately resides with the people, and there is always a threshold beyond which endurance gives way to resistance. There is a lesson to learn from the experience of the past, especially as it relates to Gen Sani Abacha, who coerced all then existing political parties into adopting him as sole presidential candidate, in an election his military government organised. The Abacha plot failed like pack of cards. That is where the warning regarding the bird, which does not want the hawk to perch, becomes germane.

For any leader who identifies as a democrat, moments like this are defining. So, it is for President Tinubu. The true test of democratic commitment lies not in rhetoric, but in the willingness to uphold fairness, even when it is inconvenient. An election without credible alternatives is not an election. It is a coronation. Coronations are not for republics. They belong to monarchies. Any leader seeking for coronation in the name of election is a threat to democracy. Such leader may ultimately engineer self-succession.

The INEC, too, carries a heavy responsibility. Its credibility depends on its neutrality and ability to guarantee a level playing field for all participants. The INEC becoming the law court, interpreting judicial pronouncements and the judge, as in the case of ADC, does not present a picture of neutrality. This action suggests bias, with the risk of eroding public trust in the entire electoral process. The INEC should find a way of redeeming itself and making the exercise it is organising an election, not a coronation.

Agreed that Nigeria’s democratic journey has not been perfect. However, it has made undeniable progress. That progress must not be reversed. Leaders, institutions, and citizens alike must recommit to the principles of fairness, tolerance, and political plurality. In the end, democracy without choice is no democracy at all. And without democracy, legitimacy cannot endure.