There is a difference between strategy and noise; between patient coalition-building and opportunistic appropriation; between political craftsmanship and the loud desperation of those who mistake agitation for relevance. That difference is what separates Bola Ahmed Tinubu from the current chorus of voices crying wolf over a so-called drift toward a one-party state.
Let us be clear: history is not on the side of the alarmists. In 2007, when the political climate was far from friendly and the machinery of power appeared firmly tilted in one direction, Tinubu did not run from pillar to post lamenting about democratic extinction. He did not organise theatrical protests or weaponise victimhood, though he was glaringly a victim of vicious victimisation. Instead, he stayed rooted in his political ideology, consolidated his base, and methodically built alliances. From the ashes of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) to the emergence of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), and ultimately to the historic merger that birthed the All Progressives Congress (APC), his approach was defined by discipline, foresight, and strategic patience.
Contrast that with the current theatrics surrounding the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The loudest critics today, including Atiku Abubakar, David Mark, Rauf Aregbesola, Peter Obi, and their associates, are not engaging in the hard work of building a viable political alternative. Instead, they appear more interested in hijacking an existing platform while crying foul about the very system they have repeatedly failed to navigate effectively.
It is both ironic and disappointing that Aregbesola, once a central figure in Tinubu’s political odyssey, now seems to have abandoned the very principles that defined that journey. This was a man who stood shoulder to shoulder with Tinubu during the most turbulent periods, when the South-West was politically isolated, when rebuilding required grit, and when reclaiming lost ground demanded more than rhetoric. From AD to AC, from ACN to APC, Aregbesola was not just a participant; he was a witness to the power of structure, patience, and lawful political engineering. That he now finds himself aligned with what can only be described as political shortcut-seekers raises serious questions about consistency and conviction.
The accusation that President Tinubu is orchestrating a one-party state is not only exaggerated; it is intellectually lazy. Democracy does not guarantee the success of opposition parties but it guarantees the freedom to organise, to campaign, and to persuade. If the opposition fails to inspire confidence, fails to unite around coherent ideas, and fails to build durable structures, the blame cannot be outsourced to the incumbent.
What we are witnessing is not the death of opposition, but the failure of opposition leadership. Rather than investing in grassroots mobilisation, ideological clarity, and strategic mergers, these political actors have chosen the easier path: outrage without organisation. They shout about exclusion while neglecting inclusion within their own ranks. They decry dominance while refusing to do the hard work required to compete.
Tinubu’s political legacy, whether one agrees with him or not, is built on an undeniable truth: power is not handed over in sympathy; it is earned through structure, resilience, and long-term thinking. The APC did not emerge from protests. It emerged from painstaking negotiations, calculated risks, and an unwavering commitment to a shared objective.
Those attempting to commandeer the ADC would do well to study that history instead of distorting it. Political relevance cannot be stolen; it must be built. And until they understand that fundamental principle, their protests will remain what they are today — mere echoes of frustration in the absence of strategy.
