By Oyewopo Zainab
Political thuggery is not new to Nigeria. The country has witnessed, over the years, how political ambition, desperation and partisan loyalty can turn supporters into instruments of intimidation and violence. What should concern every reasonable citizen, however, is the growing tolerance for political rhetoric that treats rallies and public gatherings as potential battlefields, where supporters are expected to prepare for confrontation rather than participate in democratic engagement.
Any suggestion that political supporters should arm themselves with cutlasses, sticks or other weapons before attending political rallies is dangerous and deserves outright condemnation. A political gathering is not a battlefield, and supporters are not a private army to be mobilised against perceived enemies. Whoever promotes such an idea, regardless of political affiliation or personal influence, must understand the consequences of encouraging people to approach political activities with weapons.
The question is simple: what exactly are supporters preparing to do with these weapons? Who are they expecting to fight? Political opponents? Ordinary citizens who disagree with them? Security personnel? And what happens when a heated political disagreement turns into a violent confrontation, leaving innocent people injured or dead? These are not questions that should be dismissed as partisan attacks. They are legitimate concerns in a country that has paid a heavy price for political violence.
There is a dangerous contradiction in claiming to defend democracy while tolerating conduct that threatens the safety and freedom of others. Democracy guarantees the right to political expression, peaceful assembly and disagreement. It does not give anyone the licence to intimidate opponents, threaten citizens or turn political supporters into an armed crowd. If supporters believe they are being threatened or attacked, the appropriate response is to report the incident, demand police protection and seek lawful intervention. Arming a crowd is not a substitute for security.
This concern becomes even more troubling when viewed against the political culture of groups that frequently present themselves as the defenders and rescuers of the country. Among the Obidients and the wider political bloc associated with Peter Obi and Kwankwaso supporters, there is often a strong emphasis on patriotism, national rescue and the claim that their political struggle is for the betterment of Nigeria. Yet patriotism cannot become a convenient label used to excuse conduct that would be condemned if political opponents engaged in it.
Nobody owns patriotism. No political movement has an exclusive right to claim that it is fighting for Nigeria, and no group should appoint itself the country’s messiah while treating criticism as hostility to the nation. A person does not become patriotic simply by attaching the country’s name to a political cause. Nor does a questionable action become noble because it is presented as a sacrifice for national progress. When partisan interests are dressed up as national service, citizens have every right to question the motives and conduct behind them.
The same standard must apply to NDC supporters and every other political group. If carrying weapons to a political gathering is dangerous when supporters of one party do it, it remains dangerous when supporters of another party do it. If intimidation is unacceptable when it comes from political opponents, it cannot suddenly become courage or patriotism when it comes from one’s own camp. Selective condemnation is not a defence of democracy; it is political convenience.
Political leaders, influential figures and those who command large followings must also recognise the responsibility that comes with their influence. Words have consequences, particularly in a politically charged environment where loyal supporters may interpret aggressive rhetoric as permission to act. Leaders should be encouraging restraint, peaceful participation and respect for the law, not creating an atmosphere in which confrontation is celebrated and violence is excused as loyalty.
It is not enough to condemn political violence only when the perpetrators belong to the opposing camp. A genuine commitment to democracy requires consistency, even when the conduct in question comes from one’s own supporters. Political loyalty should never be stronger than the responsibility to protect human life and preserve public order.
Nigeria does not need political messiahs surrounded by unquestioning followers. It needs citizens who can disagree without becoming enemies, political leaders who can mobilise support without encouraging hostility, and movements that understand that the country is bigger than their ambitions.
Democracy is not a licence to intimidate. Patriotism is not a defence for political violence. And no political cause, however attractive its promises may sound, is worth turning ordinary supporters into an armed crowd.
If the objective is truly to defend democracy, then the methods used must reflect democratic values. Otherwise, Nigerians are entitled to ask: are we witnessing a genuine commitment to democracy, or the dangerous normalisation of conduct that threatens it?