By Mohammed Bello Doka
In the labyrinth of Nigerian politics, the influence of Northern Nigeria has long been a defining factor. The region’s political dominance has shaped the direction of the country, from military regimes to civilian governments. But with this power comes a complex question: Is Northern Nigeria’s political dominance a blessing or a curse?
For decades, the North has held a significant portion of Nigeria’s political leadership, from the presidency to key ministerial positions. The dominance of Northern elites, both in government and within traditional structures, has often been seen as a stabilizing force for the country. However, critics argue that this control has perpetuated inequality, fueled ethnic and religious divisions, and hindered national progress.
This article explores the historical, economic, and social implications of Northern Nigeria’s political dominance and delves into whether the region’s power is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to the country’s overall growth.
A Historical Context: The Northern Political Machine
Northern Nigeria's political dominance has deep historical roots, dating back to the colonial era when the British administration favored the North in terms of governance structures. The Northern Protectorate was the largest and most influential of the British colonial territories, both geographically and in terms of the political hierarchy. The British colonialists established a system that maintained the strength of the emirate system in the North, preserving a hierarchical political structure that still influences the region today.
After independence in 1960, the North remained a key player in Nigerian politics, with Northern elites playing pivotal roles in both civilian and military governments. The region produced Nigeria’s first Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and held a significant portion of leadership positions in the post-independence governments.
During the military era, Northern generals like General Yakubu Gowon, General Muhammadu Buhari, and General Ibrahim Babangida exercised enormous influence over the country. Even after the return to civilian rule in 1999, the North continued to produce influential leaders. The emergence of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua as president in 2007, followed by Muhammadu Buhari in 2015, demonstrated the region’s continued political relevance.
The North and the Presidency: A Long-Standing Tradition
The presidency of Nigeria has largely been held by Northern elites. Since independence, 12 out of 16 Nigerian presidents (both military and civilian) have hailed from the North. This dominance is further underscored by the fact that the North has often occupied the presidency for the longest periods in Nigerian history.
In recent years, the zoning arrangement—which alternates the presidency between the North and South—has been a source of controversy. Critics argue that it has led to political exclusion in the South, particularly with the continuous presidency of Muhammadu Buhari, who served two terms from 2015 to 2023.
Some argue that this system has ensured stability and political equilibrium in a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria. Dr. Bala Usman, a historian and political analyst, explains:
“The zoning arrangement has historically been necessary to maintain national unity, especially in a country as diverse as Nigeria. The North, being the most populous region, has had to shoulder a greater portion of leadership responsibilities to ensure that all ethnic groups are represented.”
However, this argument fails to address the growing sentiment in the South, where many believe that Northern domination has stifled their political ambitions and sidelined their concerns. The South feels that they are disproportionately represented in the executive branch of government, a situation that has been exacerbated by the increasing concentration of power in the hands of Northern political elites.
The Economic and Social Divide: The North and the Rest of Nigeria
While Northern Nigeria holds significant political power, the region continues to lag behind in key areas like education, infrastructure, and health. Despite controlling much of the country’s political and military apparatus, the North remains one of the poorest regions in Nigeria.
According to the National Bureau of Statistics, the North-West and North-East geopolitical zones have the highest poverty rates in the country, with over 70% of the population living below the poverty line. The literacy rate in these areas is also among the lowest, with female education being particularly problematic.
In 2020, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reported that Northern Nigeria had the highest proportion of out-of-school children, especially in the North-East, which has been ravaged by insurgency. The Boko Haram insurgency has displaced millions of people, particularly in states like Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, leaving entire communities in perpetual poverty and insecurity.
Amina Mohammed, a gender rights advocate from Kaduna, laments:
“Northern Nigeria has all the political power, but it hasn’t translated into economic development or social progress. We need leadership that prioritizes education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Until that happens, we’ll continue to lag behind.”
This stark economic divide raises a critical question: Does the concentration of political power in the North ultimately benefit its people? Many argue that the region’s political elites have failed to use their power to address these deep-rooted issues. Instead, their control over political institutions has often led to policies that benefit the elite, rather than the common people.
Political Elites and the Status Quo: Beneficiaries of Power
Another concern surrounding Northern political dominance is the role of political elites who have maintained control over the region's political machinery for decades. These elites, who include former military leaders, traditional rulers, and powerful businessmen, are often accused of manipulating the system to preserve their own power and wealth.
For example, the recent controversy surrounding oil blocks and the allocation of government contracts often points to a pattern of favoritism towards Northern elites. Many of these elites have maintained their grip on power through patronage systems and clientelism, where access to resources and political appointments is given to loyal followers, further entrenching their dominance.
Nigerian economist and social commentator, Dr. Ayo Adeyemi, states:
“Northern Nigeria’s dominance in politics has been largely shaped by a network of elites who are not necessarily interested in the progress of the masses. Their main concern is maintaining the status quo to protect their own economic and political interests.”
This system has resulted in a political oligarchy that has kept a tight grip on power while denying ordinary citizens the opportunity to influence policy. While Northern Nigeria boasts many influential political figures, these leaders have often failed to deliver on promises of social and economic reforms.
Is Northern Political Dominance a Blessing or a Curse?
The question remains: Is Northern Nigeria’s political dominance a blessing or a curse?
Supporters of the status quo argue that the region’s political dominance has ensured national stability and unity in the face of Nigeria’s diversity. The political power of Northern Nigeria has contributed to a more centralized and cohesive nation, particularly through ethnic balancing and political compromises.
However, critics argue that the concentration of power in the North has stunted the country’s growth and perpetuated inequality. The lack of significant development in Northern Nigeria, despite its political clout, reveals a leadership failure. Economic disparity, educational shortcomings, and poor governance continue to plague the region, with many questioning the effectiveness of Northern leadership in addressing the issues that matter most to its citizens.
The situation is further complicated by the growing dissatisfaction in the South, where calls for restructuring and a more equitable distribution of political power, tax revenue etc are intensifying.
Conclusion
Northern Nigeria’s political dominance is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it has played a central role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape and maintaining a semblance of national unity. On the other hand, it has perpetuated economic disparities, failed to address developmental needs, and concentrated power in the hands of a few.
As the country moves toward the 2027 elections and beyond, the question of whether Northern dominance will continue to benefit Nigeria or hold it back remains to be seen. Ultimately, for Nigeria to achieve true progress, political power must be decentralized and more inclusive, ensuring that every region—regardless of size or population—has a say in the future of the nation.