by Mohammed Bello Doka
21 March, 2026
This piece is intended as a critique of political realism—grounded in reason, data, and verifiable facts.
In politics, sentiment may inspire movements, but numbers determine outcomes. Across history and across systems, power has never been conceded on the basis of emotion, entitlement, or moral appeal alone. It is negotiated, aggregated, and ultimately decided by those who can demonstrate strength—numerical, structural, and strategic.
This is the stark reality now confronting the African Democratic Congress (ADC) as it prepares for 2027.
As of March 11, 2026, the party’s ongoing membership registration drive has produced 652,143 new members nationwide. But beneath this impressive figure lies a far more consequential truth: 555,299 of those members—approximately 85.1%—are from Northern Nigeria, while only 96,844 (about 14.9%) come from the South.
These are not projections. They are not estimates. They are hard numbers.
And numbers, as political theorists have long argued, do not lie.
The Arithmetic of Power
A closer look at the figures reveals an even deeper imbalance:
North-East: 256,966
North-West: 201,398
North-Central (including FCT): 96,935
Total North: 555,299
Compare that with:
South-West: 37,644
South-South: 35,904
South-East: 23,296
Total South: 96,844
The implication is unavoidable: the North does not merely dominate—it overwhelmingly defines the current structure of the ADC.
In fact, Adamawa State alone (104,998 members) surpasses the entire South-East and rivals the combined strength of multiple Southern zones. Similarly, Kaduna (64,748) and Gombe (61,632) individually outperform most Southern states.
This is not just a regional advantage; it is a structural imbalance.
The Question No One Wants to Answer
Against this backdrop, a critical question emerges:
With less than 15% of the party’s membership, how does the South justify a claim to the ADC’s presidential ticket?
This is not a rhetorical provocation—it is a fundamental issue of political logic.
As the Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli famously observed, “Men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear.” In modern democratic politics, however, a third force often supersedes both: numbers.
Numbers confer legitimacy. Numbers command negotiation. Numbers determine who leads—and who follows.
To demand the highest office in a political party while contributing a fraction of its membership base raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about equity, strategy, and realism.
The Gentleman Agreement Debate
Of course, proponents of a Southern presidential ticket will point to Nigeria’s long-standing, albeit informal, power rotation principle, often described as a “gentleman agreement.”
The argument is simple: it is the South’s turn.
But does the historical record support this claim as neatly as it is often presented?
Let us examine the numbers:
Southern Leadership Since 1999
Olusegun Obasanjo: 8 years (1999–2007)
Goodluck Jonathan: 6 years (2010–2015)
Bola Ahmed Tinubu: 4 years (2023–present, ongoing)
Total: 18 years (potentially 22 years if extended to 2027)
Northern Leadership Since 1999
Umaru Musa Yar’Adua: 2 years (2007–2010)
Muhammadu Buhari: 8 years (2015–2023)
Total: 10 years
If the South were to retain power for another four years beyond 2027, the balance would shift to 22 years for the South versus 10 years for the North.
At that point, one must ask:
Is that equity? Is that balance? Is that the “gentleman agreement” often invoked in political discourse?
Or, as some critics might argue, does it begin to resemble something far less principled?
The Doctrine of Necessity Argument
Some will contend that Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency was not part of any deliberate zoning arrangement but rather the result of the Doctrine of Necessity following the illness and eventual death of President Yar’Adua.
That is historically accurate.
However, from the perspective of political balancing, the North may argue that the outcome—regardless of its origin—still contributed to the cumulative years of Southern leadership.
If the agreement is truly about balance, then, in their view, anomalies must be accounted for—not ignored.
Otherwise, the principle ceases to be a framework for fairness and becomes, in the words of Spanish philosopher Baltasar Gracián, “a mask worn not to conceal truth, but to distort it.”
Politics Is Not Charity
At its core, politics is not an exercise in charity or moral compensation. It is, fundamentally, a system of interests, negotiations, and calculated concessions.
As Machiavelli again reminds us: “The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present.”
This may sound cynical, but it reflects a hard truth: agreements in politics endure only as long as they serve the interests of those bound by them.
In the case of the ADC, the current membership distribution suggests that the North holds a decisive advantage—not just numerically, but strategically.
To ignore this reality would be to misunderstand the very nature of political power.
The Burden of Proof
This does not mean the South is excluded from contention. Far from it.
But it does mean that any Southern claim to the ADC presidential ticket must be accompanied by compelling answers to critical questions:
Can the South mobilise beyond its current 14.9% base?
Can it build alliances strong enough to offset Northern dominance?
Can it demonstrate electoral viability at a national level under the ADC platform?
Because, ultimately, a presidential ticket is not awarded—it is earned.
And it is earned not through appeals to history alone, but through demonstrable capacity to deliver victory.
The Coalition Factor
The conversation becomes even more complex when viewed through the lens of a potential coalition platform for 2027.
Coalitions, by their very nature, are built on compromise and proportionality. They reward those who bring the most to the table—votes, structures, and influence.
If the ADC is to serve as a vehicle for a broader opposition alliance, then its internal demographics will inevitably shape external negotiations.
In such a scenario, the question is not merely whether the South deserves the ticket, but whether it can justify that demand within a coalition framework driven by numbers and leverage.
A Call for Political Realism
None of this is to diminish the aspirations of any region. Nor is it to dismiss the importance of inclusivity and national balance.
Rather, it is a call for political realism.
As Gracián wisely noted, “Hope has a good memory, gratitude a bad one.” In politics, reliance on past arrangements without present strength is a risky strategy.
If the South truly seeks the ADC presidential ticket in 2027, it must do more than invoke history or agreements. It must:
Expand its membership base significantly
Strengthen its grassroots structures
Engage in strategic negotiations with clarity and leverage
Because in the end, politics is a game of give and take—but also of who has the capacity to take when it matters most.
The Final Question
The ADC’s membership data has laid bare a reality that cannot be ignored.
With 85% of its members in the North and less than 15% in the South, the party stands at a crossroads.
The question is no longer abstract. It is immediate, concrete, and unavoidable:
Can a region that constitutes a clear minority within a political party realistically demand its highest office?
Or must it first build the numbers—and the influence—to make that demand undeniable?
In politics, as in life, power concedes nothing without evidence of strength.
And as 2027 approaches, the ADC—and indeed Nigeria’s broader political landscape—will find out just how much that principle still holds.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion