Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s ‘Politics without bitterness’ and the remaking of Nigerian elite (II)
“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”, Mahatma Gandhi If the first task of Nigeria’s post-colonial elite was to secure independence, the unfinished task of our time is to complete nation-building. That task has remained elusive largely because the ruling class – political, business and bureaucratic […]
“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”, Mahatma Gandhi
If the first task of Nigeria’s post-colonial elite was to secure independence, the unfinished task of our time is to complete nation-building. That task has remained elusive largely because the ruling class – political, business and bureaucratic – has failed to evolve into a genuinely national elite. Instead, it has remained trapped within the ethnic and regional cages of its own making, unable to transcend the very divisions it was expected to overcome.
In many respects, the predicament of contemporary Nigerian politics stands in sharp contrast to the ethos embodied by late Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim during the Second Republic. His advocacy of “politics without bitterness” was not merely a personal disposition, but a conscious attempt to shape the tone and conduct of political engagement in a fragile and diverse polity.
For Waziri Ibrahim, politics was not war by other means; it was a disciplined corporate engagement among competitors who nonetheless recognised their shared responsibility for the survival of the Nigerian state. That insight appears even more relevant today. One of the most visible expressions of elite failure, precisely the kind Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim sought to moderate, has been the entrenchment of zoning and rotational politics.
Leadership selection has increasingly been reduced to ethnic and religious arithmetic, where offices are allocated primarily to appease regions and religious constituencies rather than to reward competence or vision. Although such arrangements were conceived as mechanisms for managing diversity and preventing marginalisation and domination, they have in practice institutionalised mediocrity and weakened accountability.
The consequence is that elections are rarely contests of ideas. Nigerians seldom ask what policies a candidate intends to pursue or what vision they offer for national transformation. The first and often decisive question they ask is: where does the candidate come from? What is his or her tribe and religion? In direct contradiction to the spirit of Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s politics without bitterness, identity has come to eclipse capacity, while performance has become secondary to provenance.
In this set-up, merit is frequently subordinated to the imperatives of “balance” and appeasement.
In such an environment, politics inevitably becomes bitter. It is bitter because it is existential. It is existential because the culture of what the Kanuri call “warne kashe” or grab and run, has become the norm and the dominant ethos of politics in Nigeria today.
When access to power determines not only authority but also economic advantage, influence, and group prestige, elections become high-stakes struggles in which defeat is perceived as collective loss. This is precisely the condition that Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim appeared to caution against, a politics in which competition loses its civility and becomes a brutal contest for survival. As was his wont, Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim would go to the State House at Dodan Barracks to partake in the delicacy of the North, “Fura da Nono” with his friend and rival, former President Alhaji Shehu Shagari and reminisce about old times.
It is this structural condition of unchecked rivalry and competition, as much as individual failings, that has made Nigerian politics combustible and divisive. Yet, if bitterness has structural roots, its removal must also be structural. The revival of Waziri Ibrahim’s vision of politics without bitterness therefore requires more than appeals to civility; it demands a fundamental reordering of political behaviour, institutional arrangements, party politics, and elite reimagining.
At the moral level, politics must be redefined. The pursuit of power for its own sake must give way to an understanding of leadership as stewardship. In the spirit of Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim, those who seek office must see themselves not as representatives of sectional entitlement, but as stewards and custodians of a national trust. Leadership must be guided by restraint, discipline, and responsibility.
The language of politics must equally change. Public discourse must move away from insult, demonisation, blackmail, and incitement toward reasoned disagreement and respectful contestation. Opponents must be treated as political rivals, not as mortal enemies. This was the essence of Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s political method which was firm in conviction, yet measured in tone.
But moral exhortation alone is insufficient. The structure of politics must also shift away from identity mobilisation toward issue-based engagement. Political competition must increasingly be framed around policies, programmes, and measurable outcomes rather than ancestry or affiliation. Nigerians must begin to ask not simply where a candidate comes from, but what he or she intends to do. Political parties, in turn, must evolve beyond loose coalitions of convenience and interests into institutions rooted in ideas, programmes, and discipline, which is an evolution that Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s approach implicitly anticipated.
This transformation cannot occur without strengthening institutions. One of the reasons politics in Nigeria is so bitter is that power is excessively centralised and highly rewarding. Winning office often means controlling resources, appointments, and influence in ways that make political competition existential. To reduce this intensity, institutions must be strengthened so that governance does not depend solely on the disposition of those in power.
The rule of law must be applied consistently. Electoral processes must be credible and transparent. Public institutions must function independently of partisan pressures. Equally important is the cultivation of a truly national elite. Nigeria cannot progress if its leaders continue to think and act primarily as representatives of sectional interests. A new elite must emerge that is capable of speaking to, and for, all Nigerians, of building bridges across divides, and of advancing a shared national vision.
This requires a deliberate shift in orientation, as Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim himself exemplified, away from regional loyalty to national responsibility; from patronage to performance; and from entitlement to service. Political parties must play a central role in this transformation. As the vehicles through which political power is organised and contested, they must become more than election platforms. Internal democracy must be strengthened. Candidate selection must be transparent and merit-based. Party structures must encourage discipline, accountability, and ideological clarity.
Without strong parties, the culture of politics will remain transactional and unstable. The role of citizens is equally critical. Politics without bitterness cannot be sustained by elites alone; it must be reinforced by public expectation and perception. Citizens must reject divisive rhetoric and hold leaders accountable for their conduct. The Nigerian masses must cease to be treated and must cease to allow themselves to be used as combustible material for political mobilisation.
Civic education must promote tolerance, democratic norms, and a sense of shared destiny. The media, too, must exercise restraint and responsibility, avoiding sensationalism that inflames tensions and instead fostering informed and balanced discourse. Ultimately, leadership by example will be decisive. Political culture is shaped from the top. When leaders demonstrate restraint, fairness, and magnanimity, they set standards that others are compelled to follow.
Nigeria needs leaders like Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim who can rise above the temptations of division, who can speak not only to their constituencies but to the nation as a whole, and who can place long-term stability above short-term advantage. In many respects, this was the enduring lesson of Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s political life. He moved out of his comfort zone and privileges as a multi-millionaire to take upon himself the arduous task of serving his country. The remaking of the Nigerian elite is therefore both a political necessity and a moral imperative.
A ruling class that continues to operate within the narrow confines of ethnicity and region will perpetuate cycles of bitterness, instability, and underdevelopment. But an elite willing to undergo transformation in moral, institutional, and intellectual terms, can unlock the immense potential of this country. Nigeria stands at a crossroads. We can continue along the path of division, where politics remains a bitter contest of identities and a struggle for dominance. Or we can choose a different path, in which governance is understood as a shared responsibility and leadership as a sacred trust.
Perhaps the time has come for a new generation of Nigerian leaders to rediscover Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim’s vision not as a slogan, but as a governing ethic rooted in restraint, responsibility, and service. Only then will politics without bitterness become more than a memory. Only then will the remaking of the Nigerian elite truly begin.