Tinubu: An Authoritarian President or a Ruthless Totalitarian? By Eze Ogbu

Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s rise to power has been one of the most significant political narratives in recent Nigerian history. His political journey, influence over Lagos politics, and dominance within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) cemented his place as a pivotal figure in Nigerian governance. Yet, as his presidency unfolds, opinions diverge sharply: Is Tinubu an authoritarian leader consolidating power within established frameworks, or is he veering towards a more extreme totalitarian model, suppressing dissent and infringing on civil liberties?

Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political journey began in earnest during his tenure as the Governor of Lagos State from 1999 to 2007. During this period, he established himself as a political heavyweight, building a reputation for infrastructural projects, education reforms, and fiscal policy improvements. Tinubu leveraged his influence to build the political powerhouse known as the APC, eventually playing a critical role in the election of Muhammadu Buhari in 2015.

The 2023 presidential election saw Tinubu campaign on the promise of stability and economic growth, echoing his governance of Lagos. His victory signalled not only a political transition but also the solidification of a long-standing political dynasty. However, the transition from campaign to governance saw a shift in rhetoric and strategy, with increasing scrutiny on how Tinubu wields the power he now commands.

The early days of Tinubu’s presidency were marked by a series of strategic appointments and legislative moves aimed at consolidating his control. By appointing loyalists to key ministerial positions and the nation’s security apparatus, Tinubu signalled his intent to exercise direct influence over the state machinery. Critics argue that such moves demonstrate a shift towards centralization of authority, a classic hallmark of authoritarian leadership.

Policy reforms have also raised eyebrows. Economic initiatives, while targeting fiscal efficiency, have been accompanied by executive orders that critics perceive as bypassing traditional checks and balances. Additionally, Tinubu’s frequent use of presidential directives to influence state governments and his approach to regional security matters reflect a keen desire to maintain tight control over governance.

Tinubu’s critics label his leadership as authoritarian based on his administration’s growing reliance on state apparatuses to stifle dissent and consolidate authority. Several incidents highlight this concern:

Media Censorship: Under Tinubu’s presidency, there have been reports of increased restrictions on media outlets critical of the government. Journalists have faced intimidation, and certain news outlets have reported pressure to toe a pro-government line. Although Nigeria’s press has always faced challenges, these new developments indicate a worrisome regression.

Law Enforcement and Crackdowns: Tinubu’s administration has often justified its use of force against public protests and demonstrations as a means to ensure national stability. The deployment of security forces during public demonstrations has drawn criticism from human rights organizations, which argue that the government’s actions are a deliberate attempt to silence opposition and civil unrest.

Judicial Control: Analysts argue that Tinubu’s efforts to influence the judiciary are aimed at protecting his administration from legal challenges. Recent reshuffles and appointments within the judiciary have been criticized as attempts to politicize an independent branch of government.

The totalitarian model, characterized by absolute control over all aspects of public and private life, may not yet fully describe Tinubu’s administration, but some developments raise red flags:

Suppression of Opposition: There have been allegations of Tinubu’s government employing coercive measures to neutralize political opposition. Reports suggest that opposition politicians and activists have faced politically motivated charges, raising concerns about the administration’s respect for democratic principles.

Undermining Democratic Institutions: While an authoritarian regime often seeks control within existing structures, totalitarianism aims to fundamentally reshape those structures. In Tinubu’s case, his government has faced accusations of sidelining the National Assembly through excessive use of executive orders and directives, thus undermining the system of checks and balances critical to Nigerian democracy.

Human Rights Concerns: Totalitarian regimes typically disregard civil liberties, and reports of human rights abuses during Tinubu’s tenure, especially against ethnic minorities and protestors, contribute to this perception. Civil society organizations have raised alarms over alleged police brutality, the muzzling of human rights advocates, and restrictive laws that curb freedom of assembly.

Tinubu’s political journey is inextricably tied to his patronage networks, which remain a significant factor in understanding his approach to power. His administration has continued a pattern of leveraging business interests to consolidate political control. Tinubu’s alliances with influential business magnates have raised concerns over the administration’s ability to remain impartial and free from undue influence.

This patronage extends beyond business interests to political elites. By co-opting influential politicians and suppressing dissent within the APC, Tinubu has effectively marginalized alternative centres of power within his party. Political dissenters within the APC have either been coerced into submission or sidelined, leaving Tinubu with little internal opposition.

Public opinion on Tinubu’s presidency is divided. While some laud his decisive leadership and economic reforms, others express concerns over his tightening grip on power. Media narratives vary, with state-controlled outlets portraying Tinubu as a strong leader who prioritizes national stability, while independent journalists and opposition figures paint a bleaker picture of his administration’s heavy-handed approach.

Protests have been met with state force, with the government justifying crackdowns as necessary for preserving peace. Civil society, however, views these actions as indicators of a growing intolerance for dissent. Demonstrations against economic hardship and political repression have been violently dispersed, further solidifying perceptions of Tinubu’s administration as authoritarian.

In political science, authoritarianism is defined as a governance model where power is concentrated in the hands of a leader or a small group, with limited political freedoms but functioning societal structures. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, implies absolute control over both public and private spheres, with an intent to reshape society according to a specific ideology.

In Tinubu’s case, his administration’s actions thus far align more closely with authoritarianism. While he exhibits tendencies towards centralizing power and restricting dissent, there is little evidence to suggest a deliberate effort to control private life or impose an all-encompassing ideology. However, the trajectory of his presidency remains uncertain, and the line between authoritarianism and totalitarianism can be blurred by unchecked power.

Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s leadership has sparked a critical debate on the nature of his governance. While his actions thus far bear the hallmarks of an authoritarian leader consolidating power within a fragile democratic framework, allegations of human rights abuses and political repression raise concerns about the future of Nigeria’s democratic institutions.