“The warning signs are unmistakable. Nigeria’s youth, its economic sufferers, and its disenfranchised are watching. A single misstep—a draconian law, a rigged election, or another tone-deaf display of excess—could ignite a firestorm”.
BY EMMAN USMAN SHEHU
The political upheavals in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Thailand may seem distant, but their lessons loom large over Nigeria’s fragile democracy. Public discontent, fueled by economic hardship and a creeping slide toward authoritarianism, toppled leaders in those nations. For President Bola Tinubu’s administration, the parallels are unmistakable. Nigeria’s unique political landscape offers no immunity from the risks of mass unrest or instability. With economic reforms exacerbating public suffering, a growing clampdown on dissent, and a troubling perception of corruption, the administration is treading a dangerous path. To avoid a similar fate, Tinubu must address these grievances with urgency, transparency, and a commitment to democratic principles.
Economic hardship was the spark that ignited protests in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Thailand, and Nigeria is no exception. The Tinubu administration’s flagship reforms—removing the fuel subsidy and floating the naira—were billed as bold steps toward fiscal stability. Yet, these policies have unleashed a torrent of pain: inflation has soared to over 30%, food prices have skyrocketed, and transportation costs have crippled households. The #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests, though not yet a unified movement, signal a deep well of frustration that could erupt into something far larger, as seen in Bangladesh, where economic grievances toppled a government.
The optics of these reforms are catastrophic. While Nigerians struggle to afford basic necessities, reports of extravagant government spending—such as the controversial purchase of a new presidential jet—fuel perceptions of a disconnected elite. The administration’s failure to communicate a clear timeline for economic recovery only deepens public skepticism. For reforms to succeed, they must be paired with immediate relief measures: targeted subsidies for vulnerable populations, investment in public transportation to offset fuel costs, and a transparent plan to stabilize the naira. Without these, the administration risks alienating the masses, inviting the kind of unrest that reshaped Nepal and Bangladesh.
More alarming is the Tinubu administration’s drift toward authoritarian tactics, a pattern that mirrors the missteps of ousted regimes in Nepal and Bangladesh. Nepal’s social media ban was a flashpoint for violent protests; Nigeria is not there yet, but the signs are ominous. The administration’s crackdown on dissent is multifaceted and chilling. Consider the Rivers State crisis, where political interference has fueled a violent standoff between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his predecessor, Nyesom Wike, now a Tinubu ally. The federal government’s alleged backing of Wike’s faction, including the use of security forces to intimidate Fubara’s supporters, smacks of strong-arm tactics to consolidate power. This meddling risks destabilizing one of Nigeria’s economic powerhouses, alienating voters, and signaling a broader intent to suppress opposition.
The administration’s apparent push for a one-party state further erodes democratic norms. The All Progressives Congress (APC) has been accused of orchestrating defections and manipulating local elections to marginalize opposition parties. In states like Edo and Ondo, allegations of electoral malfeasance and the use of federal might to sway outcomes have raised concerns about the APC’s intent to dominate Nigeria’s political landscape. This mirrors Thailand’s political crisis, where institutional manipulation undermined democratic choice, paving the way for instability.
Dissent is increasingly under siege. The detention of journalists, the use of the Cybercrimes Act to prosecute critics, and the harassment of activists like Omoyele Sowore—who was ordered to delete a tweet criticizing Tinubu—signal a government intolerant of scrutiny. The Senate’s hostility toward Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a vocal critic, exemplifies this trend. Her outspokenness on governance issues has been met with public reprimands and attempts to silence her, raising questions about the legislature’s commitment to free debate. These actions alienate Nigeria’s youth, who rely on platforms like X to voice their frustrations. A heavy-handed move to restrict social media or escalate crackdowns could ignite the kind of mass protests that brought Nepal to its knees.
Machiavellian methods are being deployed to suppress the opposition, a dangerous trend that fundamentally contradicts the country’s democratic principles. These tactics, which prioritize the acquisition and maintenance of power by any means necessary, are evident in the government’s harsh response to dissent. For example, peaceful protests have been met with violence and intimidation, and organizers have faced legal and financial sanctions. The government has also been accused of using its influence to restrict media freedom and manipulate judicial processes, further limiting free expression and political opposition.
This reliance on fear and force poses a significant threat to Nigeria’s democratic institutions. When the government uses Machiavellian tactics, it erodes public trust and makes citizens cynical about the political process. Institutions like the judiciary and the press lose their independence and credibility, turning them into tools for political control rather than checks on power. This approach also increases political instability, as suppressing legitimate grievances can lead to deeper social unrest and even violence.
Ultimately, these actions are not just about silencing political opponents; they represent a fundamental rejection of the rule of law and human rights. By normalizing the use of deception, intimidation, and violence, the leadership risks transforming Nigeria’s democracy into an authoritarian system. This path endangers the rights of every citizen and undermines the very foundations of a stable and just society, replacing democratic values with a “survival of the fittest” mentality.
Corruption—or the perception of it—remains a potent driver of unrest. In Nepal, the “nepo kids” phenomenon, where elites flaunted wealth amid public suffering, stoked outrage. Bangladesh’s government fell partly due to allegations of systemic graft. Nigeria faces a similar crisis of trust. While some praise Tinubu’s administration for improving Nigeria’s Corruption Perception Index ranking, a pan-African organization’s claim that Tinubu is among the world’s most corrupt leaders has gained traction among critics. True or not, the perception of unchecked corruption—amplified by images of government officials living lavishly while Nigerians starve—erodes legitimacy.
The administration must act decisively: establish an independent anti-corruption task force, publish transparent audits of public spending, and prosecute high-profile cases without favoritism. Failure to do so risks fueling the narrative that the government is complicit in elite excess, a grievance that drove protests in Bangladesh and Nepal.
The role of institutions in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Thailand underscores Nigeria’s vulnerability. In Bangladesh, the military intervened amid chaos; in Thailand, the judiciary shaped leadership changes. Nigeria’s history of military coups, though distant, looms as a shadow. The judiciary, already embroiled in controversies over the 2023 election, is a particular concern. Allegations of bias in rulings favoring the APC threaten to undermine public confidence. If the judiciary is perceived as a tool of the ruling party, it could spark a crisis of legitimacy, inviting unrest or even institutional overreach.
The Tinubu administration stands at a precipice. To avoid the fate of Nepal, Bangladesh, and Thailand, it must act with precision and urgency. Economically, it should complement reforms with immediate relief: food subsidies, job creation programs, and investments in renewable energy to reduce fuel dependency. Politically, it must reverse its authoritarian drift. Ending the harassment of journalists, respecting judicial independence, and allowing opposition voices to thrive are non-negotiable. The Rivers State crisis demands neutrality, not partisan interference. Above all, the administration must improve its optics—communicating empathy, transparency, and accountability to a weary public.
The warning signs are unmistakable. Nigeria’s youth, its economic sufferers, and its disenfranchised are watching. A single misstep—a draconian law, a rigged election, or another tone-deaf display of excess—could ignite a firestorm. Tinubu’s legacy hinges on whether he can heed these lessons, steering Nigeria away from the brink and toward a future of stability and trust.
…Dr Shehu is an Abuja-based writer, activist and educator
