The real advantage Bola Ahmed Tinubu has over Peter Obi is not merely incumbency, party dominance, or political longevity. It is something deeper and more decisive: a realist understanding of Nigerian politics.
Peter Obi runs his campaign largely from an idealist standpoint. He speaks consistently about what ought to be done – free and fair elections, institutional neutrality, moral leadership, competence, integrity, and capacity.
He believes that elections should be won on the strength of a proven record, honesty, and the collective conscience of the people.
He trusts that institutions such as INEC, the judiciary, and security agencies would act without fear or favor.
These ideals are noble. They represent the Nigeria many citizens long for. But they also assume a political environment that Nigeria has not yet fully become.
The reality of Nigerian electioneering is far removed from moral theory. It is shaped by vote buying, bribery, intimidation, propaganda, manipulation, and the aggressive pursuit of personal interest over the common good.
Poverty weakens moral resistance. Fear suppresses civic courage. And institutional compromise often undermines popular will.
Even when citizens genuinely desire to vote their conscience, economic hardship can make inducement tempting. When they resist, intimidation may silence them.
And even when votes are cast correctly, results can still be altered. Justice, in many cases, becomes transactional rather than principled. In such a system, idealism alone struggles to survive, let alone prevail.
Peter Obi consciously refused to be identified with these anomalies. He chose moral clarity over political compromise. While this strengthened his credibility, it also exposed a strategic weakness.
Nigerian elections are not only contests of popularity or righteousness; they are contests of power, structure, negotiation, and institutional control.
Tinubu understands this reality. He understands that Nigerian politics is not fought in the realm of ideals but in the arena of interests.
He knows how power is built, protected, distributed, and defended within the system as it currently exists – not as it ought to exist. That understanding, more than anything else, gave him the edge.
Also see: New Hope for Rivers: How the Odili Cancer Centre Will Transform Healthcare
This is why it can be argued that Peter Obi had almost everything in his favor – mass appeal, youth support, moral authority, and national goodwill – except a sufficiently realistic electoral strategy.
In Nigeria, moral legitimacy does not automatically translate into political victory. Power often answers first to structure, not sentiment.
The hard truth is this: anyone who seeks to unseat an incumbent in Nigeria must be more realistic than idealistic. Mass support is important, but it is rarely sufficient on its own. Ideals must be backed by political machinery.
Principles must be anchored in strategy. Hope must be matched with power. This does not mean abandoning values or embracing corruption. It means recognizing that real change requires engaging reality, not ignoring it.
Idealism without realism inspires movements; realism without idealism wins elections. But only the fusion of both can truly transform a nation.
Until Nigerian politics evolves beyond its current contradictions, those who wish to lead must learn this difficult lesson: in Nigeria, elections are not won by what should be – but by how things actually are.
George E. Udoh
