Rethinking Political Polarisation in Nigeria

Political polarisation is often portrayed as one of Nigeria’s greatest contemporary challenges. Public debates, election campaigns, ethnic tensions, religious disagreements, and increasingly confrontational conversations on social media have created the impression that the country is becoming more divided with each passing year. While these concerns are not unfounded, a century of evidence from the V-Dem Political Polarisation Index tells a more complex story. Rather than following a steady upward or downward path, Nigeria’s political polarisation has fluctuated over time, reflecting the country’s changing political institutions, democratic transitions, military interventions, and national crises. The historical trend suggests that political polarisation in Nigeria is less a permanent condition than a reflection of the strength or weakness of its governing institutions.

The earliest years of the Nigerian state, following the 1914 amalgamation, recorded the lowest scores on the index, remaining around -1.81 until the late 1920s. These figures should not be interpreted as evidence of political harmony. Instead, they reflected the realities of colonial administration, where political participation was highly restricted, opposition was limited, and democratic competition was virtually absent. With little opportunity for citizens to openly contest political power, political divisions rarely emerged through formal political institutions.

As constitutional reforms gradually expanded political participation during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the index steadily improved. The rise of nationalist movements, regional political organisations, and negotiations over self-government created more opportunities for political engagement. By the years leading to independence, Nigeria had moved from approximately -1.54 to about -0.99, indicating a changing political landscape characterised by increasing participation and institutional development.

The First Republic represented one of the country’s strongest periods in the historical record. Between 1960 and 1966, political polarisation reached approximately -0.54, the highest point observed across the entire series. This period demonstrated that democratic competition does not necessarily produce destructive political divisions. On the contrary, competitive politics can coexist with institutional stability when political actors operate within accepted democratic rules.

That progress was interrupted by the military coups of 1966 and the Nigerian Civil War. The following decade witnessed a significant decline in the index as military rule centralised authority and weakened democratic institutions. Throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, political polarisation remained relatively low according to the index, reflecting prolonged periods of authoritarian governance, repeated regime changes, and limited political competition. Rather than resolving political differences, military rule largely suppressed their democratic expression.

The transition to civilian government during the late 1990s marked another turning point. Despite the political crisis surrounding the annulled June 12 election, Nigeria’s return to democracy improved the country’s long-term trajectory. By 1999, the index had recovered to approximately -0.69, suggesting renewed institutional openness and greater opportunities for political participation.

Perhaps the most revealing finding emerges from Nigeria’s democratic era. Contrary to popular assumptions, political polarisation has not consistently worsened since the return to civilian rule. Instead, the data show periods of both deterioration and recovery. Democratic governance created space for political competition, but it also exposed institutional weaknesses that became more visible during periods of economic hardship, insecurity, and intense electoral rivalry.

The most significant deterioration occurred between 2015 and 2017, when the index declined sharply to approximately -1.43. This period coincided with heightened political competition, increasing identity politics, economic pressures, growing insecurity, and more confrontational political communication. Traditional media and digital platforms amplified partisan narratives, while public confidence in political institutions came under increasing pressure.

Importantly, this decline did not become permanent. Since 2018, Nigeria has experienced a gradual improvement, reaching approximately -0.59 by 2022 and remaining at that level through 2026. Although political disagreements continue to dominate public discourse, the long-term evidence suggests that the country has recovered considerably from one of the most politically challenging periods in its recent democratic history.

The broader lesson from more than one hundred years of evidence is that political polarisation in Nigeria is closely tied to institutional development. Constitutional reforms, democratic transitions, and stronger political institutions have consistently been associated with improvements, while military interventions, democratic interruptions, and national crises have repeatedly reversed progress. The findings also challenge the widespread assumption that democracy itself creates polarisation. Instead, the evidence suggests that democracy provides a framework for managing political disagreements, while the quality of institutions determines whether those disagreements strengthen or weaken national cohesion.

Nigeria’s political history therefore offers a cautious but important message. The country’s experience demonstrates that political polarisation is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Periods of division have repeatedly been followed by recovery whenever democratic institutions have become stronger and more inclusive. The challenge facing today’s political leaders, policymakers, media organisations, and civil society is not to eliminate disagreement but to strengthen the institutions capable of managing disagreement peacefully.