The 2023 electoral cycle in Nigeria permanently altered the country’s political lexicon with the popularization of a single Yoruba phrase: *Emilokan*, translating directly to “It is my turn.” Coined by Bola Ahmed Tinubu during a fiery, historic address in Abeokuta prior to the All Progressives Congress presidential primaries, the phrase came to symbolize the absolute zenith of personalized political ambition. Yet, a critical look at Nigeria’s modern democratic trajectory reveals a deeper, more troubling truth. The structural and psychological precedent for this entitlement ethos was not invented by Tinubu. It was blueprinted, tested, and legitimized by Muhammadu Buhari, and it remains the exact same psychological driver fueling the perpetual presidential bids of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. Tinubu merely gave a catchy name to an entitlement virus that had already become the standard operational manual for achieving power across all major political factions in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
To understand where this culture of ownership over the state truly began, one must look back to the years preceding the 2015 transition. Before the grand coalition of the All Progressives Congress was ever forged, Muhammadu Buhari ran for the presidency three consecutive times, failing in 2003, 2007, and 2011. Following his 2011 defeat, tears were shed publicly, and declarations were made that his quest had come to an end. Yet, by 2013, a mega-merger brought together diverse regional political blocs. The unwritten but heavily implied narrative driving Buhari’s fourth run in 2015 was built entirely on a foundation of political entitlement. The prevailing sentiment was that the country somehow owed him the chance to fix its deep-seated issues, and that it was a specific region’s absolute turn to hold power. When Buhari ultimately assumed office, it established a dangerous precedent. It signaled to the entire political elite that the presidency could be claimed not as a reward for the most innovative policy ideas or contemporary governance strategies, but as a lifetime achievement award or a settlement of historic political perseverance.
When Tinubu stood at the podium in Abeokuta in 2022, facing intense institutional resistance from the presidency’s inner circle, he did not invent a new doctrine. Instead, he simply demanded immediate payment on the political invoice he had served during the Buhari era. By spelling out the exact mechanics of how he had backed Buhari after multiple failures, Tinubu pulled back the curtain on elite politics. He formalized what Buhari’s political journey had already proven, openly asserting that the highest office in the land could be treated as a transactional baton in a multi-stage relay race among elite power brokers.
This syndrome, however, is entirely bipartisan and finds an equally vivid manifestation in the political career of Atiku Abubakar. Atiku’s relentless pursuit of the presidency spans decades, stretching across a record multiple separate attempts, including his recent shift to secure the African Democratic Congress ticket for the 2027 race. Even as the political landscape shifts and the nation cries out for generational renewal, the driving force behind his continuous positioning remains rooted in the exact same *Emilokan* mindset. The subtext of his perennial candidacy is the belief that his extensive political pedigree, his past investments in the democratic transition, and his status as a veteran state actor somehow entitle him to the ultimate prize. Like his contemporaries, his ambition operates on the premise that longevity equals a right to rule. This persistent determination, despite repeated rejections by the electorate, mirrors the precise entitlement template set by Buhari. It reinforces the idea that the presidency is a personal destination to be arrived at through sheer endurance, rather than a sacred mandate dependent on evolving national needs.
The negative impact of this widespread leadership entitlement on Nigerian politics cannot be overstated. When the psychological driving force of leadership selection is reduced to whose turn it is or who has waited the longest, governance inevitably suffers a catastrophic decline. Policy innovation, economic literacy, and vision are relegated to secondary concerns while political longevity and structural loyalty take center stage. This culture of inheritance destroys internal party democracy, transforming political parties into mere vehicles for elite coronation rather than platforms for robust ideological debate. Primaries are routinely manipulated through heavy-handed zoning formulas or consensus threats just to clear the path for the most entitled candidate.
Most damaging of all is the deep citizen alienation and the total collapse of accountability this syndrome breeds. When leaders believe the presidency is an inheritance or a reward for past political investments, their sense of accountability shifts entirely away from the electorate and toward their network of political debtors. This creates a severe psychological disconnect where an administration views governing not as a demanding public service, but as a period to enjoy the spoils of a hard-won personal prize. Until leadership in Nigeria is treated strictly as a rigorous job interview based on measurable competence and verifiable track records, rather than a hereditary or transactional turn, the true potential of the nation’s democracy will remain entirely unfulfilled.
