Three thinkers--Vilfredo Pareto, Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci--wrote in different centuries and contexts, but they shared a conviction: power in all societies rests with a small group.
Whatever we call them--elite, born-to-rule, or ruling classes--they are always at the top, deciding. This fact worries many who believe in democracy, but it should not make us lose hope for a good society. The problem should not be the presence of the elite in our society. Instead, we need to consider how they should be replaced, challenged and held to account.
Any move toward a one-party system in Nigeria must be resisted, whether at the national level, given how the APC chairman, Ganduje, is advocating for it, or at the subnational level, as proclaimed by the governor of Kaduna State. The local government tier has already become a one-party system, following a full capture by their respective governors.
Like other societies, Nigeria's political system is embedded with elite dominance. Post-1999 civilian rule was meant to bring a new democratic order. But in reality, it is only a change of cap between a group of powerful elite, not a change of direction.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
We have decent political godfathers, party financiers, regional elders, retired military officers and retired civil servants who have dominated every administration. But these leaders are simultaneously surrounded by dodgy oil billionaires, convicted drug dealers and other crooks.
Formalising our democracy into a one-party state--whether in law or through the collapse of opposition--would not end elite rule. But the agenda of the present elite is to end the possibility of being replaced by another group. A one-party system makes governance more opaque; the less others know, the less they know what they are doing wrong. Their goal is to use elections to legitimise power instead of challenging it.
Pareto argued that all societies are inevitably governed by a minority elite, which rotates over time but never disappears. Elites hide their true self-interest by claiming to represent the common interests of the people through patronage, religion, or regional affiliation. But it is a façade to remain in power or take it. This happens even within the same party in Nigeria. Like Tinubu after Buhari, Uba Sani and El-Rufai or Wike and Fubara.
He believed that over time, these elites lose their passion to govern, grow corrupt, and are replaced by new ones--a process he called the "circulation of elites." A simple rotation of one ruling class giving way to another.
Pareto also divided the elites into two types: the "lions", who rule by force, and the "foxes", who rule by cunning. When lions dominate, societies become authoritarian, prone to repression. When foxes dominate, systems become manipulative, corrupt and full of empty rhetoric.
The military era was a time of lions, and the Tinubu administration's agenda seems to follow this trajectory. But in most cases, the post-1999 era has brought more foxes--masters of electoral trickery, goalpost shifting by the courts, and general rent-seeking across a wider spectrum.
Too many lions, and a society suffocates. Too many foxes, and it rots. Presently, the only legacy of the lion is insecurity and state violence. The foxes run the parties, play ethnic games, and promise what they cannot deliver. All talk, no work.
Marxists saw the elite as a product of economic structure. For them, democracy under capitalism is just a tool that the "bourgeoisie", elite, uses to protect their wealth because they own the means of production and set the rules. Nigeria fits this model closely. The economy is tied to oil, and those who control oil revenues--whether through government contracts, bunkering, or international deals--control politics.
Marx also believed that class struggle--poor versus rich--may lead to a breaking point that will end elite rule. But Nigeria has not had such a falling-out. There is class anger, but it has always been deflected through patronage or ethnic, regional and religious divisions.
Our capitalist socioeconomic structure has created a fertile environment for the elite to thrive. The ignorance in the system has manipulated the poor to see the political class as part of them. Poor voters are told their enemy is not the corrupt billionaire politician who only shares cups of rice every election season, but the neighbour from another tribe or region. This suits the elite well.
Gramsci added another layer. He argued that elites maintain control not only through money or violence, but through "hegemony"--a set of opinions, rhetorics, and narratives that win the consent of the ruled.
In Nigeria, this is clear. Religious leaders preach submission, which breeds intolerance. Traditional rulers are only used to calm communal tensions. The media propagate elite concerns. Even suffering is spiritualised: it is God's will. Slogans and emotions are used to manipulate how people think across different ethnic, religious and regional lines.
Yet Gramsci also believed in resistance--what he called "counter-hegemony." In Nigeria, there are seeds of this in trade unions, activist lawyers, youth movements, and some civil society groups. But these groups are weak, often divided, and, in many cases, compromised.
Why? Because a dangerous narrative is gaining ground--that all the dominant political parties are the same and full of elites. You hear, "PDP and APC are the same; they have changed nothing; we should discard them all." This means centralising power or pushing all the political elites to regroup in another unknown party to keep the rotation. It is pure stupid thinking.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Yes, there are elites in every party, in every religion, every region. Even among the youth, the sons of the powerful are being groomed to inherit. But this is not an argument for one-party rule. Even if all parties are elite-dominated, their competition limits excess. They expose each other's corruption. They leak secrets. They sometimes allow new entrants to sneak in.
Besides, the elites also forget that this generation of leaders is incapable of being loyal to their predecessors. This means that even within a one-party system, a new group of elites will be created once a regime changes, as we saw with the Tinubu administration after Buhari's.
Evidently, this generation of ruling elites is evolving into shameless lions and foxes with the agenda of making power hereditary. The president, Senate president, lawmakers, governors, and even former governors openly impose their children and relatives to elite positions.
This may sound discouraging, but a one-party system will only deliver racketeers, corruption, and oppression. We can agree that democracy is not perfect. It is messy, slow, and often captured. As Churchill said, it is the worst system except for all the others.
A pragmatic way to make the elite's rule less permanent, comfortable, and unchallenged is to consolidate the opposition party and insist on accountability, no matter who is in power. Better to have elite foxes fighting each other than ruling alone.
