Blind Loyalty And ‘Carry-Go’: The Crisis Of Nigerian Political Followership -By Isaac Asabor

Nigeria’s democracy, though enduring in form, continues to struggle in substance. Beneath the rituals of elections, campaigns, and constitutional order lies a deeper problem, one that is less discussed but far more corrosive: the culture of blind political followership. This is a culture where loyalty to individuals overrides commitment to principles, and where the so-called “dividends of democracy” enjoyed by a few quickly translate into loud calls for leadership continuity, regardless of whether the broader population is benefiting or not.

This phenomenon, popularly captured in the phrase “carry-go,” is not new. It is a recurring feature of Nigeria’s political landscape, cutting across regimes, ideologies, and generations. Once a leader secures a base of beneficiaries, whether through patronage, political appointments, or economic advantage, the machinery of continuity is set in motion. The narrative becomes less about performance and more about preserving access.

History offers sobering examples. During the regime of Sani Abacha, a period widely regarded as one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s governance, a surprising movement emerged urging him to transition into a civilian president and continue in power. The widely publicized two-million-man march in Abuja in 1998 was presented as a spontaneous outpouring of public support. In reality, it reflected a carefully orchestrated effort driven by vested interests who stood to gain from the perpetuation of his rule. That such a campaign could gain momentum under a regime marked by repression and corruption underscores how deeply entrenched the “carry-go” mentality is in Nigeria.

The return to civilian rule did little to dismantle this culture. Under Muhammadu Buhari, similar tendencies surfaced. While his administration had its supporters and achievements, it also faced widespread criticism over economic hardship, insecurity, and governance challenges. Yet, within political circles, there were murmurs, sometimes subtle, sometimes explicit, about extending his leadership beyond constitutional limits. Even where such ambitions did not materialize, their mere existence revealed a troubling mindset: that leadership should be preserved not because it is universally beneficial, but because it serves the interests of a select few.

Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the pattern is repeating itself with striking familiarity. Barely three years into his administration, various groups and individuals have begun advocating for his continued stay in power. What is notable is that these calls are not necessarily anchored in a clear, nationwide consensus that the government is delivering transformative results. Instead, they often emerge from politically aligned groups, beneficiaries of government policies, and individuals seeking relevance within the corridors of power.

The recent controversy involving Nollywood personalities such as Kunle Afolayan, Yomi Fash-Lanso, Ayo Adesanya, and Remi Surutu illustrates how this culture is sustained and amplified. Their participation in the launch of a political support group backing President Tinubu’s re-election bid sparked significant backlash. Many Nigerians viewed the move as tone-deaf, particularly in light of the economic difficulties facing ordinary citizens, rising inflation, high fuel costs, and persistent insecurity.

The criticism was not simply about celebrities expressing political preferences. Rather, it reflected a deeper frustration with a system in which influential figures appear disconnected from the everyday struggles of the people they claim to represent. When those who enjoy privilege and visibility use their platforms to promote continuity without addressing pressing national issues, it reinforces the perception that political advocacy in Nigeria is often driven by self-interest rather than collective welfare.

Movements such as the City Boy initiative further complicate the picture. While presented as platforms for youth empowerment and civic engagement, they frequently carry an implicit agenda of sustaining the current political order. The emphasis on explaining government policies and mobilizing grassroots support often blurs the line between civic education and political indoctrination. More troubling is the underlying message that continuity should be pursued irrespective of measurable outcomes, a stance that undermines the very essence of democratic accountability.

Even more alarming are statements from figures like Sunday Adeyemo, who have openly advocated not only for a second term for Tinubu but for his continuation in power beyond constitutionally permitted limits. Such rhetoric is not merely controversial; it is dangerous. It challenges the foundational principles of democracy, which are built on periodic leadership change, checks and balances, and the sovereignty of the electorate.

At its core, the persistence of the “carry-go” mentality is rooted in Nigeria’s patronage-driven political system. Access to state resources often determines political loyalty. Those who benefit, whether through contracts, appointments, or other forms of advantage, develop a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Their support for continuity is therefore less about national progress and more about protecting personal or group interests.

This dynamic creates a cycle that is difficult to break. Leaders, aware of the loyalty such benefits can generate, may prioritize rewarding supporters over implementing policies that serve the broader population. In turn, these supporters amplify narratives that justify continued rule, even in the face of widespread dissatisfaction. The result is a political environment where accountability is weakened, and governance becomes secondary to the pursuit of power.

For the average Nigerian, the consequences are severe. Critical issues, such as insecurity, unreliable electricity, poor healthcare, and the rising cost of living, are often overshadowed by political maneuvering. Instead of focusing on solutions, public discourse becomes dominated by debates over who should remain in power. This not only diverts attention from urgent national challenges but also erodes trust in democratic institutions.

Furthermore, the culture of blind followership stifles healthy political competition. Opposition voices are frequently dismissed or vilified, and alternative visions for national development struggle to gain traction. In such an environment, democracy becomes less about choice and more about endorsement of the status quo.

It is important to acknowledge that in any democracy, incumbents have the right to seek re-election. However, such aspirations should be grounded in performance, accountability, and the consent of an informed electorate. Continuity should be earned, not manufactured through propaganda or sustained by patronage networks.

Breaking this cycle requires a fundamental shift in mindset. Nigerians must move beyond personality-driven politics and embrace issue-based engagement. Support for any leader should be conditional on measurable progress and a demonstrable commitment to the public good. Citizens must resist the temptation to equate personal benefit with national success.

Public figures, too, have a critical role to play. Their influence comes with responsibility. Rather than amplifying partisan agendas, they should use their platforms to advocate for transparency, accountability, and policies that address the real needs of the people.

In the final analysis, the crisis of Nigerian political followership is not just about leaders, it is about the led. As long as sections of the population continue to prioritize short-term gains over long-term national interest, the cycle of “carry-go” politics will persist.

Nigerians must, therefore, consciously reject this pattern of blind loyalty. It is partisan in nature, rooted in patronage, and ultimately harmful to democratic development. True progress will only come when citizens demand more than continuity, when they demand competence, integrity, and inclusive governance. Until then, the echoes of “carry-go” will continue to drown out the urgent call for real change.