Blind Loyalty: The Tragic Consequence Of Defending Non-Performing Leaders, by Isaac Asabor

In the complex dynamics of political leadership, one of the most confounding, yet deeply rooted problems, is the loyalty that transcends logic, evidence, and the common good. When political allegiance is dictated by tribal, religious, or party affiliations, it often becomes a dangerous blindfold that keeps people loyal to leaders who are clearly failing to deliver. In many societies, including Nigeria, this type of loyalty plays a significant role in enabling non-performing leaders to remain in power and perpetuate their poor governance, while the very people who defend them continue to suffer.

This troubling phenomenon has become a recurring theme in the country’s political landscape. Political leaders, despite their evident incompetence, find themselves shrouded in a protective cloak of loyalty from their followers. These followers, blinded by religious, ethnic, or party affiliations, willingly ignore the leader’s mismanagement, excusing every mistake and downplaying the suffering around them. Such misplaced loyalty is not only destructive but self-defeating, as it often traps entire communities in a cycle of poor leadership and underdevelopment.

To understand this loyalty, one must first delve into the forces that bind people to such leaders. In Nigeria and many parts of the world, tribal and religious affiliations run deep. These identity markers serve as a primary lens through which many view the world. Often, people believe that their tribe or religion can only be properly represented by a leader from within, even when that leader proves incapable of governance. This sense of identity is often leveraged by politicians who skillfully exploit these sentiments to build and sustain support.

Take, for instance, the case of a political leader whose sole qualification for office appears to be his shared ethnicity with a large portion of the electorate. This leader, despite doing little to improve the lives of his constituents, finds his support base unwavering. His failures, whether they involve infrastructure, healthcare, or economic policies, are met with excuses. His followers believe that if someone from another tribe were in power, they would be even worse off. The fear of the “other”, of another tribe or religion dominating political power, keeps people from holding their own leaders accountable. The idea that their turn to rule must be defended at all costs blinds them to the reality of their situation: they are suffering, and their leader is not doing anything to change that.

Religious sentiments often exacerbate this problem, especially in societies where religion plays a pivotal role in people’s daily lives. In Nigeria, the manipulation of religious beliefs for political gain is a well-documented strategy. Leaders, particularly at the national level, are quick to align themselves with religious institutions, appearing to be devout in order to win the hearts and minds of their followers. Religious leaders, often entangled in political alliances, sometimes encourage this blind loyalty by portraying the political leader as a ‘chosen one’ or the ‘defender of the faith.’

But what happens when this “chosen” leader fails? Does the religious defense hold water when the streets are filled with unemployed youths, hospitals are devoid of basic medical supplies, and inflation makes it impossible for ordinary people to afford a meal? Many times, the suffering masses are told to be patient, that their reward is in heaven, or that their suffering is a test of their faith. These narratives reinforce blind loyalty and stifle any form of meaningful opposition or accountability.

In Nigeria, political parties often function less as platforms for ideological competition and more as tribal fortresses. The two dominant parties, APC (All Progressives Congress) and PDP (People’s Democratic Party), have come to symbolize more than just political ideologies; they represent deep-seated tribal and regional loyalties. For many citizens, supporting a party is synonymous with supporting their ethnic group, and opposition to the party is seen as a betrayal of their tribe.

This is particularly evident during election seasons when political campaigns are often rife with tribal rhetoric. Politicians rally their supporters not with policy proposals but with veiled or direct ethnic messages, emphasizing that “this is our time” and “we must protect our own.” As a result, political discourse becomes polarized, and the actual performance of the leader in question is largely ignored. Voters are mobilized by the fear of being ruled by someone from another tribe, even if that alternative leader has a better track record of governance.

In this context, defending a non-performing leader is seen as a form of self-preservation. People rationalize their suffering by convincing themselves that it could be worse under a different leader. In reality, the opposite is often true: a change in leadership, unburdened by ethnic or religious expectations, could lead to better governance and improved standards of living.

The tragedy of blind loyalty is that it perpetuates suffering. Citizens who defend their failing leaders, due to tribal or religious loyalty, are often the ones who bear the brunt of their poor policies. The irony is unmistakable: the very people who are most loyal are the ones who suffer the most under bad leadership. Whether it’s the absence of clean water, the crumbling infrastructure, or the lack of job opportunities, the effects of poor governance are felt most acutely by the masses.

These defenders, often referred to as “political foot soldiers,” continue to defend their leaders with passionate conviction, while their own standard of living continues to deteriorate. They become unwilling prisoners of their own misplaced loyalty, trapped in a cycle of poverty and hardship, all the while convincing themselves that their leader is doing his best or that things would be worse with someone else.

The first step toward breaking this cycle of blind loyalty is a shift in mindset. Voters must begin to prioritize performance over identity. Leaders should be held accountable based on their ability to deliver on campaign promises, improve infrastructure, provide jobs, and elevate the standard of living. Religion and tribe, while important cultural markers, should not dictate political allegiance when the well-being of the entire society is at stake.

This shift will not come easily. For decades, politicians have mastered the art of exploiting tribal and religious sentiments to stay in power. But it is up to the people to demand more from their leaders. The realization that they deserve better leadership, irrespective of the leader’s background, is the key to unlocking a future where good governance is the norm, not the exception.

Blind loyalty to non-performing leaders is a tragic mistake. It perpetuates suffering and keeps entire societies from progressing. By holding leaders accountable and looking beyond the shallow markers of tribe and religion, citizens can pave the way for real, meaningful change. Only then can we break free from the destructive cycle of blind loyalty and demand the leadership we truly deserve.