Political Hygiene: Why Nigerians Must Reject the Politics of Fear -By Alamin Musa Muhammad

Professor PLO Lumumba once observed that Africa’s greatest challenge is not the lack of resources but the quality of its politics and leadership. His words resonate in Nigeria today, where insecurity has become more than just a security issue. It now permeates political conversations, electoral campaigns, and public opinions. This article does not aim to accuse any person or political group of funding violence without evidence. Instead, it explores a recurring pattern in our political history and raises a difficult but necessary question: Are Nigerians continuously mobilized through fear instead of facts? If so, the country urgently needs what can be called political hygiene—a political culture based on truth, critical thinking, and national unity rather than propaganda and division.

When President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua passed away in 2010, the Constitution elevated Vice President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan to the presidency. Almost immediately, Boko Haram increased its attacks across northern Nigeria. Markets, mosques, schools, churches, police stations, and villages became targets. Thousands of innocent Nigerians lost their lives, while millions lived in fear. As violence escalated, political interpretations arose alongside the security crisis. In many northern communities, rumors spread that the Christian president either did not care about protecting the North or that his government was indifferent to the suffering of mainly Muslim communities. Regardless of whether these narratives were true, they gained significant political momentum because insecurity affected daily lives. The crucial point is not whether every rumor was accurate. The key point is that fear became a political language. Citizens traumatized by violence sought explanations. In that environment, political narratives spread quickly, often faster than verified information.

History shows that Boko Haram killed thousands of Muslims and Christians alike. Many analysts have noted that a substantial number of those affected by the insurgency lived in mostly Muslim areas in the North-East. Entire villages were destroyed, mosques were attacked, and Islamic scholars opposing extremism were assassinated. Still, public perception was often shaped more by political interpretation than by facts. By the 2015 elections, insecurity became a major issue influencing voter behavior. Whether intentionally or not, security failures had political consequences. Many Nigerians, especially in the North, linked the worsening security with the Jonathan administration. The atmosphere of fear and uncertainty significantly influenced national political conversations. Although there is no conclusive proof that Boko Haram was created or directed for electoral purposes, the political consequences of the insurgency were clear. Fear emerged as a powerful force shaping public opinion and affecting democratic decisions.

Years later, Nigeria faces another challenging security environment under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. However, the religious narrative seems different this time. President Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima were elected on a Muslim-Muslim ticket, sparking national debate before the election. Since taking office, social media and political discussions have frequently shared claims that Christians are being intentionally targeted in northern Nigeria under a Muslim-led administration. These claims deserve careful scrutiny. Northern Nigeria is religiously diverse, but many areas most affected by terrorism and banditry have mainly Muslim populations. Communities in Borno, Yobe, Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Kebbi, and parts of Niger State have faced severe attacks, mostly affecting ordinary citizens, many of them Muslims, alongside Christians and members of other communities. This reality does not lessen the suffering of Christian victims. Every Nigerian life holds equal value. However, reducing a complex security crisis to a simple narrative that Christians are being killed because the government is Muslim risks oversimplifying reality and deepening religious suspicion.

Here is where a striking parallel emerges. During one administration, some interpreted insecurity as evidence that a Christian president could not or would not protect Muslims. During another administration, some interpret insecurity as evidence that a Muslim president cannot or will not protect Christians. The identities have changed. The accusations have shifted. But the underlying mechanism is remarkably similar. Fear becomes framed through religion and projected into politics. In one era, some citizens were convinced that a Christian president posed a threat to Muslim communities. In another era, some citizens are led to believe that a Muslim-Muslim presidency threatens Christian communities. The names are different, the circumstances have varied, but the pattern is familiar. In both instances, insecurity transcends a security issue; it evolves into a political narrative capable of shaping public perception, loyalties, and electoral outcomes.

This pattern should alarm every Nigerian because it suggests fear can easily turn into a political tool. When citizens feel frightened, they instinctively seek explanations and solutions. Political actors, commentators, and interest groups understand this reality. As a result, insecurity can intertwine with political messaging, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, Nigerians must cultivate the habit of questioning narratives before accepting them. The goal should not be to dismiss genuine security concerns but to ensure that real fears are not exploited for political gain. Political hygiene means refusing to be used as tools of propaganda. It means asking questions before passing on messages on WhatsApp. It means verifying claims before accepting them. It means resisting efforts to divide citizens along religious or ethnic lines.

An observation made by the Governor of Borno State, Professor Babagana Umara Zulum, during a BBC Hausa interview has sparked considerable public discussion. He stated that insecurity often seems to increase as elections approach. Whether interpreted as a comment on political manipulation, increased criminal opportunism, or weaknesses in security management during election cycles, it raises an important issue worth public debate. If insecurity frequently worsens during politically sensitive times, Nigerians should ask why. The answer should come from evidence-based investigation rather than speculation. Nonetheless, the observation underscores the necessity for a closer examination of the relationship between insecurity, political competition, and public perception.

Political hygiene requires leaders to reject divisive politics. Citizens must reject manipulation. Journalists need to verify before publishing, and religious leaders should focus on unity rather than division. Kwame Nkrumah reminded Africa that “the forces that unite us are intrinsic and greater than the superimposed influences that keep us apart.” Those words remain relevant today. If Nigerians celebrate insecurity when it impacts another region because they believe it weakens a political opponent, they should remember that insecurity knows no tribe, religion, or political party. The victim in Maiduguri today could be the victim in Lagos tomorrow. The attack in Zamfara today could be tomorrow’s incident in Enugu. Crime spreads in environments where indifference allows it to thrive.

The biggest lesson from Nigeria’s democratic journey is that insecurity should bring citizens together rather than divide them. If political actors gain when fear dominates public discussions, then citizens must become wiser consumers of political information. Nigeria’s future cannot rely on rumors, religious suspicion, or ethnic propaganda. It must rest on facts, accountability, and solidarity. Political hygiene is not just a slogan. It is a democratic responsibility. It is a call for Nigerians to rise above manipulation, reject the politics of fear, and insist that public office be contested based on competence, ideas, and performance instead of narratives designed to exploit insecurity for political gain. Only then can Nigeria build a democracy strong enough to withstand both threats of violence and the dangers of political manipulation.

Alamin Musa Muhammad holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mass Communication from the Faculty of Communication, Bayero University, Kano.