By Prince Charles Dickson Ph.D.
Max Jukes, the atheist, lived a godless life. He married an ungodly girl, and from the union there were 310 who died as paupers, 150 were criminals, 7 were murderers, 100 were drunkards, and more than half of the women were prostitutes. His 540 descendants cost the State one and a quarter million dollars.
But, praise the Lord, it works both ways! There is a record of a great American man of God, Jonathan Edwards. He lived at the same time as Max Jukes, but he married a godly girl. An investigation was made of 1,394 known descendants of Jonathan Edwards of which 13 became college presidents, 65 college professors, 3 United States senators, 30 judges, 100 lawyers, 60 physicians, 75 army and navy officers, 100 preachers and missionaries, 60 authors of prominence, one a vice-president of the United States, 80 became public officials in other capacities, 295 college graduates, among whom were governors of states and ministers to foreign countries. His descendants did not cost the state a single penny. ‘The memory of the just is blessed’ (Prov. 10:7).
The contrasting legacies of Max Jukes and Jonathan Edwards—one leaving a trail of societal devastation, the other a heritage of profound contribution—serve as a stark parable for Nigeria’s political reality. Like Jukes’ godless union, Nigeria’s political landscape is dominated by coalitions built not on shared values or ideological conviction, but on the shifting sands of immediate, self-serving gain. These are not marriages of principle, but transactions of convenience—frail, temporary, and ultimately destructive. Nigeria reels under the weight of these failed political marriages, where power is grabbed, not governed for, and the masses remain perpetual orphans.
It has always been a history of strange bedfellows, a very quick dive into the anatomy of political “Matrimony” in Nigeria’s political history since independence reads like a chronicle of forced and fractured unions. Parties and coalitions frequently emerge not from shared visions for development, social justice, or economic philosophy, but from the singular ambition to capture or retain power. Ethnic arithmetic and religious balancing often supersede policy alignment, creating inherently unstable partnerships. The First and Second Republics witnessed alliances primarily designed to counter dominant regions or personalities. The Fourth Republic, post-1999, exemplifies this trend most vividly.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), initially a sprawling “big tent,” housed factions with fundamentally opposing economic and social views, held together precariously by the allure of federal power and patronage. Its main challengers, including the All Progressives Congress (APC), were themselves born not from ideological convergence, but from marriages of convenience between disgruntled PDP heavyweights and disparate opposition groups united solely by the desire to oust the incumbent. These are classic “strange bedfellows” arrangements – lacking trust, shared purpose, or commitment beyond the immediate electoral battle. Like Jukes’ union founded on ungodliness, these alliances are rooted in ambition, not nation-building.
Serial decampees and the infidelity of power only shows the most glaring symptom of these failed marriages is the epidemic of political defection or “decamping.” Politicians change parties with bewildering frequency, demonstrating a loyalty that lies solely with personal ambition and access to resources, not with constituents or proclaimed principles. Cross-carpeting has been normalized as a strategy, not stigmatized as betrayal. As one analysis starkly put it, “Politicians who decamp are mostly those who face criticism or challenges within their party and view defection as a convenient escape route. They have no overriding philosophy, clear ideology or policy framework to guide their members’ actions and decisions”. The comparison to marital infidelity in the search results is apt: “In Nigeria the populace is overwhelmed by the spectacle of regular ‘decamping’ of prominent political figures followed by ‘re-camping’…
Nigerian politicians act in the same manner and fail to show appreciation for the fact that in exchange for their votes the people expect service from them” . High-profile figures moving between PDP, APC, and smaller parties multiple times within a single electoral cycle expose the utter hollowness of party identity and the cynical nature of these political “vows.” This constant betrayal mirrors the instability of a union lacking foundational values, draining public trust and institutional integrity. Each defection underscores that the initial “marriage” was a facade for power-grabbing.
There is a cancer of ideological bankruptcy at the heart of these failed marriages and serial infidelities lies a profound ideological vacuum. Nigerian political parties, with few exceptions, lack coherent, distinct, and consistently articulated ideological foundations. There is no meaningful differentiation between parties based on core beliefs about the role of the state, economic models (social democracy vs. free-market liberalism vs. state interventionism), social policy, or foreign policy orientation. As noted in research, “Parties with strong ideological foundations attract only members who are aligned with their values, morals, ethics, and principles. This paper observed this lack as a major leverage for defection in Nigeria”.
Without ideology, parties become mere vehicles for electioneering and patronage distribution. Membership is fluid, driven by “what can I gain?” rather than “what do I believe?” This absence of principled glue means coalitions cannot be built on shared visions for the country’s future, only on the temporary alignment of personal interests in seizing power or resources. It reduces politics to a transactional, zero-sum game, mirroring the societal cost of the Jukes lineage – focused on taking, not contributing. This vacuum allows ethnic and religious fissures, often cynically exploited by politicians themselves as seen in Jos , to become the primary markers of political identity, further fracturing the nation.
The devastating consequences of these unholy political alliances and the ideologies that fuel division are tragically embodied in places like Jos, Plateau State. Here, a complex struggle over land, resources, and political control (“indigenes” vs. “settlers”) was deliberately reframed by politicians as a religious conflict between Muslims and Christians. As documented, “Despite the conflict’s portrayal as religious, ‘there is no religious doctrine that has been the focus of the fight,'” said a University of Jos professor. Politicians reframed the conflict “to expand their support, manufacturing a religious conflict”. This cynical manipulation, born from the same playbook of leveraging division for political gain evident in national coalition-building, has cost thousands of lives, shattered communities, and destroyed interfaith families who once coexisted peacefully.
“Before Jos became the epicentre of religious strife… there were no issues over ‘who is a Muslim, who is a Christian’,” recalled one resident from an interfaith family . The segregation and suspicion fostered by this politically manufactured strife is a microcosm of how Nigeria’s elite, through their unprincipled power games and alliances, sacrifice national unity and citizen well-being on the altar of personal ambition. The cost, like that of the Jukes descendants, is measured in blood, brokenness, and wasted potential for the entire state.
Can we have enduring unions, principles over power and escape this cycle by demanding a fundamental shift from power-centric alliances to principle-based politics. This I believe requires: Ideological Clarification: Parties must develop, articulate, and adhere to clear, distinct ideologies beyond simply winning elections. This allows voters to choose based on vision and values, not just personality or ethnicity, and fosters genuine, lasting coalitions built on shared principles, not just shared enemies. Regulatory bodies like INEC need support (and pressure) to enforce rules against frivolous defection that betray the electorate’s mandate.
Citizens enlightenment and demand: An “uneducated electorate,” susceptible to manipulation based on sectarian or ethnic lines, enables bad politics . Sustained civic education is crucial to empower citizens to demand accountability and reject politicians known for serial defections or divisive tactics. They must value policy substance over patronage.
Strengthening grassroots reconciliation: Initiatives like those in Jos – training youth in early warning systems, promoting inter-communal dialogue focusing on the real political and economic roots of conflict, not the manufactured religious ones – need replication and scaling nationally. Rebuilding trust at the community level undermines the politician’s divide-and-rule toolkit.
And of course constitutional and institutional reforms: Strict enforcement of constitutional provisions requiring elected officials who defect to vacate their seats should be non-negotiable. Furthermore, exploring reforms that promote internal party democracy and policy debate, rather than strongman dominance, could gradually foster more ideologically coherent parties.
The memory of the just is blessed, but the legacy of the unprincipled is a curse. Nigeria’s chronicle of failed political marriages—devoid of the foundational virtues that marked the Edwards lineage—has exacted a Jukes-like cost: instability, underdevelopment, and pervasive distrust. To build a legacy worthy of its potential, Nigeria must move beyond the politics of strange bedfellows and serial infidelity. Its political unions must be consecrated, not to the fleeting god of power, but to the enduring principles of service, ideological clarity, and the unwavering commitment to the common good. Only then can the nation transform its political dalliances into a lasting, fruitful covenant with its people—May Nigeria win
