In the grand theatre of politics, alliances shift and loyalties evolve. One of the most cited maxims to explain these realities was delivered by Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, a two-time British Prime Minister. On March 1, 1848, in a powerful address to the House of Commons, Palmerston declared: “We have no eternal allies. And we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual. And those interests it is our duty to follow.” Over time, this sentiment has been distilled into the more widely known aphorism: “No permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.”

While this perspective acknowledges the fluid nature of international relations, it has taken on a murkier meaning in the context of Nigerian politics. Here, “interests” too often represent not national ideals or policy commitments, but the personal ambitions of politicians—often cloaked in opportunism, greed, and a relentless quest for power.

Nigerian Political Parties: A Hollow Shell

Party defection has become an expected, if not institutionalized, aspect of Nigeria’s democratic culture. Far from being rooted in ideological recalibration or genuine conviction, these defections are mostly driven by naked self-interest. The average Nigerian politician is seen not as a public servant committed to development and good governance, but as an elite figure pursuing personal gain and power preservation. In Nigeria’s political lexicon, loyalty is transactional, and “service” is interpreted as self-service.

Recently, in a move emblematic of this troubling norm, numerous opposition politicians staged elaborate events to announce their defection to the ruling party. State governors, legislators, and senior political operatives who once fiercely criticized the president and his party as enemies of democracy now sing praises of both. Their past condemnations, no matter how scathing, are erased by the allure of proximity to power and access to national resources.

Some opposition figures even pledge support for the president’s second-term ambition while clinging to their current party membership—a clear contradiction. The resulting spectacle is a circus of hypocrisy that has left citizens disillusioned and angry, prompting many to wonder: will Nigeria eventually devolve into a one-party state? If the current pace of defections persists, that risk may become a reality.

The Global Context: Party Switching Beyond Nigeria

To be fair, Nigeria is not alone in this phenomenon. Across democracies, party switching is not entirely uncommon. The Philippines offers a notable comparison. There, politicians frequently align themselves with the ruling party to secure influence and resources. Similarly, Italy saw nearly 25% of its Chamber of Deputies switch parties between 1996 and 2001, contributing to political instability.

In contrast, the United States has seen relatively limited party switching in its federal legislature. Between 1947 and 1997, there were just 20 recorded cases of congressional defections. However, at the state level, there have been over 190 instances of party-switching legislators between 1994 and today. Still, the numbers pale in comparison to Nigeria’s spiraling trend.

India’s experience is more instructive. After facing widespread defections in the late 1960s and early 1970s—which saw nearly half of its 4,000 legislators changing parties—the country took action. The Anti-Defection Act of 1985 now serves as a deterrent by disqualifying lawmakers who switch allegiances without justifiable cause. This legislation has helped India reduce political instability caused by party-hopping.

The Nigerian Legal Framework: A Toothless Guard Dog?

Nigeria’s own legal framework also attempts to regulate defection. Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that a legislator must vacate their seat if they switch parties during their term—unless the defection is the result of a division within their original party or a merger between parties. Section 68(2) adds that the Senate President or Speaker of the House must enforce this provision upon being presented with satisfactory evidence.

On the surface, this law seems well-defined. However, in practice, it has proven ineffective. Politicians routinely exploit loopholes or cite dubious “divisions” in their former parties to justify their moves. The clause intended to protect party stability has, ironically, become a convenient escape route for defectors.

Even more problematic is the failure of presiding officers—the Senate President and House Speaker—to enforce the rule. These officials often turn a blind eye, either because they benefit politically from the defections or because they share partisan affiliations with the defectors. As a result, the constitutional safeguard amounts to little more than a symbolic gesture—ignored and unenforced.

Why Nigerian Politicians Defect: The Real Motivations

The motivations behind political defections in Nigeria are seldom ideological. Most Nigerian parties lack defined platforms or philosophical foundations. Unlike democracies where parties represent distinct political ideologies (e.g., conservative vs. liberal, socialist vs. capitalist), Nigerian parties are often indistinguishable from one another in terms of policy or vision.

Thus, party switching is more about survival than belief. A politician may defect to escape prosecution, avoid marginalization, gain access to federal resources, or secure a political nomination. In some cases, defection is a prerequisite for retaining patronage or winning elections in a region where the ruling party dominates.

There’s also the bandwagon effect. As more opposition politicians cross over, others follow suit to avoid being left behind in a shrinking camp. In the process, the electorate is treated as an afterthought—disrespected and manipulated.

The Cost of Defections: Democracy on the Brink

The consequences of this unprincipled political culture are grave. First, it erodes public trust. Citizens see their votes rendered meaningless when elected representatives switch sides without consultation or justification. Voters who supported one party’s candidate find themselves represented by another party entirely—often the one they explicitly rejected.

Second, it undermines party development. When party membership is no longer grounded in shared vision or policy orientation, internal coherence disintegrates. Parties become tools for personal ambition rather than vehicles for public service.

Third, it leads to a weakened opposition. As more opposition figures defect, checks on the ruling party disappear, and democratic accountability suffers. The government becomes more emboldened and less responsive to public outcry or scrutiny.

Finally, it promotes instability. The constant reshuffling of political affiliations creates uncertainty, hampers policy continuity, and distracts from governance.

The Way Forward: What Must Be Done

For Nigeria to emerge from this vicious cycle, bold reforms are necessary:

1. Strengthen Legal Sanctions: Amend Section 68 of the Constitution to eliminate vague language and remove exemptions that allow self-serving interpretations. Enforce automatic seat forfeiture for unjustified defections.

2. Empower the Judiciary: Give courts a more direct role in adjudicating cases of defection. The Senate President and Speaker should not have the sole authority to decide such matters.

3. Develop Party Ideologies: Encourage political parties to adopt clear policy positions and ideological frameworks. This will make party membership more meaningful and discourage opportunistic jumping.

4. Enforce Internal Party Democracy: Parties must run open, competitive, and transparent primaries to reduce the temptation for aggrieved candidates to defect when denied nominations.

5. Voter Education: Civil society and the media must intensify efforts to educate voters about the long-term implications of political defections and how to hold defectors accountable at the ballot box.

Conclusion: Interests or Integrity?

Lord Palmerston’s wisdom on the primacy of national interest remains relevant. However, Nigeria’s political class has distorted that philosophy into a justification for betrayal, opportunism, and self-aggrandizement. Until Nigerian politicians are made to face real consequences for undermining democratic norms, the cycle of defections will persist—and with it, the erosion of Nigeria’s fragile democracy.

For the country to grow and thrive, Nigerians must demand more than self-serving interests from their leaders. They must demand character, courage, and a genuine commitment to public service. Without these, the interest being pursued will continue to be personal—and the national interest will remain abandoned.