Olu Allen
This morning, I listened to British Prime Minister announce his resignation.
Whether you agree with his politics is beside the point.
What caught my attention was something much rarer than political success: political responsibility.
Faced with mounting public dissatisfaction, declining confidence within his party, and growing questions about his government’s performance, Starmer chose to step aside. He accepted that leadership is ultimately about the people being led, not the leader occupying the office.
As I listened, I found myself asking a question that should make every Nigerian uncomfortable:
Why is this culture almost non-existent in Nigeria?
Why do politicians passionately preach accountability when they are in opposition, only to develop an allergy to it the moment they assume power?
Before becoming president, was one of the loudest critics of government failures. He criticized insecurity. He condemned economic hardship. He questioned governance failures. He argued that leaders must be held accountable when citizens are suffering.
Many Nigerians agreed with him.
But today, many Nigerians are asking the same questions about his own administration.
Food prices remain painfully high. The cost of living has become unbearable for millions of families.
Small businesses continue to struggle under rising operating costs and unstable electricity supply. Insecurity remains a concern across several parts of the country. Young people are increasingly uncertain about their future.
Of course, no honest observer would argue that every one of Nigeria’s problems began under Tinubu. Many of these challenges are decades old and deeply structural.
But that is not the real issue.
The real issue is consistency.
If poor performance was sufficient reason to demand accountability from previous administrations, should the same standard not apply today?
If accountability was the correct principle when you were outside government, why should it suddenly become an unreasonable demand when you are inside government?
Why do Nigerian politicians treat public office as a personal entitlement instead of a public trust?
The answer may lie in a dangerous political culture we have normalised.
In many mature democracies, leaders understand that power is borrowed. It belongs to the people and can be withdrawn when public confidence evaporates.
In Nigeria, however, political office often resembles a permanent possession. Leaders fight desperately to acquire it, defend it ferociously while in office, and rarely admit mistakes even when citizens are visibly hurting.
Resignation is treated as weakness.
Accountability is viewed as surrender.
Humility is mistaken for failure.
Yet the strongest leaders are often those who understand when their continued stay in office has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
A healthy democracy is not measured by how loudly leaders celebrate their achievements.
It is measured by whether leaders accept responsibility when citizens believe they have failed.
Perhaps the greatest lesson from countries with stronger democratic traditions is not that they always elect better leaders.
They do not.
Their advantage is that they have built a political culture where leaders understand a simple truth:
No individual is bigger than the office they occupy.
Leaders come and go.
Accountability remains.
Nigeria desperately needs that culture.
Because no nation can move forward when politicians demand standards from others that they refuse to apply to themselves.
The question therefore is not whether Tinubu should be criticized.
The question is whether Nigerian politicians are willing to live by the same standards they demanded when they were in opposition.
And until they do, accountability will remain a campaign slogan rather than a governing principle.
The country deserves better.
Much better.
Allen writes on public affairs and advocates for good governance.
