A full decade after his epoch-making defeat, Jonathan, the former leader is, astonishingly, being paraded once more as the opposition’s great white hope. This phenomenon transcends the mere ambition of one man; it is a profound reflection of the dearth of political imagination that continues to plague our democratic journey.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
The recent pronouncement by a prominent political figure, Prof Jerry Gana suggesting that the former President Goodluck Jonathan is poised to stand in the 2027 presidential election, speaks volumes about the current state of Nigerian politics. A full decade after his epoch-making defeat, Jonathan, the former leader is, astonishingly, being paraded once more as the opposition’s great white hope. This phenomenon transcends the mere ambition of one man; it is a profound reflection of the dearth of political imagination that continues to plague our democratic journey.
Former President Goodluck Jonathan’s trajectory is well-known across Nigeria. His unexpected ascent following the demise of his predecessor Umaru Musa YarAdua saw him become President in 2010, followed by an electoral mandate in 2011, which initially kindled high expectations. By 2015, however, a sense of deep disillusionment had taken hold. He was comprehensively defeated in a landslide that brought the curtain down on the main opposition party’s sixteen-year tenure in power. Yet, it was his concession that became the defining feature of his career. By graciously accepting defeat and declaring that his ambition was not worth the shedding of any Nigerian blood, he elevated himself above the customary rancour of African politics and was widely lauded as a continental statesman.
That dignified exit appeared to close the chapter on his presidential aspirations. Nigerians expected him to naturally assume the role of an elder statesman—offering counsel, mentoring a new generation, and championing democracy. Few entertained the notion that he would again be mooted as a presidential candidate, especially after twelve years away from the seat of power. Nevertheless, his name has been resurrected, as if our political landscape were utterly bereft of new leaders, young voices, or bold, fresh alternatives.
READ ALSO:
We are still raising the bandits we now fear
But genuinely, is this the absolute best that a nation of over 200 million people can manage—to simply re-package and recycle the same old names, suggesting that we lack the inherent talent to cultivate new leadership? Must our politics forever move in tiresome circles rather than decisive strides forward? This continual recycling of familiar figures is an unequivocal sign of a failure of vision.
Instead of diligently nurturing a new cohort of leaders, opposition figures instinctively revert to the faces of yesterday. Nigerians are currently grappling with unprecedented hardship—soaring inflation, rampant insecurity, and mass joblessness—and they rightly deserve leaders capable of inspiring genuine hope. To respond to this crisis by simply dusting off the former President’s portrait is to concede that political ingenuity has failed. It is to effectively signal to the Nigerian populace that our past represents our only viable future.
Furthermore, even if we were to momentarily overlook Jonathan’s performance in office, his candidacy would be immediately mired in legal quicksand. Any fresh attempt would instantly trigger complex litigation, with the incumbent party keen to drag the opposition into drawn-out court battles that could easily last right up to the very eve of the general election. Far from galvanising the opposition, his name would merely saddle it with debilitating uncertainty.
And what, precisely, of his legacy? He is chiefly remembered more for the sheer dignity with which he stepped down than for his actual achievements during his years in power. His concession remains his single most enduring contribution to democratic culture. If he were to return now, only to face disqualification or another defeat, that sterling legacy risks being severely undermined. The man widely hailed as an icon of peaceful transition could be reduced to just another run-of-the-mill politician who simply failed to know when to leave the stage.
It must also be stated that nostalgia is a perilous political opiate. A good number of Nigerians now look back on his era as gentler times when contrasted with the harsh economic realities under previous and current administrations. But we must not forget the genuine reasons why the electorate voted him out. His government was accused of squandering the immense oil boom, of tolerating egregious excesses in high places, and of struggling fundamentally to stem the advance of insurgency. These were not manufactured grievances; they were undeniable failures that ultimately cost him the presidency.
Therefore, do we genuinely wish to repeat history while expecting a different outcome? Can a man decisively rejected by the people a decade ago suddenly be transformed into a political messiah in 2027? These are uncomfortable, yet absolutely necessary, questions to address.
The more profound issue, however, lies not with the former President himself but with the structural state of the main opposition party. Since 2015, the party has been consumed by internecine squabbles, widespread defections, and a tragic failure to reinvent itself. Several perennial candidates have contested repeatedly without ultimate success. Key political operators continue to pull strings from various positions, both within and outside the party. While a list of other capable figures hovers in the political background, not one has emerged as the unifying figure capable of rallying the entire nation. Even a former flag-bearer, who once held the party’s banner, felt compelled to depart before he could truly become a symbol of change. That is the most damning indictment of a party that appears to confuse obsolete names with genuine, viable leadership.
If the opposition party is truly committed to returning to governance, it must summon the courage to envision a new kind of leadership. It must look well beyond the comforting nostalgia of the former President and the repeated, fruitless bids of other familiar figures. It must seriously address the urgent yearnings of Nigeria’s vast youthful demographic, who demand competence, accountability, and demonstrable integrity. The party must field candidates who truly embody renewal, not mere recycling. Failure to do so will ensure it remains firmly trapped in its own history, offering yesterday’s answers to today’s pressing problems.
The issue of zoning is also unavoidable. The former President’s return would inevitably re-ignite deep-seated regional tensions. Would his region feel entitled to claim the ticket again, having already produced a president? Would other major regions feel politically short-changed, or find themselves marginalised yet again? Rather than helping to heal national divisions, such a move could easily deepen them, further fracturing a party already struggling precariously to maintain unity.
Meanwhile, the governing party would certainly not remain idle. With the current President expected to seek re-election, the governing party would strategically frame the former President as an illegitimate candidate, legally dubious, and politically spent. It would deploy its powerful machinery to portray the opposition as desperate, unable to furnish fresh faces, and fundamentally incapable of governing a modern Nigeria. In such a contest, a simple reliance on nostalgia is unlikely to withstand the full force of political propaganda.
For the former President himself, the lure of a return is perhaps understandable. Power is an undeniably addictive substance, and many who have tasted it struggle greatly to relinquish it. But history tends to be kinder to those who possess the wisdom to bow out gracefully. He has already earned an honourable place as a respected African democrat. To gamble that hard-won reputation away on a controversial and potentially doomed comeback is to risk exchanging respect for eventual ridicule.
What Nigerians desperately need today is not yet another cycle of recycled leaders, but a decisive break from the politics of the past. We require genuine renewal, creative solutions, and moral courage. We need leaders who are not weighed down by the failures of yesterday but who are instead energised by the possibilities of tomorrow. A comeback would not represent renewal; it would tragically symbolise stagnation.
So, we must ask ourselves whether this is truly the most imaginative offering we can present to the world—an endless carousel of yesterday’s leaders while the youth of Nigeria remain passive spectators in their own political destiny? If the answer is yes, then our politics is in a far deeper crisis than we are prepared to admit.
The recent announcement, therefore, is less of a well-thought-out political strategy and more of a worrisome symptom—a clear sign of a party lacking self-belief, desperately clinging to the political ghosts of its past because it lacks the capacity to construct a viable future. Nigeria deserves better. Democracy flourishes on imagination, and without it, our politics will remain miserably stuck in self-defeating repetition.
The former President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan commands respect for the manner of his exit from power. However, bringing him back in 2027 would not rescue Nigeria. It would only serve to confirm one stark reality, that while our people hunger for progress and a fresh start, our politicians are, sadly, content to serve them reheated leftovers.
