By Stephanie Shaakaa
Atiku Abubakar’s political journey is a tale of ambition, resilience, and sometimes self-sabotage. Few figures in Nigerian politics have demonstrated such dogged determination, yet his story reads like a litany of missed opportunities and strategic missteps. For decades, he has pursued the presidency with the enthusiasm of a man convinced of his destiny. However, while ambition is an asset, it cannot replace strategy, and Atiku’s failure to master the latter has been his Achilles’ heel.
Atiku’s political career began during Nigeria’s turbulent military era. A protégé of the late Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, he showed promise as a leader with the potential to shape the nation’s future. His early career was marked by ambition and foresight, including his co-founding of the Peoples Democratic Movement, which later evolved into the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Atiku’s rise to national prominence seemed almost inevitable. However, where Yar’Adua excelled in coalition building and subtle negotiation, Atiku often came across as impatient and overly ambitious.
His partnership with Olusegun Obasanjo in 1999 appeared to be a masterstroke a northern technocrat teaming up with a southern elder statesman. Together, they were tasked with rebuilding Nigeria after years of military dictatorship. During their first term, Atiku played a key role in spearheading economic reforms, particularly in privatization efforts that sought to revitalize critical sectors of the economy. Yet, this promising start was overshadowed by internal conflict. Atiku’s ambition to succeed Obasanjo as president after their term strained their relationship, culminating in a fierce political battle.
The feud reached its peak in 2003 when Atiku reportedly considered challenging Obasanjo for the presidency. Obasanjo, known for his political ruthlessness, retaliated with equal vigor. Though Atiku survived the fallout, his career bore the scars of that confrontation. When Obasanjo later declared, “God will not forgive me if I support Atiku,” it reenforced the depth of their animosity and the weight of the obstacles Atiku faced.
One of Atiku’s greatest political weaknesses has been his inconsistency. Unlike Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who meticulously cultivated a political empire, Atiku has often appeared as a political wanderer. His frequent party switches from PDP to AC, back to PDP, then APC, and back to PDP have left many questioning his ideological commitments. While this flexibility might be interpreted as adaptability, it has also been seen as opportunism. Tinubu, by contrast, built his political brand on loyalty and long-term strategy, anchoring himself in the Southwest and nurturing a loyal base of supporters. This approach culminated in Tinubu’s eventual rise to the presidency, a path that seemed almost inevitable compared to Atiku’s erratic trajectory.
Atiku’s 2019 presidential campaign focused on both his strengths and shortcomings. Running against Muhammadu Buhari, a president many Nigerians were eager to replace, Atiku appeared poised for victory. His campaign emphasized his business acumen and economic plans, including a promise to restructure Nigeria a bold and necessary reform. However, his message failed to resonate with the grassroots, who remained skeptical of his image as a wealthy elite. Buhari, despite his flaws, retained an aura of simplicity and integrity, qualities Atiku struggled to project.
Perhaps Atiku’s greatest challenge has been his inability to inspire unwavering loyalty. While Tinubu built a coalition of allies who would go to the mat for him, Atiku’s alliances often felt transactional. His infamous kneeling before Obasanjo in 2018 to secure an endorsement symbolized his career willing to make dramatic moves but often neglecting the groundwork necessary for sustained success. This lack of deep-rooted loyalty has cost him at critical junctures.
That said, it would be unfair to ignore Atiku’s contributions to Nigeria. As vice president, he was instrumental in laying the groundwork for reforms that modernized key sectors of the economy. His advocacy for restructuring has kept the issue at the forefront of national discourse, stressing his understanding of Nigeria’s systemic challenges. These achievements, however, are often overshadowed by his perceived flaws and electoral defeats.
In many ways, Atiku’s story is a cautionary tale about the limits of ambition without strategy. His career offers a crisp contrast to Tinubu’s disciplined approach. While Atiku has spent decades chasing the presidency, Tinubu spent decades preparing for it. By the time Tinubu declared his candidacy, his path seemed inevitable, while Atiku’s remained a maze of dead ends.
If Atiku considers yet another run, one cannot help but wonder if he has learned from his past. Will he approach this chapter with renewed focus and a long-term vision, or will history repeat itself? Atiku’s resilience is undeniably admirable, but resilience without reflection is a futile exercise. Nigeria is watching, and so is history, pen in hand, ready to write the next chapter in the life of one of its most fascinating relentless unwavering political figures.
Stephanie Shaakaa writes from the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State
