How Politics Uses Insecurity to Gain Power

Nigeria's current situation shows a serious problem. As elections get closer, people often feel more anxious. This anxiety comes with a rise in kidnappings, terrorist attacks, banditry, and other violent crimes. Whether this is just a coincidence or a sign of deeper political issues, one thing is clear: the timing of these events raises doubts about who benefits from ongoing insecurity.

Turning human suffering into political gain is damaging for any nation. It becomes even worse when innocent schoolchildren and students suffer. Many of these children come from poor backgrounds and just want to go to school and build a better future. Attacking these vulnerable students is not just an attack on them. It harms the future of our country as a whole.

Using insecurity for political purposes is a serious problem in Nigeria. It moves from street violence to more serious issues like terrorism and organized kidnapping. This behavior threatens the very legitimacy of the state. It shows a decline in political ethics, where the value of human life is less important than the desire for power. In this situation, violence no longer seems like an unfortunate side effect of chaos. Instead, it becomes a planned part of political strategy.

History teaches us about the terrible outcomes of this issue. When fear is created or used to influence political results, trust in government falls. The relationship between the government and its citizens starts to break down. This creates a dangerous situation where insecurity continues. It weakens accountability in democracy, and the most vulnerable people in society pay the price for the political ambitions of the elite.

No democratic society can thrive when innocent lives are turned into political tools. Protecting schoolchildren, students, and other vulnerable groups should be a top priority for the government. This protection must be free from political games and election strategies. If the lives of ordinary people become disposable in the fight for power, the nation risks facing not just a security crisis, but a deeper moral crisis.

Political thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Max Weber have long argued that a state's legitimacy comes from its ability to keep order and ensure the safety of its people. Weber specifically said that the modern state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If that control is challenged by terrorists, bandits, or organized crime, the state's authority can weaken. In Nigeria, we have seen a clear connection between insecurity and political ambition.

Violent groups do not work in isolation. They often grow in complex environments marked by competition among the elite, weak institutions, and poverty. Research shows that insecurity often comes not only from extremist ideas but also from networks of political and economic interests that gain from chaos.

Given this, it is worrying that the Nigerian authorities recently named forty-eight people and organizations for their alleged roles in funding terrorism. This highlights an uncomfortable truth: terrorism and organized violence usually need support from financiers, facilitators, and influential people who stay far from the actual fighting.

Throughout history, political figures have often taken advantage of crises. Niccolò Machiavelli noted long ago that times of trouble can create chances to change power structures. The main question is not whether crises lead to political changes. They always do. The real question is whether people or groups actively encourage or take advantage of these crises for political gain.

In a place like Nigeria, where government institutions are weak and political competition is fierce, insecurity can go beyond crime. It can become a useful tool in the fight for power. When criminality, political ambition, and economic interests mix, it creates a situation where instability can be exploited or even encouraged by those seeking electoral gain or trying to undermine opponents.

While we should be careful not to make simple conclusions, the repeated patterns of behavior raise valid questions about whether certain actors, either directly or indirectly, gain from the fear created by widespread insecurity. History provides many examples of violence being used as a political weapon. During former President Goodluck Jonathan's time, the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls in April 2014 turned from a terrible act of violence into a major political event with serious electoral consequences.

This incident not only caused immediate suffering but also became a key point for discussions about state capability, government legitimacy, and leadership skills. More than ten years later, this tragedy still symbolizes not just a failure of security but how national trauma can become part of political debates. In countries with weak institutions, security crises often spark political upheaval. Heightened public fear can change voting behavior, undermine current leaders, and create chances for ambitious individuals to change the political landscape.

The United Nations Development Programme has pointed out the link between insecurity and bad governance. Similarly, the World Bank's World Development Report on Conflict, Security and Development explains how cycles of violence and weak institutions reinforce each other. This is the framework we should use to understand current events in Nigeria.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's administration took over a complicated security situation shaped by years of insurgency, banditry, separatist movements, community conflicts, and international crime. These issues are not new and will not be easy to fix. But the political effects of ongoing insecurity are significant, especially when attacks happen often in areas that are politically important.

In the end, Nigeria’s biggest challenge is not just defeating terrorists, kidnappers, and bandits. The deeper challenge is to ensure that no one benefits from the fear and suffering of the Nigerian people. As long as insecurity is politically useful, the reasons to keep or manipulate it will remain.

Terrorism and kidnapping are not just crimes; they attack the very social contract. Their goal is not only to cause physical harm but also to create fear, despair, and distrust in institutions. When political discussions start to use these tragedies as tools for partisan conflict, the aims of violent groups are unwittingly supported.

Every community should stay alert against the people who commit violence and those who might want to gain politically from the fear that violence brings. A Yoruba proverb says: “ẹ̀hìnkùlé ni ọ̀tá wà, inú ilé ni aṣeni ńgbé” (The enemy lurks behind the house, but the traitor lives within it). One lesson Nigeria can learn from the British model of community security is the importance of collective awareness: if you see something, say something. Terrorism, kidnapping, and organized crime do well in places where communities keep quiet. They are much harder to maintain when citizens are watchful and willing to share information with the authorities.

Most importantly, we must resist the urge to turn human tragedy into political weapons. The blood of innocent people should never be used as a tool in political battles, nor should the suffering of vulnerable communities be exploited for electoral gain or ideological purposes. A country that allows the exploitation of grief risks not only its security but also its moral values.

Protecting our nation requires more than military victories. It needs political honesty, strong institutions, civic responsibility, and a commitment to the value of human life. Only then can Nigeria become a country marked by justice, unity, and peace.