Edet Ikotidem

In Nigeria’s political vocabulary, the phrase “belonging to the center” carries deep implications. It refers to a state aligning politically with the party or leadership controlling the Federal Government.

Belonging to the Center to Attract Federal Government’s Presence: The Akwa Ibom Example

This alignment is often believed to increase a state’s chances of attracting federal projects, appointments, infrastructure, and overall attention from Abuja.

But what does this truly mean in practice? And how does Akwa Ibom State serve as a useful case study in understanding this dynamic?

At its core, “belonging to the center” is about political access and influence. Nigeria operates a highly centralized federal system where the Federal Government controls significant resources, including oil revenues, major infrastructure, and key institutions.

The Akwa Ibom Example

States that are politically aligned with the ruling party at the center are often perceived to have easier access to decision-makers, quicker approval for projects, and greater inclusion in national planning.

This is not always formally stated, but it plays out in subtle and sometimes overt ways.

For a state like Akwa Ibom, the debate around belonging to the center has been particularly relevant. Historically, the state has leaned toward opposition parties at the federal level for many years. Despite its economic importance as one of Nigeria’s highest oil-producing states, many stakeholders have argued that Akwa Ibom did not receive commensurate federal presence in terms of infrastructure and strategic projects. This perceived marginalization has fueled calls for political realignment.

The argument is straightforward: if Akwa Ibom aligns with the ruling party at the center, it stands to benefit more. Proponents of this view point to examples across Nigeria where states governed by the same party as the Federal Government appear to enjoy increased federal attention. This could come in the form of road construction, federal institutions, employment opportunities for indigenes, and appointments into key national positions.

However, this idea is not without controversy. Critics argue that governance and development should not be contingent on political loyalty. Nigeria’s constitution guarantees equitable distribution of resources and federal presence across all states, regardless of political affiliation. In theory, every state should receive fair treatment. But in reality, politics often influences policy decisions.

Also Read: Recycling Old Politicians, Public Office Holders is Not in the Best Interest of Akwa Ibom

The Akwa Ibom example illustrates both sides of the argument. On one hand, there is a strong belief among some political actors that aligning with the center will unlock opportunities. They argue that being in opposition limits access, delays projects, and reduces the state’s bargaining power at the national level. For them, “belonging” is a strategic move—one that prioritizes development over partisan identity.

On the other hand, there are those who caution against reducing development to political alignment. They argue that true progress depends more on leadership quality, vision, and internal governance than on external affiliations.

Akwa Ibom itself has made significant strides in infrastructure, aviation, healthcare, and education through deliberate state policies, even without full alignment with the center. This suggests that while federal presence is important, it is not the sole determinant of development.

Another dimension to consider is the psychological and symbolic aspect of belonging to the center. When a state is aligned with the Federal Government, it often enjoys a sense of inclusion in national discourse. Its leaders may have closer relationships with federal authorities, and its concerns may receive more immediate attention. This can boost investor confidence and create a perception of stability and opportunity.

Yet, this dynamic also raises concerns about equity and national unity. If federal presence is seen as a reward for political loyalty, it undermines the principles of fairness and inclusiveness. It risks creating a system where states feel compelled to align politically not out of conviction, but out of necessity. This can weaken democratic diversity and reduce healthy political competition.

In examining Akwa Ibom, it is important to strike a balance between realism and principle. Yes, political alignment can enhance access and opportunities. But it should not replace good governance or become the primary strategy for development. The state must continue to invest in its own capacity—strengthening institutions, improving internally generated revenue, and prioritizing the welfare of its people.

Furthermore, citizens must hold both state and federal leaders accountable. Federal presence should not be seen as a favor, but as a responsibility. Roads, schools, hospitals, and other public goods are not political rewards—they are rights. Whether a state belongs to the center or not, it deserves equitable development.

In conclusion, “belonging to the center” in Nigeria reflects the interplay between politics and development. The Akwa Ibom example shows that while alignment with the Federal Government can potentially attract greater federal presence, it is not a guaranteed solution nor a substitute for effective leadership. True progress lies in a combination of strategic engagement with the center and strong internal governance. Ultimately, development should be driven not by political convenience, but by a genuine commitment to the people.