Unity as Strategy: The Missing Ingredient in Oyo APC Politics || Timilehin Kolade
Politics is sustained not merely by electoral victories but by the strength of institutions, the management of differences and the ability of leaders to transform disagreements into collective advantage. This reality confronts the Oyo State chapter of the APC as it navigates the delicate balance between loyalty to party structures and dissatisfaction among critical stakeholders. The central question therefore emerges: who truly is a party man and who genuinely is a progressive?
Within the political vocabulary of Oyo APC, the phrase “I am a party man” gained prominence through Senator Teslim Folarin’s strategic political communication. Beyond its rhetorical value, it was a tactical response to media traps and factional provocations. The statement projected an image of institutional loyalty and political restraint, suggesting that individual grievances should not supersede the collective interest of the party. In political science, this reflects the classical understanding of party loyalty — the willingness to subordinate personal ambition to organisational survival and long-term political relevance.
Yet loyalty without reform can become complacency, just as dissatisfaction without discipline can become sabotage. This is the puzzle confronting Oyo APC today. A political party is neither a military institution that demands unquestioned obedience nor a marketplace where every disagreement results in rebellion or defection. It is a democratic institution designed to aggregate interests, negotiate differences and build consensus around common objectives.
From the standpoint of peace and conflict studies, internal disagreements are not abnormal within political organisations. Conflict itself is not the problem; the inability to manage and transform conflict is the real danger. Institutions that suppress grievances often experience implosions, while those that create avenues for dialogue and accommodation emerge stronger and more competitive. The challenge before Oyo APC is therefore not how to eliminate disagreements but how to transform them into opportunities for renewal, reform and political consolidation.
Nigeria’s political history offers important lessons in this regard. The internal crisis that weakened the Action Group during the First Republic altered the political trajectory of the Western Region and contributed to broader national instability. Similarly, many dominant political parties in Nigeria have suffered avoidable electoral setbacks because internal disagreements matured into irreconcilable divisions. Conversely, some of the country’s most successful political coalitions emerged because leaders prioritised negotiation over ego, accommodation over exclusion and reconciliation over retaliation.
The first pathway towards resolving the internal challenges within Oyo APC is institutionalised dialogue. Stakeholders, aspirants, elders and grassroots mobilisers must possess credible channels for engagement beyond election periods. Political exclusion breeds resentment, while participation creates ownership and commitment. Members who believe their voices matter are less likely to become adversaries within their own political family.
Secondly, the party must deepen internal democracy. Transparency in decision-making processes reduces suspicion and strengthens legitimacy. Consensus remains an important political instrument, but consensus without consultation merely postpones conflict rather than resolving it. Members must continue to believe that contribution, competence and commitment are recognised and rewarded within the party structure.
Thirdly, Oyo APC requires a deliberate conflict transformation mechanism anchored on mediation, reconciliation and elite bargaining. Political disagreements should never be allowed to evolve into personal hostilities. Party elders and respected stakeholders must function as bridge-builders rather than factional champions. Sustainable peace within political institutions often depends on credible intermediaries capable of facilitating difficult conversations and difficult compromises.
Furthermore, progressivism itself must be redefined beyond rhetoric and historical identity. A progressive is not simply one who belongs to a party with progressive origins. A progressive is one who places institutional growth above personal triumph, long-term strategy above temporary victories and collective advancement above individual calculations. Likewise, a party man is not one who agrees with everything or remains silent in moments of disagreement. A true party man disagrees responsibly, seeks reform constructively and remains committed to the survival of the political family.
Ultimately, the future of Oyo APC may depend on its ability to recognise that unity is not merely a moral aspiration but a political strategy. Elections are won through numbers, but political dominance is sustained through cohesion, trust and institutional stability. The distinction between a party man and a progressive may therefore be smaller than political rhetoric often suggests. The genuine progressive is a party man committed to institutional survival, while the genuine party man is a progressive committed to continuous renewal.
For Oyo APC, unity may indeed be the missing ingredient. Loyalty and dissatisfaction need not exist as opposing forces. When properly managed, they can become complementary energies that strengthen internal democracy, improve electoral competitiveness and position the party for future political success. In politics, as in peacebuilding, victory often belongs not to the strongest faction but to the coalition most capable of transforming differences into common purpose.