In a time of deep political uncertainty and visible inertia among opposition parties, the launch of a cross-sectoral think-tank that provides intellectual and policy-based alternatives is a welcome necessity. The Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government, established by Pat Utomi, is a bold attempt to fill the widening vacuum left by a docile opposition and a government that increasingly disdains the slightest of checks.

Democracy thrives on contestation and the constant presence of alternatives. When opposition voices fade, democracy risks sliding into autocracy, leaving citizens with fewer choices, and diminishing, not renewing, hope. The BTCSG initiative seeks to counter that drift by presenting reasoned critique and constructive alternatives to existing government policy.

However, for this effort to be effective and sustainable, it must be clearly defined within the bounds of legality and political appropriateness. The term “shadow government” might provoke unnecessary suspicion or hostility in a presidential system like Nigeria’s. A rebranding that presents the BTCSG as a non-partisan think-tank or policy-focused pressure group would better reflect its role.

Launched virtually last Wednesday, Utomi described the BTCSG as a “national emergency response” designed to systematically monitor government actions, identify failures, and propose alternative solutions across critical sectors, such as the economy, education, healthcare, infrastructure, law and order, and constitutional reform. It is difficult to argue against these premises.

Utomi rightly noted that a democracy without a courageous and responsive opposition risks subverting the people’s will. The recent wave of defections to the ruling All Progressives Congress, he said, is symptomatic of a failing democratic culture.

Indeed, the statistics are alarming. At the start of the 10th National Assembly, the APC held 234 of the 469 seats, while the opposition controlled 232. But with ongoing defections, the ruling party now commands 265 seats, and the opposition has dwindled to 202.

Two seats remain vacant. In the Senate, the APC needs only eight more seats to secure a two-thirds majority, enabling it to pass legislation unilaterally. This scenario makes the opposition’s role in national discourse necessary and urgent.

The trend in the states is just as worrisome. The APC now controls 24 states and is poised to dominate further as more opposition governors and party leaders defect either to avoid anti-corruption investigations or secure second terms.

Local councils are firmly under the grip of the ruling party as well, further choking the democratic space.

Meanwhile, the socioeconomic conditions in Nigeria continue to deteriorate. Inflation stands at 24.23 per cent, energy prices have surged fourfold, and oil revenues remain unstable.

The World Bank reports that 75.5 per cent of rural Nigerians live below the poverty line, with 41.3 per cent of urban dwellers similarly affected.

Insecurity is rampant, and Nigeria now ranks sixth on the 2025 Global Terrorism Index, up from eighth the year before.

Education is in crisis, with 18.5 million children out of school.

Against this backdrop, initiatives like the BTCSG can reawaken democratic participation, revive a comatose opposition, and place healthy pressure on the ruling party to perform better. However, to be successful, this initiative must be legally sound and politically strategic.

Reactions to the BTCSG have been mixed. Some view it as a creative response to a system where the opposition has become docile.

Others question its constitutional legitimacy or long-term viability. While the Federal Government has dismissed the idea as an aberration, the APC has labelled it “reckless, irresponsible, and insensitive”.

Despite these criticisms, most agree that the right to free speech and public discourse must be preserved. The real debate lies not in whether the BTCSG should exist, but in how it should operate.

In the face of growing political monopoly and dwindling democratic space, Nigerians must resist the urge to demonise those who seek to challenge the status quo through ideas and dialogue. (The PUNCH Editorial)