Executive Summary

Political dominance is becoming an increasingly important variable in African economic risk.

In several countries, ruling parties are no longer simply winning elections; they are extending their influence across legislatures, state governments, regulatory institutions and local political structures. Nigeria provides a particularly important case. As President Bola Tinubu enters the 2027 election cycle, the APC has expanded its control to 31 of Nigeria's 36 states, while the opposition remains divided. Reuters reported in August 2026 that the political imbalance has strengthened Tinubu's position even as his administration faces economic and security pressures.

For business, the question is not whether political dominance is inherently good or bad. The more important question is what happens to the quality of institutions when political power becomes concentrated.

A dominant party can create policy continuity, simplify political coordination and make large-scale reforms easier to execute. But the same concentration can weaken institutional checks, reduce competitive pressure, increase the value of political access and make regulatory and procurement outcomes harder for businesses to predict independently of political relationships.

The distinction between political stability and political concentration is therefore becoming commercially significant.

 Why It Matters

Political stability has traditionally been viewed as an economic asset.

Businesses prefer governments capable of maintaining policies, executing budgets, approving infrastructure projects and providing predictable regulatory environments. Investors generally value continuity because large projects require capital commitments extending well beyond a single electoral cycle.

But stability and concentration are not synonymous.

A political system can be stable because institutions are strong. It can also appear stable because political competition has weakened.

That distinction matters for investors.

If institutions remain independent while one party repeatedly wins competitive elections, political dominance may coexist with relatively strong checks and balances. If the same political network increasingly controls executive authority, legislatures, subnational governments and regulatory appointments, however, the risk profile changes.

The concern is not simply electoral competition. It is whether independent institutions retain enough capacity to constrain executive discretion, enforce rules consistently and provide businesses with remedies when decisions go against them.

Afrobarometer's latest cross-country research illustrates the underlying tension. Across 38 African countries surveyed, 74% of respondents support choosing leaders through regular, open and honest elections; 63% support multiparty competition; and 76% reject one-party rule.

This suggests that citizens generally distinguish between effective government and political monopoly.

The economic implications are substantial.

Where institutions are strong, businesses compete primarily through productivity, capital, innovation and execution.

Where political access becomes increasingly important, companies may devote greater resources to government relationships, lobbying and political risk management. That can raise barriers to entry and favour incumbent firms with established connections.

The World Bank has identified this broader relationship between political power and private-sector competition in Africa, noting that politically connected dominant firms can influence policy and that procurement, state-owned enterprises and public-private partnerships can become channels through which political connections translate into economic advantage.

Nigeria: A Dominant-Party Test Case

Nigeria is entering an unusually consequential political period.

The Independent National Electoral Commission has scheduled the presidential and National Assembly elections for 16 January 2027, followed by governorship and state assembly elections on 6 February 2027.

President Bola Tinubu is seeking a second term, while the APC has expanded substantially beyond the position it held immediately after the 2023 election.

Recent defections have moved numerous governors and political figures from opposition parties into the APC. By March 2026, Nigerian media were reporting APC control of 31 of the country's 36 state governments. Reuters subsequently described the fragmented opposition and APC's expanded state-level reach as a major factor shaping the 2027 contest.

The National Assembly provides another layer of institutional reach. The APC retained the largest bloc in both chambers following the 2023 elections, while the current National Assembly's leadership remains dominated by APC figures.

This creates what might be called a coordination advantage.

A president working with a large number of politically aligned governors and a supportive legislature can potentially coordinate national and subnational policy more efficiently than an administration facing multiple centres of political resistance.

For investors, that can be valuable.

Large infrastructure projects, tax reforms, energy reforms, public-private partnerships and industrial programmes often require cooperation between federal and state authorities. Political alignment can reduce some of the bargaining friction involved in implementing them.

But it also creates a second question:

What happens when political alignment becomes more important than institutional independence?

That is where the one-party advantage can become an institutional risk.

When Does Stability Become Political Concentration?

Political dominance should not be measured simply by the number of elections won.

A more useful framework considers four dimensions:

Electoral dominance

Does one party repeatedly win competitive elections while opposition parties retain a realistic path to power?

Institutional dominance

Does the same political network control the executive, legislature, subnational governments and appointments to important institutions?

Economic dominance

Does political influence increasingly determine access to procurement, licences, concessions, public finance and major infrastructure opportunities?

Competitive erosion

Are opposition parties, independent institutions, civil society, media organisations or private-sector actors increasingly unable to challenge government decisions effectively?

The distinction matters because a dominant party can remain democratically legitimate if elections remain genuinely competitive and institutions retain independence.

The risk emerges when electoral dominance begins to produce institutional dependence.

Tanzania provides a cautionary regional example.

The ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) has governed for more than six decades. Freedom House's 2026 assessment reports that CCM won 270 of 272 directly elected parliamentary seats and 113 of 115 indirectly elected seats in the 2025 election, while major opposition candidates were excluded from competing.

That is qualitatively different from simply having a popular governing party.

It demonstrates how long-term political dominance can evolve into an environment in which electoral competition itself becomes constrained.

Nigeria's current trajectory should not be equated with Tanzania's political system. The institutional contexts are different and Nigeria continues to have multiple registered parties and competitive political actors.

The Tanzanian case is nevertheless useful because it illustrates the point at which political dominance becomes an institutional issue rather than merely an electoral one.

Does Dominant-Party Government Improve Policy Execution?

Sometimes it can.

Political fragmentation can make reform difficult.

A government negotiating simultaneously with opposition-controlled states, hostile legislators and competing political coalitions may struggle to implement policies consistently.

Dominant-party systems can reduce these coordination costs.

For business, this can mean:

  • faster approval of major infrastructure projects;

  • greater continuity in industrial policy;

  • easier implementation of fiscal reforms;

  • stronger alignment between federal and state governments;

  • fewer political obstacles to long-term programmes.

Nigeria's economic reform programme illustrates the potential benefit of political capacity.

The IMF reported in 2025 that the Tinubu administration was pursuing substantial fiscal, regulatory and structural reforms, including revenue mobilisation, energy-sector changes, competition and productivity reforms, and measures intended to strengthen the investment environment.

But policy execution is only one measure of institutional quality.

The more difficult question is whether policy can be challenged, corrected and improved when implementation produces unintended consequences.

A government capable of executing policy quickly is valuable.

A government capable of correcting policy quickly because institutions provide reliable feedback is more valuable.

The Checks-and-Balances Problem

The economic cost of political concentration often appears gradually.

It may begin with reduced legislative scrutiny.

It can then extend into weaker regulatory independence, less competitive procurement, reduced transparency and greater difficulty for businesses seeking to challenge administrative decisions.

This matters because markets depend on rules that are credible even when powerful interests disagree with them.

A regulator must be capable of imposing the same rule on a politically connected company and an independent competitor.

A procurement agency must be able to reject an unsuitable bidder regardless of political influence.

A court must be able to review government action without political pressure.

An audit institution must be able to expose misuse of public resources.

The World Bank's work on Nigerian fiscal governance illustrates the challenge. Its assessment of state-level reforms found that transparency and procurement reforms could reduce discretion and weaken patronage networks, but also noted that politically connected firms continued to win large contracts in some cases, including through non-competitive processes.

This is the central institutional tension:

Political concentration can improve coordination while simultaneously increasing the value of political access.

 

Procurement Is Where Politics Meets Business

For private enterprise, public procurement is one of the clearest transmission mechanisms between political power and economic opportunity.

Across Africa, governments spend substantial amounts through procurement. The World Bank estimates that African governments spend an average of approximately 17% of GDP on public procurement of goods, works and services.

That makes procurement not merely an administrative process but a major economic market.

When procurement is transparent and competitive, businesses compete through price, quality, technical capability and delivery.

When political influence enters the process, the competitive equation can change.

Recent research on Nigeria's procurement system has identified political interference, favouritism, contract inflation and preferential treatment as continuing risks, while the country's anti-corruption authorities have separately highlighted inflated contracts, phantom projects, collusion and projects affected by political transitions.

The World Bank has also reported that procurement transparency reforms in Nigerian states were among the most difficult reforms to sustain because they disrupted established patronage networks.

For businesses, the implication is straightforward.

The more politically concentrated the system becomes, the more important it is to understand how contracts are actually allocated, not simply what procurement rules say.

What Happens to Regulation?

Regulation is another area where political concentration can produce both benefits and risks.

A politically aligned government can sometimes coordinate regulatory reform more effectively. Businesses may benefit from fewer bureaucratic conflicts between government agencies and faster implementation of national priorities.

However, regulatory power also creates opportunities for selective enforcement.

A company that believes regulatory outcomes depend on political relationships rather than objective criteria faces a different operating environment from one competing in a rules-based market.

The World Bank has emphasised the importance of fair and transparent regulation in enabling new firms to compete with established businesses. It has also warned that politically connected firms can shape policies in their favour while weakening competitive pressures.

This is particularly important in sectors with high regulatory barriers:

  • telecommunications;

  • banking and financial services;

  • energy;

  • mining;

  • infrastructure;

  • construction;

  • pharmaceuticals;

  • transport;

  • oil and gas.

In these sectors, access to licences, concessions, spectrum, land, public contracts or regulatory approvals can determine whether a business succeeds.

Political concentration therefore increases the importance of regulatory independence.

The Business Case: Continuity Versus Dependency

For executives, the effect of dominant-party government is rarely binary.

There can be genuine commercial advantages.

Potential benefits

Policy continuity: Long-term projects become easier to plan when political leadership remains stable.

Execution capacity: Governments can implement large reforms without prolonged political bargaining.

Infrastructure coordination: Federal and state authorities can align on major projects.

Reduced political fragmentation: Businesses may face fewer competing policy agendas.

But there are corresponding risks.

Potential costs

Political dependency: Businesses may feel compelled to maintain relationships with political actors.

Regulatory uncertainty: Rules may become less predictable if institutions are heavily influenced by political interests.

Competition risk: Connected incumbents may receive advantages over independent competitors.

Procurement exposure: Public contracts may become more sensitive to political relationships.

Succession risk: A company heavily aligned with one political network may face difficulties if power changes hands.

This creates an important paradox.

The more a business benefits from political continuity, the more vulnerable it can become to political transition.

That is why institutional resilience should be treated as a business risk factor.

Who It Affects

Large Corporates

Large companies operating in infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, construction and financial services are particularly exposed because their businesses interact extensively with government.

They need sophisticated government-relations strategies—but those strategies should not substitute for institutional compliance.

SMEs

Smaller companies can be more vulnerable because they have fewer resources to navigate complex regulatory systems or cultivate political relationships.

If procurement and regulation become relationship-driven, SMEs may face higher barriers to entry.

Foreign Investors

International investors face a different problem: political relationships can help market entry, but excessive dependence on them can create reputational, compliance and exit risks.

Investors therefore increasingly need political-economy analysis alongside conventional financial due diligence.

Institutional Investors

Pension funds, development finance institutions and private-equity firms have longer investment horizons and therefore need to assess whether today's political alignment will remain an advantage five or ten years from now.

Governments

Dominant-party governments also face a strategic dilemma.

Political control can make reforms easier to implement, but institutional weakening can eventually reduce investor confidence, increase corruption risks and make economic policy more dependent on elite bargaining.

Market Signals

Several developments across Africa indicate that political concentration should now be incorporated into commercial risk analysis.

Signal 1: Electoral dominance is increasing in some markets

Freedom House reported that political rights and civil liberties deteriorated in 18 of 54 African countries during 2025, with non-competitive elections contributing to the consolidation of incumbent power in several states.

Signal 2: Citizens still value political competition

Afrobarometer's 2026 survey found that 63% of respondents across 38 countries support multiparty competition, while 76% reject one-party rule.

The gap between citizens' preferences and political realities is therefore becoming an important governance indicator.

Signal 3: Nigeria's political map has shifted materially

The APC's expansion to 31 state governments has fundamentally altered the competitive landscape ahead of the 2027 election.

Signal 4: Procurement remains an institutional pressure point

Nigeria's experience shows that formal procurement reforms can improve transparency without completely eliminating political influence over contracts.

Signal 5: Political risk is becoming economic risk

As governments play a major role in infrastructure, energy, financial regulation and industrial policy, political concentration increasingly affects the allocation of capital and commercial opportunity.

Strategic Risks

The principal risk is not that dominant parties always produce poor economic outcomes.

It is that institutional quality can become less visible when political stability is high.

Investors may initially welcome a government capable of making decisions quickly. The risk becomes apparent later if there are fewer independent institutions capable of correcting mistakes, challenging conflicts of interest or protecting market competition.

Three risks deserve particular attention.

1. Concentration Risk

A business that becomes too dependent on one political network can suffer disproportionately after a leadership change.

2. Institutional Risk

Weak checks and balances can increase the probability of regulatory inconsistency, procurement irregularities and selective enforcement.

 

3. Succession Risk

Dominant-party systems can appear highly stable until internal competition over succession becomes intense.

For investors, the critical question is therefore not simply:

Who controls government today?

It is:

How does the system behave when political power is contested?

Financing & Investment Implications

Political dominance should increasingly become part of investment due diligence.

Investors assessing African markets should examine:

  • concentration of political power;

  • distribution of governors and legislators by party;

  • independence of regulators;

  • procurement transparency;

  • judicial effectiveness;

  • quality of public financial management;

  • treatment of politically connected firms;

  • history of policy reversals after elections;

  • strength of opposition institutions;

  • concentration of government contracts among major suppliers.

This is especially important for infrastructure and public-private partnerships.

A project may appear commercially attractive on financial projections but carry substantial political exposure if its economics depend upon government concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land allocation or procurement contracts.

Political-risk analysis should therefore move beyond election forecasting.

It should examine institutional behaviour.

Recommendations for Executives and Investors

1. Separate Government Access from Political Dependence

Government engagement is necessary in regulated markets.

But companies should avoid building strategies that depend excessively on individual politicians or party structures.

Institutional relationships are more durable than personal relationships.

2. Map the Political Economy

Before entering a market, executives should identify who controls:

  • licensing;

  • procurement;

  • regulation;

  • land;

  • infrastructure;

  • taxation;

  • foreign-exchange policy;

  • public financing.

Understanding these networks can reveal commercial risks that conventional market research misses.

3. Stress-Test Political Transition

Companies should model what happens if the governing party loses power.

Would licences remain valid?

Would contracts survive?

Would subsidies change?

Would regulators change direction?

Would politically connected competitors gain or lose advantage?

Businesses unable to answer these questions may have underestimated their political exposure.

4. Prioritise Transparent Procurement

Companies competing for government contracts should maintain strong documentation, compliance systems and beneficial-ownership disclosures.

This protects the business against both regulatory scrutiny and political change.

5. Diversify Government Exposure

Businesses should avoid excessive dependence on a single government customer, state or political network.

Geographic, customer and revenue diversification can provide protection against political shocks.

6. Investors Should Price Institutional Risk

Political stability should not automatically receive a lower risk premium.

Investors should distinguish between stable institutions and stable political control.

The former is an economic asset.

The latter may be temporary.

Executive Outlook

Africa is unlikely to develop a single political model.

Some countries will remain highly competitive multiparty systems. Others will see dominant parties consolidate power while maintaining electoral competition. A smaller group may move towards increasingly restricted political systems.

For business, the most important distinction will be institutional rather than ideological.

The central question is whether political dominance produces stronger institutions or stronger political networks.

Nigeria will be one of the continent's most important cases to watch.

The APC's expanded control of state governments, its position in the National Assembly and the fragmentation of the opposition have created a significant political advantage for President Tinubu as the 2027 election approaches.

That advantage could improve policy coordination and reduce political friction around economic reforms.

But it also raises the value of institutional safeguards.

For Nigeria's private sector, the next phase should therefore not be assessed solely through the question of who wins the 2027 election.

The more consequential question is whether political consolidation produces greater policy certainty without weakening regulatory independence, procurement competition, legislative scrutiny and institutional checks.

That distinction will influence the country's investment environment long after the election itself.

Across Africa, the same principle applies.

A government that can execute policy is valuable.

A government constrained by strong institutions, transparent rules and competitive markets is more valuable.

The one-party advantage, when it exists, may produce short-term coordination benefits.

The long-term economic test is whether those benefits are converted into institutions that remain effective even when political power changes hands.

Sources

Editorial note: This analysis treats political dominance as an institutional and economic-risk question rather than a partisan judgement. The evidence does not establish that APC dominance itself constitutes a one-party state; the relevant issue is whether increasing political concentration changes the independenc