It must be stated, however, that a politician does not automatically become egalitarian merely by calling another politician by his first name. One can reject the theatre of presidential grandeur while remaining thoroughly enamoured of the throne itself. The test is not whether Atiku says “Bola”, but whether he believes that power should be less arrogant, more accountable and genuinely answerable to Nigerians.
The psychology, risks of the name game
Moreover, there is a psychological calculation in the politics of naming. Titles create distance; first names can collapse it. A presidential title reminds an audience of the office, its authority and its institutional weight. A bare first name redirects attention to the individual, making him seem more familiar, ordinary and potentially less formidable.
That is the possible political trick: reduce the aura, diminish the mystique and shrink the man in the public imagination before attempting to dislodge him from office.
It is an old political game dressed in fresh Nigerian packaging. Such tactics, however, are double-edged and can cut both ways. A politician who appears too eager to diminish his rival may come across as petty rather than formidable, seeming fixated on his opponent instead of concentrating on the issues that matter.
Nigerians are sophisticated consumers of political drama. They understand the difference between a person who commands attention through substance and one who desperately fishes for it through verbal stunts, taunts and veiled contempt. They know the difference between a sharp tongue and a sharp mind. The danger for Atiku is that his little jab could boomerang.
He may be trying to puncture Tinubu’s presidential balloon, but he must be careful not to appear like a man who brings a pin to a policy debate.
The real tragedy would be for this little name game to become a substitute for the larger argument Nigeria desperately needs. The country is not groaning under the weight of honorifics. Families are groaning under the weight of food prices, transport costs, school fees, rents and a general economic squeeze that turns every trip to the market into a small financial crisis. Insecurity remains a haunting concern, while unemployment and public distrust continue to test the country’s social fabric.
These are the issues that should be confronting the candidates, not merely the etiquette of presidential address. If Atiku wants Nigerians to believe that he represents a credible alternative, let him explain what he would change, how he would change it and how his plans would improve ordinary lives.
A clever nickname is not an economic blueprint, and a mocking tone is not a manifesto. A candidate cannot feed a hungry household with the crumbs of a rhetorical victory. The electorate needs policies with teeth, not political theatre with a wink.
Let Tinubu defend his record with evidence rather than entitlement. The electorate deserves a contest of ideas, not a pantomime in which one man plays the incumbent and the other plays the cheeky fellow at the back of the room shouting his first name.
Yet the name game matters because elections are contests not only of policy but also of symbolism, temperament and perceived fitness to lead. Every candidate is selling a story about himself and his opponent. Atiku may be projecting himself as the fearless challenger who refuses to genuflect before presidential authority.
Tinubu’s supporters may interpret the same gesture as disrespectful grandstanding. Both readings can coexist, and the political value of the tactic will ultimately depend on how voters receive it. Political snark may spice up a campaign, but it cannot cook the national meal.
There is an irony in watching Nigeria’s political class tussle over respect. Our politicians often demand elaborate courtesies when in office and celebrate irreverence when seeking to wrest office from someone else. Yesterday’s rebel becomes tomorrow’s distinguished statesman, complete with an entourage, a convoy and a fresh appetite for being addressed correctly.
The same politician who once mocked presidential pomposity may later develop a huge intolerance for informality. It is the Nigerian political circle of life: enter office as a champion of the people and emerge as an institution that must not be questioned.
This is why voters should look beyond the name-calling and examine the character beneath the performance. Does a candidate respect the people when they disagree with him? Can he tolerate scrutiny without throwing a tantrum? Does he understand that public office is a temporary mandate rather than a permanent elevation in human worth? Those questions reveal far more about a potential President than whether he calls his opponent Bola, Tinubu or His Excellency.
Beyond the theatrics: Nigerians need substance
So, let Atiku call him Bola if that is the political language he chooses. Let Tinubu’s supporters decide whether they consider it cheeky, insulting or inconsequential. Nigerians, however, should refuse to be distracted by the verbal confetti. The Presidency is neither Tinubu’s personal property nor a sacred institution beyond criticism. It is a public trust whose occupant must earn legitimacy through performance, accountability and respect for the people.
Equally, opposition politics must be more than a competition in clever insults. A man can call the President by his first name and still have nothing intelligent to say about the country. He can observe every rule of etiquette and still govern disastrously.
Ultimately, it is not the honorific that makes the leader, nor the absence of one that makes the challenger. Atiku may call him Bola, and Tinubu may insist on the dignity of his office. Come election day, Nigerians should ask the only question that truly matters: which of them, or any of the other contenders for Aso Villa, has a credible plan to make Nigeria worthy of its people?
Nigeria needs leaders who can challenge power without trivialising public discourse, expose arrogance without practising their own and distinguish fearless criticism from cheap ridicule and political mischief. The Presidency belongs neither to Tinubu personally nor to any political dynasty. It is an institution held in trust for the Nigerian people. That institution must never become sacred, but neither should our politics become so tacky and sly that a first name is mistaken for an argument.
In the final analysis, Atiku may call the President “Bola”, but the question is whether, come election day, Nigerians will hear a confident challenger presenting a compelling case for change or merely a politician trying to score a point with a name.
The central argument of HEARTLAND DIALOGUE is that a politician’s choice of words can be a calculated instrument of power. But a title, or its absence, does not determine a leader’s worth. Spare us the theatrics.
Nigerians want substance, strategy and an intentional, implementable roadmap for sustainable development.
Concluded from last edition