Understanding Politics Of Northern Nigeria: Burial Of El-Rufai’s Mother

Thomas Barna Lass

NEWSDAILYNIGERIA: What happened at the funeral of the mother of Nasir El-Rufai should not be seen as ordinary or just ceremonial.

It reflects a deeply rooted normative order in Northern Nigeria’s political sociology, where elite cohesion, informal institutions, and unwritten rules of political conduct often override open conflict in the formal political arena.

The presence of political actors who are usually seen as rivals, such as Nuhu Ribadu and Uba Sani, shows a strong and institutionalized elite consensus.

This is based on a dualistic political logic, where politicians compete strongly in public but still maintain intra elite solidarity during important social moments like death.

This behavior fits into elite circulation and elite cohesion frameworks.

This explain that stable political systems are not sustained only by elections and formal democratic competition, but also by informal elite bargaining, reciprocity, and mutual recognition.

What we see here is elite pacting, where political actors deliberately reduce tension outside formal political settings in order to protect their long term access to power, relevance, and regime stability.

In Northern Nigeria, there is a clear cultural division between institutional contestation and communal obligation which is not found in Southern Kaduna, Middle belt and Southern Nigeria.

Politics is competitive, involving rivalry, coalition building, and factional maneuvering, but it is also controlled by social obligations linked to religion, kinship, and historical aristocratic systems in Northern Nigeria.

Attending funerals is therefore not a minor act. It is a performative act that shows elite interconnectedness and builds social capital.

It strengthens what can be described as a high cohesion elite network, even when there is visible public rivalry.

This pattern is very different from what is often seen among many politicians in the Middle Belt, Southern Kaduna, and parts of Southern Nigeria who view politics as war that must be fought to the bitter end to completely annihilate the rival.

In these areas, politics is often practiced as a zero sum game, where one person’s victory is seen as another person’s total loss.

Because of this, political competition in Southern Kaduna, Middle belt and Southern Nigeria becomes existential rather than transactional and community building.

This zero sum political logic leads to personalized conflicts, strong factionalism, and what is known as affective polarization.

Political rivalry goes beyond strategy and becomes emotional, driven by historical grievances, identity divisions, and local power struggles.

As a result, conflicts are prolonged and taken to the extreme, with little space for compromise or reconciliation.

This creates a fragmented elite structure with low interpersonal trust and low institutional trust.

From a political sociology angle, this difference can also be explained by religion and cultural structure.

In Northern Nigeria, Islamic norms, especially practices like Fard Kifayah, create a strong moral obligation that goes beyond politics.

So when someone like Nuhu Ribadu and Uba Sani attends such an event, it is not just politics. It is religious duty, social signaling, and political strategy at the same time.

It builds legitimacy, strengthens group identity, and supports the moral economy of the elite system.

In contrast, in Southern Kaduna, Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria, society is more pluralistic and not guided by one dominant normative system.Christian religious ethics does not hold a strong bound in their political interests.

Because of this, such moral obligations do not always control political behavior. Political grievances often continue even during social events where unity would normally be expected.

From the perspective of strategic communication and image management, the presence of top politicians from the North acts as symbolic reassurance.

It sends a message of regime continuity, elite maturity, and system stability despite political tensions.

It is a performative act aimed at stabilizing the system and reducing fears of elite breakdown.

On the other hand, in zero sum political environments, absence from such events becomes a strategic signal.

It shows that divisions are still strong, reinforces boundaries between rival groups, and communicates that there is no reconciliation.

In this context, absence carries as much meaning as presence.

What we see, therefore, is a clear difference between two models of elite interaction.

The Northern model is a hybrid system of competitive clientelism combined with elite consensus and informal conflict management.

The model common in parts of the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria is more adversarial, fragmented, and high risk, where elite fragmentation increases political instability.

In conclusion, this event is an example of what can be called a political technology of elite stabilization.

Northern elites have built a system where conflict is not removed but carefully managed, controlled, and reduced when necessary.

In contrast, in zero sum political environments, conflict becomes total, continuous, and difficult to manage informally.

Thats why politicians from Southern Kaduna, Middle belt,South East, and South South find it difficult to produce national leaders.

In a country like Nigeria, where politics involves shifting coalitions, patron client networks, and competition over resources, the ability to manage and contain conflict instead of allowing full elite fragmentation is a major strategic advantage.