They Riot in Iran Over Fuel Subsidy — We Just Laugh, Suffer, and Scroll in Nigeria
In late 2025 and early 2026, Iran experienced one of the most intense waves of civil unrest in its recent history — and a major catalyst for that unrest was the government’s decision to alter its longstanding system of fuel subsidies. Meanwhile, Nigeria — a country with a far more violent, unstable, and hardship-stricken economic reality — has seen fuel subsidy removal unfold in relative quiet, despite outcomes that are economically just as devastating for ordinary citizens.
This stark contrast raises important questions: Did fuel subsidy removal really spark the latest unrest in Iran? And why did a comparable policy in Nigeria not trigger a similar scale of public upheaval? The answers lie not just in economics — but in political culture, historical memory, and societal resolve.
Fuel Subsidy Reform & Mass Protests in Iran: A Brutal Awakening
In December 2025, Iran was already grappling with severe economic pain. Years of international sanctions targeting its oil exports and energy sector had sharply reduced government revenues, while repeated currency instability and inflation dramatically fueled the public’s hardship. By the end of 2025, the Iranian rial had plummeted to record lows against the dollar, with some estimates placing it at around 1.4 million rials to the U.S. dollar. Annual inflation was reported at more than 40 percent, while food prices in many areas were reportedly up nearly 70 percent — indicating a cost-of-living crisis of historic proportions.
Against this backdrop, the Iranian government announced a significant adjustment to fuel pricing in late 2025 — the first major change since the deadly nationwide fuel price protests of 2019. Under the new plan, the above-quota price of gasoline was increased sharply, even while the below-quota subsidized quota remained on paper. Critics argued this effectively removed the subsidy for most practical purposes, emptying people’s pockets as global and domestic prices diverged.
The decision came at a moment when everyday Iranians were already overwhelmed by economic insecurity, diminishing purchasing power, and widespread frustration over corruption and economic inequality. In this climate, the fuel price change acted as a trigger — not a root cause — igniting demonstrations that began in Tehran’s historic Grand Bazaar but quickly spread to dozens of cities and regions across the country.
What distinguishes the Iranian situation is how economic discontent rapidly morphed into political outrage. Shopkeepers, traders, students, workers, and even previously loyal socio-economic groups began calling not just for economic relief, but for systemic political change — including challenging the authority of the Iranian regime itself.
The government’s response was brutal. Human rights organizations estimate hundreds to possibly thousands of protesters have been killed, and thousands more arrested in one of the harshest crackdowns since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Internet blackouts and aggressive security operations aimed to isolate and suppress dissent, but they also underscored just how existentially serious this unrest had become.
Fuel Subsidy Removal in Nigeria: Quiet Pain, Not Provocation
Nigeria’s story is dramatically different — and yet, in economic terms, not entirely dissimilar.
For decades, Nigeria subsidized the cost of gasoline, keeping the price far below market levels despite the country being Africa’s largest oil producer. This subsidy was deeply controversial, widely seen as riddled with corruption and inefficiency, and a perennial drain on federal finances.
In January 2012, former President Goodluck Jonathan’s government attempted to remove fuel subsidies, raising petrol prices significantly overnight. The result was the Occupy Nigeria protests, which drew millions into streets nationwide and effectively forced the government to retreat and partially reinstate the subsidy within a matter of days.
Fast forward to May 2023, when President Bola Tinubu’s administration announced the total removal of fuel subsidies. Petrol prices reportedly shot from around ₦185 per litre to between ₦600 and ₦700 per litre in major cities — a roughly three- to four-fold increase that devastated household budgets.
This policy change, like Iran’s, was not isolated. It came alongside other major economic reforms — including the unification of the foreign exchange rate and a floating naira system — which collectively drove up prices, weakened purchasing power, and pushed millions closer to poverty. Some data from 2024 suggested that the combined impact of subsidy removal and naira unification had pushed inflation and cost of living to levels that weakened basic survival for many Nigerians.
And yet, outside of sporadic strikes, rallies, and occasional demonstrations — including Labour Congress-led actions — Nigeria has not seen sustained nationwide protest on the scale witnessed in Iran. Even where frustrations have boiled over — such as marches on the National Assembly and clashes with security forces — the movements have not maintained prolonged national momentum comparable to those in Iran.
Why Protest in Iran and Not in Nigeria? A Deeper Look
The contrast between the two countries is stark and instructive. Several key factors help explain why Iran’s fuel subsidy shift triggered intense sustained protests, while Nigeria’s did not:
1. Political Culture and Historical Memory
In Iran, decades of political repression, combined with repeated economic shocks and past protest waves — including the Woman, Life, Freedom demonstrations a few years prior — have fostered a population that sees protest as both necessary and credible. Persistent grievances are channeled into collective action despite severe risks.
Nigeria, by contrast, has a long history of short-lived protests that dissipate under pressure, division, or lack of sustained organization. Many Nigerians today face economic hardship as a chronic condition, and frustration often gets expressed in individual survival strategies rather than prolonged mass action.
2. Target of Grievances
Iranian protesters expanded their demands from economic relief to systemic political change — calling into question the legitimacy of the regime itself.
In Nigeria, while protests certainly contain political undertones, they have largely remained economic in scope, focusing on hardship, palliative measures, or specific policy changes rather than a unified rejection of the entire political order.
3. State Repression vs. Democratic Containment
The Iranian state responded with lethal force and widespread arrests — a brutal model that paradoxically cemented protest identities and galvanized unity among opposition groups.
Nigeria’s state response, while at times heavy-handed, has been far more restrained comparatively. Security forces have generally prevented protests from escalating into broad civil uprisings, and the political space, though constrained, still allows for organized labour engagement and negotiation.
4. Socio-Economic Expectations
Many Iranians reaching the streets in 2025 described themselves as having “nothing left to lose” — squeezed by inflation, currency collapse, and diminishing job prospects. In Nigeria, although economic pain is severe, population segments still cling to hope in gradual reform or palliative measures, reducing the immediacy for full-scale revolt.
Conclusion: Pain Alone Doesn’t Ignite Revolt — Context Does
Fuel subsidy removal removed economic protection in both Iran and Nigeria — but the outcomes diverged dramatically.
In Iran, it helped catalyze a mass movement with political depth, driven by accumulated grievances, rising costs of living, and a belief that relentless protest could compel change.
In Nigeria, similar economic suffering has not translated into sustained, coordinated national uprising — often dissipating into short bursts of action without enduring power.
The lesson from these two very different contexts is clear: economic pain matters — but only the political will to act transforms suffering into systemic change.
Nigeria’s silence amid hardship may reflect fear, fragmentation, or resignation — but it also underscores a crucial truth: without collective political agency, even the deepest crisis can pass quietly — while ordinary people continue to suffer.
0 Comments