The difference between ideology and praxis is a real difference, especially in the superstructure of politics. The empirical fact of a vacuum in the sphere of praxiology is a reality of political history. Yet this fact is preceded by socio-cultural conditions that indeed make it possible. Of premium significance in those conditions is the strategy of politician-linguistic conditioning that eventually works for mass appeal. Communication fault lines become conscious methodology in conceptual maneuvres. If political art is a deliberate function of this dissonance between what is communicated and what obtains, then political science may need collaboration with philosophy in the way of interrogations regarding this dissonance. In this interdisciplinary approach, there emerges the comprehension that the prelude to political activism includes not just the socio-political conditions that are part of the science, but also the central role of political psychology that must be allowed to demand the univocalism of concepts that logically trail off in the unicity of ideology and praxis. This is against the subsisting equivocalism that creates distance between perspectives and meanings and in the end, a deconstructivist approach to intended meaning. Nigeria was used as a case study in the real attempt at analysis of political conceptual elements that constitute its make-up and modes of political operations. The political psychology perspective of scientific theoretical development proffers recommendations that would contribute to bridging the perceived gap and ensuring a fruitful outcome between ideology and praxis. Politician-linguism needs ideological policing such that political communications would benefit intended recipients.