By Richard Ikiebe
As a nation, Nigeria may have lost its direction again, fumbling its way into the future through an electoral process whose underlying assumptions and measures of success we have scarcely examined for ourselves.
Is electoral politics all there is to democracy? As 2027 draws nearer, Nigerians seem overwhelmed and preoccupied with who will govern. Yet the definition of “who” is often remarkably shallow, revolving around certificates, schools attended and classmates; ethnicity, religion, and whether one’s faith is sufficiently pure, or not.
Opposition’s struggle to unite behind a “common candidate” rather than a “common national redemption programme” also illustrates the “who” problem. There are disputes over whether Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi or another aspirant should lead the ticket, consuming political energy better spent defining what would be done differently and how.
Politicians have devoted enormous energy to determining “who” qualifies to occupy public office, but far less to asking what these candidates propose to accomplish, which problems they intend to solve, and by what principles and standards their performance should be judged.
Elections may be indispensable to democracy, but electoral competition alone cannot define its meaning. The more fundamental question is whether Nigeria has developed a sufficiently clear understanding of the problems its democratic system must address and the institutional arrangements required to make those principles effective.
Nigeria has travelled this familiar road before. Goodluck Jonathan’s defeat in 2015 owed much to the successful marketing of Buhari as a “born-again” democrat. But did his victory usher in better days? Did eight years of Buhari fundamentally alter the power relations sustaining insecurity, patronage and poor public services? Changing the occupant of the presidency proved easier than changing the system of governance.
Perhaps it is not too late to step back and ask fundamental questions about the Nigerian democratic project. If the opposition united tomorrow, what programme would justify that unity beyond defeating the incumbent? Which Nigerian problems would it prioritise, and what binding commitments would distinguish it from the government it seeks to replace?
Poverty, insecurity, corruption and inequality are common to virtually all societies. Their Nigerian manifestations, however, are shaped by the country’s contesting sub-national identities, uneven state capacity, patronage networks and unresolved questions of citizenship and political belonging.
These circumstances demand more than the periodic political selection of leaders. They demand a clearer conception of the political purposes those leaders are expected to serve.
Consider the question of citizenship. What does equal Nigerian citizenship mean when ethnicity, religion and indigene status can influence access to opportunity, public resources and political representation?
Consider insecurity. Beyond the immediate failure to protect lives and property, what does persistent violence reveal about the state’s capacity, the accountability of its security institutions and the protection afforded to vulnerable communities? What obligations does government owe citizens displaced from their homes and deprived of their livelihoods?
Consider the country’s persistent inability to translate its human and material resources into broadly shared prosperity. What institutional failures allow public office to become an instrument of private accumulation? Why does a change of political leadership so often leave the underlying relationship between public authority and public interest substantially unchanged?
Genuine accountability requires more than periodic elections; it requires transparent public commitments and credible consequences for failure. Protection of rights requires institutions capable of enforcing them, including against those who exercise state power.
International samples may offer valuable lessons, but neither imported models nor inherited political conventions should substitute for a rigorous examination of Nigerian realities. In this regard, the present campaign culture reveals its gawping limitations.
Politics organised solely around candidates reduces elections to contests of personality, pedigree, identity and alliances. Politics centred on public problems demands that candidates define what they intend to change, explain how they will do it, identify the trade-offs involved. The distinction is between choosing who occupies public office and determining what that office must deliver.
Instead of accepting broad, vague promises of development, citizens would demand defined outcomes, credible timelines and evidence against which performance could be judged. Political victory should no longer be treated as an end in itself. Elections ought to become a means of authorising well publicised programme of public obligations.
Such a shift requires a more substantive national conversation about the purpose of the state. What constitutes a good society? What gives political authority legitimacy? How should individual interests be reconciled with collective welfare? What obligations does the state owe its citizens, and what standards should determine whether those obligations have been met?
These are questions for public deliberation, informed by Nigeria’s history, contemporary experience and available evidence. They cannot be answered by politicians alone, nor can their resolution be reduced to the preferences of ethnic, religious or partisan constituencies. Political parties, the media, universities, civic organisations and citizens all have a role in bringing the substance of governance to the centre of political competition.
The point here is not to eliminate personalities from politics, but to subordinate the contest for office to a clearer understanding of its purpose. Every electoral cycle must force a serious debate about what Nigerian democracy is expected to accomplish. Until politics moves beyond who should govern to what government must deliver, electoral victories will continue to be mistaken for political progress.
Dr Richard Ikiebe is a Media and Management Consultant, Teacher and Chairman, Board of Businessday Newspaper
