Iyobosa Uwugiaren writes that the current atmosphere in Nigeria doesn’t signal a nation that is gearing up for general elections—a defining democratic exercise.
0rdinarily, a few months before a general election, the country’s political space should be awash with political activities: debates, policy conversations, voter education campaigns, party mobilisation, and visible preparations by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The atmosphere should signal a nation gearing up for a defining democratic exercise.
However, there is a growing sense of uncertainty and unease. Beyond the routine political statements and partisan rhetoric by political actors and political parties, there appears to be little evidence of the level of preparedness expected ahead of an election that will determine the future of over 250 million citizens.
This perception may not entirely reflect reality. Electoral preparations may indeed be taking place behind the scenes. Political parties may be quietly strategizing and plotting, while the electoral body may be implementing operational plans away from public attention. However, democracy thrives not only on processes but also on public confidence. And confidence is precisely what appears to be in short supply currently.
To be sure, several factors are fueling public scepticism: growing and persistent insecurity across many parts of the country, doubts about the credibility and independence of the electoral management body, the near absence of internal democracy within political parties, voter apathy, economic hardship, and a widening trust deficit between citizens and government and political institutions. Together, these issues raise important questions about Nigeria’s readiness for another electoral cycle.
The first and perhaps most visible challenge is insecurity. With the growing criminal activities of bandits and terrorists, no democracy can conduct credible elections in an atmosphere of fear. Across various parts of the country, people continue to grapple with banditry, terrorism, kidnapping, communal violence, and other forms of criminality. Entire local government areas in some regions have experienced repeated attacks, displacement of residents, and disruption of economic activities.
The implications for elections are profound. Citizens who fear for their safety are not likely to participate in political activities, attend campaigns, or vote on election day. Electoral officials may find it difficult to deploy personnel and materials to volatile areas. Political parties may be unable to campaign freely in certain states. Most importantly, insecurity creates conditions in which voter suppression can occur, either deliberately or indirectly—thereby creating room for massive rigging of elections.
No doubt, Nigeria has faced security challenges during previous elections, especially since 1999; but the scale and complexity of current threats make the situation particularly concerning. The question is not simply whether elections can be held, but whether they can be conducted in a manner that guarantees inclusiveness, fairness, and equal participation across the 36 states of the federation, including Abuja.
Closely related to insecurity is the issue of public trust in the electoral process. Elections are not judged solely by the outcome; they are judged by the credibility of the process that produces the outcome. Even the most technically sound election can lose legitimacy if citizens perceive the process as compromised, as is currently the case.
In recent years, conversations about the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral system have intensified. While reforms have been introduced to improve transparency and technology has been deployed to strengthen electoral integrity, public confidence remains fragile. Delays in the transmission of results during previous elections, controversies surrounding electoral procedures, and allegations of political interference have left lingering doubts in the minds of many citizens.
The challenge for the electoral body is therefore not only administrative but also psychological. INEC must do more work to convince Nigerians that it possesses both the capacity and the will to conduct elections that reflect the genuine choices of voters.
This requires transparency, consistent communication, operational efficiency, and demonstrable independence from partisan influence. Its link to crises in some opposition parties is unhelpful. Public confidence cannot be demanded; it must be earned. Where there is a history of disputed elections, allegations of manipulation, and judicial reversals of electoral outcomes, citizens naturally become more sceptical. Rebuilding trust requires more than official assurances. It requires visible actions that inspire confidence.
Another major concern is the state of internal democracy within political parties. Ironically, many parties that seek to govern democratically often struggle to practice democracy within their own structures. Candidate selection processes are frequently marred by allegations of imposition, manipulation, exclusion, and the dominance of powerful political actors. The recent primaries by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which witnessed unprecedented manipulation of the process, are a setback in the several attempts to deepen democracy in the country.
The consequences are far-reaching. When party members believe that nominations are predetermined or controlled by a few individuals, internal participation declines. Competent aspirants may be sidelined in favour of candidates with political connections or financial influence. Internal disputes often lead to defections, litigation, and fragmentation within parties.
More importantly, the erosion of internal democracy weakens the wider democratic culture. Elections are supposed to provide citizens with meaningful choices among candidates who emerge through fair and competitive processes. When party primaries lack credibility, the legitimacy of the entire electoral chain is undermined.
Nigeria’s political parties must therefore confront a fundamental question: how can they credibly advocate democratic governance while neglecting democratic principles within their own organisations? Strengthening internal democracy is not merely a party matter; it is a national democratic imperative.
Economic hardship also casts a long shadow over the electoral environment. Millions of Nigerians are struggling with rising living costs, unemployment, inflation, and declining purchasing power. For many citizens, daily survival has become a more pressing concern than political participation. Ask many Nigerians today, and the likely answer you might get is: “Who politics help?”
This situation presents a paradox. Economic difficulties often increase the need for political engagement because government policies directly affect citizens’ welfare. Yet hardship can also deepen political disengagement. People who feel abandoned by the system may lose faith and confidence in the ability of elections to improve their circumstances.
The danger is that widespread frustration can create fertile ground for voter apathy. Citizens may conclude that elections change governments but not governance. Such cynicism represents a serious threat to democratic consolidation. Democracy depends not only on institutions but also on citizen participation. When people stop believing that their votes matter, the democratic project itself becomes vulnerable.
Adding to these concerns is the growing crisis of political credibility. Across the political spectrum, many Nigerians perceive little ideological distinction among major parties. Politicians frequently switch affiliations with remarkable ease, often without offering coherent explanations grounded in policy or principle.
As a result, elections increasingly appear to be contests among political elites rather than competitions between alternative visions for national development. Public debates and conversations often focus on personalities, ethnic calculations, regional alignments, and political manoeuvring rather than substantive policy proposals.
This absence of ideological clarity weakens democratic accountability. Citizens cannot effectively evaluate political performance when parties fail to articulate clear policy positions. Elections become less about competing ideas and more about competing interests.
Not many political observers doubt that the media has a role to play in shaping the narrative—it must move beyond reporting campaign rallies and political statements to providing rigorous analysis of issues that affect citizens. The media must scrutinize electoral preparations, investigate claims made by political actors, expose misinformation, and facilitate informed public debate.
At the same time, media organisations must resist pressures that could compromise editorial independence. In a highly polarized political environment, maintaining professional standards becomes even more critical. The credibility of the electoral process is closely linked to the credibility of information available to voters.
Yet despite these challenges, despair is neither necessary nor productive. Nigeria has repeatedly demonstrated remarkable democratic resilience. The country has conducted multiple electoral cycles, witnessed peaceful transfers of power, and sustained democratic governance despite numerous setbacks. These achievements should not be underestimated.
However, resilience should not become an excuse for complacency. Every election presents an opportunity either to strengthen democracy or to weaken it. The warning signs currently visible across the political landscape deserve serious attention.
The coming months will therefore be critical.
The electoral body must intensify efforts to reassure citizens and demonstrate preparedness. Security agencies must develop effective strategies to protect voters, electoral officials, and election infrastructure. Political parties must embrace greater transparency and internal accountability.
The media and civil society must continue to demand answers to legitimate questions about the electoral process.
Most importantly, political leaders must recognize that democracy derives its legitimacy from public trust. Trust cannot be manufactured through slogans, public relations campaigns, or official declarations. It is built through consistent adherence to democratic principles, respect for institutions, and commitment to the rule of law.
Nigeria stands at an important democratic moment. The stakes could hardly be higher. Elections are not merely periodic political events. They are tests of national confidence, institutional credibility, and democratic maturity.
Governments at all levels must ensure that when citizens eventually go to the polls, they do so with the assurance that their votes will count, their voices will matter, and their democracy remains worth believing in.
