BY LAWAN MUSA DANLAMI
NIGERIA’s democracy is facing a subtle but increasingly disturbing challenge: the growing tendency of political power to follow elections into every corner of the country. The recent warning by former President Goodluck Jonathan over the presence of serving governors, senior political office holders and party leaders in states conducting off-cycle elections should therefore not be dismissed as another episode in Nigeria’s familiar partisan exchanges. It raises a much deeper question about the nature, quality and future of democratic competition in the country.
Jonathan’s intervention followed the Osun State governorship election and similar developments witnessed during recent off-cycle elections in Ekiti and Ondo. In his statement, he expressed concern over the practice whereby serving governors and influential political actors arrive in election states with large entourages, political supporters and substantial security details. His argument is not that political leaders should be prohibited from supporting their parties or candidates. Rather, he is questioning whether the scale and character of such mobilisation are compatible with the principles of free, fair and peaceful elections.
That question deserves serious consideration.
The purpose of an election is not to determine which political party can assemble the largest number of governors, senators, ministers, political appointees or security personnel. The purpose is to allow citizens to choose their representatives.
Democracy is often reduced to the simple act of voting. But the intellectual tradition of democratic theory tells us that democracy is considerably more demanding than the periodic organisation of elections. Political scientist Robert Dahl, one of the most influential scholars of democratic government, emphasised effective participation, political equality, informed understanding and meaningful competition as essential features of a democratic system. In Dahl’s conception of democracy, citizens must have genuine opportunities to participate in political decision-making and to compete for political influence.
ALSO READ: Onoja Innocent Ella: Sixty Years Of Grace, Goodness And Service; By Iduh Onah
This raises an uncomfortable question for Nigeria: can political competition remain genuinely democratic when one side can surround an electoral environment with enormous political authority, governmental influence and security presence?
The answer requires looking beyond legality to democratic norms.
A governor may have the legal right to travel to another state and participate in his political party’s activities. A political leader may have the right to campaign for a candidate. Party supporters are equally entitled to mobilise. But democracy is not sustained by legal rights alone. It also depends on political restraint and respect for the spirit of democratic competition.
This distinction is particularly important in Nigeria, where political office provides enormous access to state institutions, security structures, financial resources and networks of influence. When these advantages are brought into an off-cycle election, the distinction between ordinary party mobilisation and the overwhelming projection of governmental power can become blurred.
The issue, therefore, is not simply how many governors were present in Osun. It is the precedent such conduct could establish.
ALSO READ: National Ranching Policy: Whose Land, Whose Ranches, Whose Future?; By Tom Chiahemen
Reports that a large number of governors and senior political figures converged on Osun in support of their party’s candidate illustrate the scale of Nigeria’s evolving political mobilisation. Supporters may interpret such a gathering as evidence of party strength and solidarity. Critics, however, may see it as an intimidating display of political power. Both interpretations deserve consideration because public confidence in elections depends not only on what political actors intend but also on how their conduct is perceived by citizens and opponents.
Amartya Sen’s broader conception of political freedom is also relevant. For Sen, freedom is not merely the possession of formal rights; people must possess meaningful opportunities to exercise those rights. Applied to elections, this means that citizens should be able to make political choices without coercion, intimidation or overwhelming pressure. A voter may technically possess the right to vote, but the democratic value of that right is diminished if the surrounding political environment makes the voter feel powerless before the machinery of political authority.
This is why the atmosphere surrounding an election matters.
An ordinary voter arriving at a polling centre and encountering convoys of powerful politicians, large groups of political supporters and heavily armed security personnel may not necessarily be threatened directly. Yet the visual demonstration of political power can itself generate apprehension. In fragile democratic environments, perception matters. Democracy requires citizens to believe that they can participate without fear and that their individual vote carries the same political dignity as that of the most powerful politician.
ALSO READ: Osun Is Where The Sun Rises: The Triumph Of The People Over ‘Federal Might’; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
The problem becomes even more serious if such behaviour develops into a political arms race.
If governors from one political party begin descending on states holding elections, governors from rival parties may feel compelled to respond. One side brings political heavyweights; the other brings an even larger delegation. One party mobilises supporters; another mobilises counter-supporters. Governmental influence is matched with governmental influence, and political strength is answered with political strength.
At that point, the election risks becoming a contest between political establishments rather than a contest between candidates.
This is precisely where the observations of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt about democratic norms become relevant. Their scholarship on democratic stability demonstrates that formal institutions alone cannot protect democracy. Political systems also depend on unwritten norms, restraint and the willingness of political actors to respect boundaries even when they possess the power to cross them.
Nigeria must therefore ask an important question: what happens when conduct that was once considered politically excessive gradually becomes normal?
ALSO READ: The Country That Keeps Starting Again; By Lanre Ogundipe
Democratic decline does not always begin with the destruction of a constitution or the suspension of parliament. Sometimes it begins with the gradual erosion of conventions. Behaviour that was previously regarded as unacceptable becomes routine. Once one political camp adopts it, another adopts it in response. Eventually, every political actor considers escalation necessary for survival.
That is the danger Jonathan’s warning seeks to expose.
Jonathan himself recalled that during the 2013 Anambra and 2014 Ekiti governorship elections, he ordered party leaders and senior government officials to leave the states. Whether one agrees with his administration’s broader political record is a separate matter. The principle he raises is nevertheless worthy of consideration: public office carries responsibilities beyond the exercise of formal authority.
Those who occupy the highest political offices possess greater influence than ordinary citizens. Consequently, they also have a greater responsibility to ensure that their conduct does not undermine public confidence in democratic institutions.
This is where Nigeria’s political class must demonstrate maturity.
Real democracy is not simply the presence of ballot boxes, polling units and election results. It is the existence of a political environment in which citizens can participate freely, opponents can compete without intimidation, institutions can operate independently and political power can change hands peacefully.
The purpose of an election is not to determine which political party can assemble the largest number of governors, senators, ministers, political appointees or security personnel. The purpose is to allow citizens to choose their representatives.
ALSO READ: ABSU: Running A University As A Local Village Contraption; By Owei Lakemfa
A governor should be able to support a party without turning an election into a demonstration of state power. A party leader should be able to campaign without creating an atmosphere of fear. Security agencies should protect voters and electoral officials rather than becoming part of the visual theatre of political competition.
The Nigerian voter must remain at the centre of the democratic process.
Robert Dahl’s emphasis on political equality is particularly instructive here. Democratic equality does not mean that every politician will possess identical financial resources or political networks. It means that citizens must have meaningful opportunities to participate and that political competition should not be distorted to the point where governmental power overwhelms alternative political voices.
Nigeria cannot build credible democracy while allowing political competition to become increasingly dependent on the size of political machinery.
ALSO READ: The Sundiata Post Model (7): A Philosophical Triad And The Language Of 21st Century Journalism; By Max Amuchie
There is also a broader lesson from Joseph Schumpeter’s understanding of democracy as a competitive process through which political leaders seek the people’s mandate. Competition is essential, but competition becomes unhealthy when winning is treated as the only acceptable outcome. Democracy requires both the willingness to compete and the willingness to accept defeat.
If political actors begin to regard every election as a battle for political survival, the incentive to respect democratic boundaries becomes weaker. Electoral contests can then become increasingly confrontational, and political opponents can begin to be regarded as enemies rather than legitimate competitors.
Nigeria has experienced enough political violence and electoral tension to understand where such a trajectory can lead.
For this reason, Jonathan’s call for a national stakeholders’ engagement deserves serious attention. INEC, political parties, security agencies, the National Assembly, the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, the Nigerian Bar Association, civil society organisations and the media should engage in a national conversation on acceptable political conduct during off-cycle elections.
ALSO READ: US-Israeli War On Iran (4): Wetin Be Nigeria’s Own? By Hassan Gimba
The objective should not be to restrict legitimate political participation. It should be to establish boundaries that protect the integrity and atmosphere of elections.
There should be clearer standards concerning the movement of senior political office holders during elections, the deployment and conduct of security personnel attached to political figures, the use of government resources for political mobilisation, and the presence of large political entourages around electoral environments.
Such standards must apply equally to every political party. A rule that is acceptable when one party benefits from it but unacceptable when another party benefits is not a democratic rule. It is partisan convenience.
Nigeria’s political class must also recognise that democracy is ultimately a system of restraint. Political leaders must sometimes choose not to exercise every power available to them because the long-term health of the democratic system is more important than short-term political advantage.
The true test of democratic leadership is therefore not how much political power a leader can display, but how responsibly that power is restrained.
The governor who can mobilise thousands but chooses not to intimidate opponents demonstrates democratic maturity. The political party that accepts defeat without attempting to undermine institutions demonstrates democratic maturity. The government that allows opposition parties to operate freely demonstrates democratic maturity. And the citizen who can vote against a powerful incumbent without fear is living in a healthier democracy.
Jonathan’s warning should consequently be treated as a national democratic issue rather than an Osun political controversy. The question before Nigeria is bigger than the conduct of one election or one political party. It concerns the kind of electoral culture the country wants to leave for future generations.
ALSO READ: Rarara: Anti-Social Poetry, Invective And Political Contests; By Jibrin Ibrahim
If political power continues to invade electoral spaces unchecked, Nigeria risks producing elections that increasingly resemble battles between political empires. If, however, political leaders accept reasonable boundaries and respect the autonomy of voters, the country can strengthen the democratic institutions upon which its political future depends.
Real democracy is not simply the presence of ballot boxes, polling units and election results. It is the existence of a political environment in which citizens can participate freely, opponents can compete without intimidation, institutions can operate independently and political power can change hands peacefully.
The most powerful person on election day should not be the governor, the minister, the senator or the party leader. It should be the voter.
And the most important symbol of political power should not be the convoy arriving at the polling environment, but the single ballot cast freely by an ordinary citizen.
That is the boundary Nigeria must protect if its democracy is to become not merely electoral, but genuinely democratic.
