Campaign noise

THE political temperature in Nigeria is rising, even though the next general election is still some distance away. Yet, listening to the cacophony that increasingly passes for campaign discourse, you would think that the electorate is merely an audience in a private quarrel among political gladiators. The candidates appear to have forgotten the people they seek to govern. Their exchanges are dominated by personal attacks, historical grievances, accusations and counter-accusations, as though the contest is about settling scores rather than presenting competing visions for Nigeria’s future. The result is a great deal of political noise, but very little illumination on the issues that matter to ordinary Nigerians.

The recent presidential campaign rally in Kaduna offers a telling illustration of this troubling trend. Rather than using the occasion to explain how they would address the country’s economic difficulties, the political actors traded accusations over who was responsible for the prevailing hardship. President Bola Tinubu accused the opposition of creating hunger in the country, while Labour Party’s Peter Obi blamed the Federal Government for its mismanagement of the economy. Such exchanges reflect a political culture in which assigning blame has become more important than offering solutions. The objective appears to be to discredit the opponent rather than demonstrate the capacity to govern. What is particularly disturbing is the conspicuous absence of substantive engagement with the crises confronting critical sectors of the country. Take the health sector, for instance. Nigeria continues to lose doctors, nurses and other health professionals to migration, as the Japa syndrome further weakens an already overstretched healthcare system. Public health facilities remain poorly equipped, while access to affordable and quality healthcare is beyond the reach of many citizens. Yet, Nigerians hear little from the candidates about how they intend to retain skilled health professionals, improve working conditions, strengthen primary healthcare and rebuild public health infrastructure.

The same silence surrounds education. What is the opposition’s vision for the future of Nigerian universities? How would it address the recurring disputes between the Federal Government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the instability of academic calendars, inadequate funding and the persistent neglect of research? How would it restore confidence in public education and ensure that Nigerian universities can compete globally? These are questions that deserve serious answers. Instead, political campaigns are increasingly reduced to exchanges of insults and accusations. You are left wondering whether the ambition is simply to acquire political power and enjoy its privileges, rather than undertake the difficult task of governing.

Democracy should provide a marketplace of competing ideas, where political parties and candidates are required to explain not only what they consider to be wrong with the incumbent government but also what they would do differently. Nigerians have heard enough criticism of fuel subsidy removal and the floating of the naira. The economic consequences of these policies are evident in the rising cost of living, declining purchasing power and growing hardship across households. But what is the alternative? Would the opposition reverse these policies, modify them or retain them with different safeguards? If it proposes a different approach, how would it be financed and implemented? How would it manage the country’s growing debt burden without worsening fiscal pressures? What would its strategy be for restoring economic stability, stimulating productive investment, generating employment and protecting vulnerable households? These are the issues around which the electoral debate should revolve.

READ ALSO: Campaign finances: How we will checkmate political parties —INEC

Insecurity is another fundamental challenge that cannot be relegated to the margins of campaign discourse. From banditry and mass abductions in the North-West to separatist violence in the South-East, onslaughts on farmers by herders in the Middle Belt and insurgency in the North-East, the security of lives and property remains precarious. Yet, political exchanges have focused more on apportioning blame than explaining how the situation should be addressed. If the opposition believes that the current administration has failed to secure the country, it must present a credible alternative security architecture. What reforms would it introduce in the police and other security institutions? How would it improve intelligence gathering, coordination and operational capacity? What role would state and local governments play in addressing the underlying political, economic and social conditions that sustain insecurity? Equally, the government must defend its record with verifiable outcomes rather than dismissing criticism as the work of political opponents.

The danger of proceeding towards 2027 in this manner is that it impoverishes democratic choice. When campaigns are devoid of issue-based debate, citizens are denied the information necessary to make informed electoral decisions. Voters become spectators in a contest of personalities, ethnic loyalties, religious sentiments and political rivalries, rather than participants in a deliberation about the country’s future. The consequence is a weakening of electoral accountability. Political leaders who are not required to articulate clear policy commitments before elections are less likely to be held to measurable standards of performance after assuming office. You cannot demand responsible governance from politicians while allowing electoral contests to proceed without serious scrutiny of their ideas, programmes and capacity to deliver.

There are, however, encouraging examples of what a more constructive campaign could look like. The manifesto and campaign interventions of the Social Democratic Party’s Adewole Adebayo, for instance, have made some effort to move the conversation towards policy choices and the structural transformation of the Nigerian economy. Such efforts demonstrate that election campaigns need not be reduced to personality contests. They should be occasions for presenting alternative approaches to economic diversification, institutional reform, constitutional restructuring, social investment and national development. The task is not merely to identify what is wrong with the country but to explain how it can be made better, what resources are required, and what institutional changes are necessary to achieve that transformation. This is the standard that should be expected of all candidates.

The media and civil society have an equally important responsibility in raising the quality of electoral engagement. Rather than amplifying inflammatory exchanges and sensational campaign statements, the media should interrogate claims, fact-check political pronouncements and demand specific policy explanations. Public debates should be organised around the critical challenges facing the country, giving candidates an opportunity to explain their programmes and defend their assumptions. Civil society organisations, professional associations, universities and policy institutions should also provide platforms for informed public engagement. The electorate, for its part, must resist attempts to manipulate political preferences through ethnic appeals, religious sentiments and divisive rhetoric. Citizens must insist on evidence, competence and credible policy alternatives.

Ultimately, the quality of an election is not determined simply by the number of rallies held, the size of campaign crowds or the volume of political exchanges. It must also be judged by the quality of the choices presented to voters. Nigerians deserve to know what each candidate proposes to do about the economy, public debt, insecurity, healthcare, education, unemployment and the institutional weaknesses that undermine effective governance. They deserve to understand the costs, trade-offs and likely consequences of proposed policies. Above all, they deserve candidates who recognise that seeking public office is a responsibility to citizens, not an entitlement to power.

The political campaign noise must therefore give way to a more serious national conversation. Candidates must descend from their political high horses and engage with the everyday realities of the people whose votes they seek. They must speak not merely about their opponents but about the suffering, aspirations and anxieties of Nigerians. The 2027 elections present an opportunity to rethink the country’s development trajectory and renew its democratic compact. But that opportunity will be squandered if the electoral contest remains a shouting match among political personalities. Nigeria needs a contest of ideas, credible alternatives and demonstrable commitments to the public good. Anything less is a disservice to the electorate and a further impoverishment of our democracy.