Strengthening democracy: A call for electoral reforms
Nigeria’s democracy is showing signs of fatigue where it matters most: at the ballot box. Voter turnout, a vital sign of democratic health, has declined from 57 percent in 2007 to just 26.7 percent in 2023—only 24.9 million of 93.47 million registered voters participated. These are not inert numbers; they are warnings. Many Nigerians now view elections as a theatre with predetermined outcomes, laws that bend, results that are blurred, and offenders who walk away. The economy’s pain intensifies the mood, but the deeper wound is institutional distrust. Where participation nears 80 percent elsewhere, people believe that rules are clear, processes are open, and accountability is swift. Our gap is structural, not just comparative. When large blocs of voters stay home, silence is filled by rumours and grievances, separatist agitation gains momentum, and the legitimacy of public decisions erodes.
Into this landscape came the European Union’s follow-up mission. It did not reveal secrets; it sharpened the mirror. The EU’s 2023 mission made 23 recommendations, while INEC’s own review identified 142 internal fixes. Only eight EU recommendations targeted INEC directly, and only one was marked as a priority. Translation: most change lies with the legislature, executive, and judiciary. First principle—INEC cannot save democracy alone. Second—how we appoint the next INEC Chair is the earliest litmus test of seriousness. A transparent, merit-based appointment can tilt public sentiment back toward trust; a politicised process will drain confidence before campaigns truly begin.
“No country maps perfectly onto Nigeria, but the pattern is clear: elastic laws, opaque results, impunity, and politicised institutions push politics from ballots to streets and barracks. We know this road; we can choose another.”
History elsewhere teaches the cost of opacity. Disputed polls turned deadly in Côte d’Ivoire (2010–2011). Venezuela illustrates how manipulation can solidify into a permanent crisis, hollowing out the centre and radicalising the margins. Pakistan’s recurring controversies normalised a precarious dance between civilian governments and the military. Zimbabwe’s repeated taint ended in a military-assisted transition. No country maps perfectly onto Nigeria, but the pattern is clear: elastic laws, opaque results, impunity, and politicised institutions push politics from ballots to streets and barracks. We know this road; we can choose another.
Our legitimacy gap has familiar roots. Legal ambiguities invite conflicting court interpretations. Results management still isn’t a public window; when officials see what citizens cannot, suspicion multiplies. Electoral offences too often receive lenient treatment, encouraging repetition. Security agencies, through their actions or perceptions, cast shadows over close contests. Media and civic space feel pressured when their scrutiny is most needed. Women face barriers at every rung from candidacy to leadership. And the citizen experience, late materials, long queues in the sun, inaccessible polling units, sparse information, tells first-timers that their participation is an afterthought. None of this is inevitable; all of it is fixable if 2027 is treated as a deadline, not a slogan.
Read also: Democracy dividends: Nigerians settle for crumbs as campaign promises fail
The reform menu is both straightforward and demanding. Clarify the law: eliminate flexible deadlines and phrases that morph between courtrooms and collation centres. Appoint INEC commissioners, and especially the Chair, through a transparent, merit-based, insulated process. Enforce electoral crimes with clear penalties and firm timelines. Embed inclusion in statute so women participate fully across the cycle. Lock in security neutrality through a public compact, professional training, and independent oversight with published findings. Publish results in real time and ensure data are auditable and publicly accessible. Plan logistics for power outages, weak connectivity, and adverse weather conditions. Make registration and transfers simple for youth, mobile workers, and persons with disabilities. Use technology that is open, independently audited, and publicly tested. This is how ballots become believable again.
Timing is as important as content. Compressing legal fixes into the eve of polling guarantees improvisation, and improvisation is the enemy of credibility. A cleaner four-quarter path is within reach: pass core amendments and publish the appointment framework now; approve budgets early so systems can be built, tested, and audited through 2026; train security agencies to a shared doctrine and run nationwide simulations to expose weak joints; cleanse the voter roll and invite citizens to verify details; accredit observer groups and welcome international missions; brief the media plainly; publish contingency plans the public can scrutinise. None of this is exotic; it is simply what a state does when it intends to be believed.
Ownership must be shared, with roles explicit. The National Assembly crafts and funds amendments and oversees execution without smothering it.
The Presidency assents promptly, guarantees resources, and enforces neutrality across security architecture. INEC makes the process legible and dignified, publishes performance data, and acts on audit findings. Security agencies are trained to standards and publish compliance reports, including disciplinary actions. The judiciary sustains expedited timelines and avoids jurisprudential whiplash that turns law into a lottery. Parties practise internal democracy and centre issues, not incantations. Media and civil society expand voter education, fact-check in real time, and monitor without inflaming.
Objections will come. Reforms are complex; time is short. That argues for a minimum viable reform to be set now, with a pledge to refine it after 2027 rather than freezing progress while chasing perfection. Some say technology failed us; in truth, governance lagged behind the tools. With open audits, redundancy, and law-mandated transparency, tech becomes a public window, not a private worry.
Our route from peril to possibility runs through the National Assembly and courts, command rooms and classrooms, newsrooms and town squares—and finally to the quiet resolve of queuing because one still believes it matters. Leadership’s task is to make that belief rational again. Do that, and 2027 becomes the turn of the tide, not another low-water mark.
These reflections flow from years of studying how institutions behave under strain and how leadership averts escalation. Electoral transparency is not merely bureaucratic housekeeping; it is a test of national stability. That is the heartbeat behind “Leading in a Storm”, a book on crisis leadership when uncertainty is high and trust is thin, and “Beneath the Surface”, essays on how policy choices ripple across society. Their public presentations, in Abuja on October 14 and Lagos on October 16, serve as invitations to a broader civic conversation: how we can convert apathy into agency and fear into resolve.
