Nigeria’s next president, By Bunmi Makinwa

The system and process are laid out for access to big money, large political parties with extensive national presence, resources to deploy for applying technology in good and bad ways, ability to use federal might maximally in all ways, and selective use of security forces to take decisive actions in favour of desirable persons. These are fundamental and systemic issues that bring about the same end in Nigeria’s presidential elections.

It is heightened political season in Nigeria. At the national level, the main question is – who will win the elections in February 2023 to become Nigeria’s fifth elected civilian president since 1999, when the military government stepped aside for civilian rule?

It would have been easier to answer the question if the candidates of the political parties are known and if their weights with the electorate can be estimated. It is too early to have this information. No party candidate is known yet. There are many self-declared aspirants and early starters.

Rather than spend our time on persons and personalities, this article wants to examine certain criteria that qualified or favoured the past elected presidents. It will look at the traits that have endured and which will determine the next president through the electioneering process.

The political experience since 1999 has been most relevant. The military government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar organised elections and handed over to the elected civilian administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo. Civilian rule has continued till date under Presidents Umaru Musa Yar A’Dua (who succeeded Obasanjo), Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari. Each and all of the four presidents won elections based on, in the considered opinion of this writer, their fulfilment of conditions stated below.

A pre-eminent condition to have a successful run for election as president is to have access to huge funds. By an average Nigeria’s dream, it is inestimable funds, which come from all sources. Whilst some personal wealth gives weight to the candidate, institutional funds are very important and the primary ones are from federal and state governments. Several states combine as opportuned and provide deep pockets for their national candidate.

Funds also flow in from the private sector and the large ones are linked to government. Such sources of funds can be classified under government, though indirectly.

At every stage of the electoral campaign, money counts. Party nomination forms are sold at a premium. In 2019, the All Progressives Congress (APC) sold each form for N45 million (at the time, about $125,000) and for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), it was N12 million ($33,000). The payments are non-reimbursable.

The party nomination election is an ‘auction” arrangement and the highest paying candidate wins. Sometimes hundreds of millions of naira are disbursed and it does not matter whether the direct or indirect primaries are used.

There are no reliable figures available on electioneering costs attributable to each presidential candidate but estimates range from N10 billion to N22 billion from past elections, about half of the annual budgets of many states of Nigeria.

Of course, there are many legitimate expenses involved in electioneering and and spreading this across Nigeria’s population of some 200 million people, covering 36 states, the Federal Capital Territory and 774 local governments is not cheap, to say the least.

The unorthodox expenses are as numerous as the illegitimate ones, and political parties and candidates who will win must take them on. When poor voters do not have transportation money, the candidates must provide this. When voters have needs or they request privileges, these must be made available to secure their votes.

When security officials are to deploy to polling units, hot spots, and carry out nasty operations against opponents, the campaigners provide whatever is needed to facilitate such deployment – directly and indirectly. When generators or equipment and materials or additional security are needed at voting venues, counting offices and other places, the campaign offices and officials oblige to these, willingly.

It is well known that constituents and party members see electioneering time as their own time to “chop’, and they do this plentifully. The large parties are well endowed and use money to edge out competitors.

The second criterion is that the candidate that wins is one who is nominated by a leading national party – either the APC or PDP, or by a new alliance of political parties of leading politicians with enormous pockets similar to how APC was birthed.

For reasons of huge expenses involved, logistics and spread across the country, and active “mobilisation” of the media of communications, only major political parties have the financial muscle to carry out meaningful campaigns. Their candidates have always won and will continue to do so.

It is important, as a third criterion, to have obvious or contrived support across at least two large ethnic groups. The constitutional criteria that a winner must have “not less than one-quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory”, has to be met. The candidate who wins must have offices and/or representations across that many states and more. The visible presence of the political parties is a strong factor during future legal challenges that arise following the declaration of results by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

A fourth criterion is the support from the federal government and/or state governments, and their institutions, especially the police and security forces.

The APC’s then candidate, Buhari, in 2015 defeated incumbent President Jonathan. Did it show the limitation and irrelevance of the specific criterion? No, it does not. For various reasons, Jonathan’s government did not apply the might of federal security forces in the usual overwhelming manner during thr election and declaration of the results.

Did the presidency lose control of the leadership of the security institutions? Did the great number of state authorities supporting the opposition APC and Buhari weaken the presidency’s potential to use institutional security forces? Or was Jonathan’s self-declared peace-maker role famously captured in his declaration that “my political ambition is not worth the blood of any Nigerian”, which set a different path for Nigeria? If he had not accepted the decision, would federal might have prevailed and kept him in office for a second term? There are many unanswered questions and they further affirm the strong role of federal security authorities, especially the police.

On the positive side, security forces play a vital role. There is no election without violence and maintenance and order by the police and other security forces is important. Whilst some candidates may aspire to provide private security services, it does not go near enough and cannot cover any reasonable size of geographical space. The already established forces with local intelligence and weapons are the ultimate decision makers.

The fifth criterion for this analysis is modern communication and media technology uses and manipulation, including fake news. The combined professional use of old and new media can affect how people perceive issues and candidates. The candidate who wins is often seen to have won even before election day, thanks to the packaging and positive momentum created and sustained through communication.

There may be surprises in this analysis. Why is it not important that the next president has a top notch agenda for development of the country? Should the candidate offer credible solutions for problems facing the country, especially the obvious ones – poor security, a weak and declining economy, huge unemployment, and massive corruption? Should the candidate proffer ideas and directions for using the huge potentials of the citizenry, including rebuilding the education and health sectors?

But, no. These issues can be mouthed and spoken about, yet they will not help to win presidential elections.