The paradox of choice, By Dakuku Peterside

The current presidential election presents a unique situation – we have many options but fewer ideas and values to chose from. Ordinarily, the assumption is that as the number of options increases, so will citizens’ utility in voting also increase. But this is not true. We may have four contenders for the presidency; however, it is clear that the options that we have are of personalities and not ideologies, value propositions or ideas on how to solve Nigeria’s hydra-headed challenges.

2023 for Nigerians is about choice and with choice comes consequences. We face critical decisions on many issues that will define our future as a country and as citizens. The most obvious and consequential of these choices and their effects will be in the coming general elections. 

We will be voting at various levels and in different constituencies to elect leaders that will pilot the affairs of the country and its units over the next four years. The presidential election is the zenith of these elections, and its significance has far-reaching consequences for the country. On its face value, unlike earlier presidential elections in which we had two real options, Nigerians have a number of options in the incoming election, comparable only to the 1979 presidential race, when we had to choose from five candidates.

On a closer look, one will see the practical application of American psychologist, Barry Schwartz’s paradox of choice theory. This paradox of choice stipulates that while we might believe that being presented with multiple options makes it easier to choose one that we are happy with and thus increases citizens’ satisfaction, having an abundance of possibilities requires more effort to decide, and can leave us feeling unsatisfied with our choice ultimately. Many citizens think the options before us make us more frustrated and less happy overall.

Three or four of the presidential candidates are of note, depending on one’s perspective and depth of understanding of the political landscape. Each possesses unique attributes, as well as shortcomings.

---

The candidates may only embody some of our aspirations and reflect some of the values we want to see in our country’s future president. However, it is still our responsibility to analyse all the information presented to us and chose a candidate we are convinced will lead Nigeria for the next four years and set us on the course to economic, social, and political growth.

The choice before Nigerians by February and March is not essentially about the candidates only but also in terms of the outcomes of the socio-political and economic realities that we like to see following the elections. The contest is between the unity of citizens as against the triumph of regionalism or ethnicity; security versus insecurity; and unbridled corruption versus good governance, etc. Each presidential candidate represents a shade of this contests, but none embodies all the positives. There lies our dilemma.

We have historical antecedents to rely on to unravel this dilemma. History provides a few lessons that shed light on how we dealt with similar situations, what outcomes we had, and how they affected our past and present. In the 1979 elections, which best represented multi-party elections, each presidential candidate embodied a distinct offering. Shagari was pro-establishment, nationalist and an advocate of the free-enterprise economy. Awolowo was a symbol of the welfare state or socio-democrats who believed that government should do the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens, through pursuits such as free education and free healthcare for all, etc. Azikiwe was a nationalist who believed in free enterprise. Aminu Kano was pro-masses and pan-socialist. Waziri was also a man who believed in free enterprise. Nigerians voted in Shehu Shagari as president and lived with the consequences of that choice. Over the years, many choices of presidential and gubernatorial candidates have not necessarily translated into the best outcomes.

We are living in unprecedented times in our history, in which we are facing an economic crisis of a magnitude never seen before, with an embarrassing rate of unemployment, an all-time high tension among different ethnic groups, and alarming insecurity. The world is watching whether we will fall off the cliff or we would triumph. This unique era makes it imperative that we are deliberate in getting citizens to understand the importance of our choices in 2023.

Subsequent presidential elections in 1993, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2015 followed the binary option, where we had two dominant candidates to chose from. However, these options were only binary in the sense of having two different candidates but not in terms of contesting ideologies or leadership approaches to solving our socio-economic challenges. In all these cases, the options before Nigerians had nothing to do with policies or ideas but were about personalities.

The current presidential election presents a unique situation – we have many options but fewer ideas and values to chose from. Ordinarily, the assumption is that as the number of options increases, so will citizens’ utility in voting also increase. But this is not true. We may have four contenders for the presidency; however, it is clear that the options that we have are of personalities and not ideologies, value propositions or ideas on how to solve Nigeria’s hydra-headed challenges.

Tinubu and Atiku represent pro-business, pro-establishment tendencies, with strings of promises to inject fresh ideas into building a better country. Peter Obi and Kwankwaso, on the other hand, represent different shades of anti-establishment, pro-masses, and social democratic tendencies, with a commitment to disrupting the existing system.

Peter Obi and Kwankwaso are products of the establishment and beneficiaries of the present pseudo-capitalist order, having served as governors in the past and as prominent members of the PDP and APC. In running their campaigns now on how bad the two dominant parties are and how they have destroyed Nigeria, they portray themselves as repentant former members of PDP and APC who have seen the light and adopted a messianic triumphalism towards rescuing Nigeria from the Satanic claws of PDP and APC.

This situation sounds hypocritical but it resonates with some citizens who are discontented and disgruntled with the existing orthodoxy. Peter Obi seems to have successfully appropriated the masses, who are dissatisfied with the two political parties due to past failures, and he has taken advantage of the youth anger against a system they feel has a stranglehold on their necks. We know that by February ending, either an establishment presidential candidate or an anti-establishment one will emerge winner. However, no matter who wins, his job is cut out to transform Nigeria.

We are living in unprecedented times in our history, in which we are facing an economic crisis of a magnitude never seen before, with an embarrassing rate of unemployment, an all-time high tension among different ethnic groups, and alarming insecurity. The world is watching whether we will fall off the cliff or we would triumph. This unique era makes it imperative that we are deliberate in getting citizens to understand the importance of our choices in 2023. If we get it wrong, we will move from a socioeconomic purgatory to socioeconomic limbo in a relatively short period.

It is time we examine and interrogate the policies, projects and activities that candidates have in their manifestos, the character and personality of each candidate, and his professional experiences, to ensure that the chosen candidate fits the specification for the presidency of Nigeria. It is time we do not allow parochial religiosity, ethnicity, and the politics of financial gratification to influence the candidate that we choose. The consequences of doing business as usual are dire even to contemplate. 

The dilemma over choice is not peculiar to the presidential election. The quality of National Assembly members and governors at the subnational level is also essential. A critical factor that determines economic growth in a democracy is the competence, capacity and commitment of elected representatives. Somehow, the quality of our representatives seems to be degenerating with each cycle of election.

This juncture is critical and constitutes an elite dilemma. Nigerians need to watch out for red flags among the candidates and they should allow their knowledge of the candidates to determine their voting choice. If a candidate does not have a track record of outstanding performance in his previous work or profession, he remain the same when elected president.

The  broadly unenlightened masses all share the same concern: mass poverty, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, and hunger. Unfortunately, some citizens do not care about the long-term outcomes of the electoral process and are bent on jeopardising the whole process. It is the duty of enlightened and patriotic citizens to engage continuously, so that ordinary citizens will appreciate that there are consequences for whatever choice we make this year.

The dilemma over choice is not peculiar to the presidential election. The quality of National Assembly members and governors at the subnational level is also essential. A critical factor that determines economic growth in a democracy is the competence, capacity and commitment of elected representatives. Somehow, the quality of our representatives seems to be degenerating with each cycle of election. In this forthcoming election, we have multiple options but which are not essentially better options. Citizens must vote for candidates with the knowledge and passion for serving in the Assembly, rather than turn the legislature into a retirement home for ex-governors and retiring politicians.

More worrisome is also the calibre of persons elected at the sub-national level as governors. The bulk of citizens’ lives is best improved at the state level. States are closer to the people and have consequential decision-making powers on crucial development issues that affect the poor. From infrastructure, electricity, education, healthcare, and land administration to agriculture. States, which have tremendous influence on local government administration, are responsible for the expenditure of a lot of the national revenue. In practice, states combined with the local governments, account for almost half of all federal revenue expenditure (the current revenue formula is: the federal government – 52.68%, and state and local governments –  47.32%). The import is that the quality of governance in the states significantly impacts national development. 

We are experiencing stunted growth because of the poor quality of government at the state level, which is getting worse with each new election cycle. At this subnational level, the serial failure of governance, which is a product of mediocre leadership, has led to poor socioeconomic outcomes, widespread poverty, weak healthcare and educational system, insecurity, and the lack of trust in governance. Our choice in this election will determine the quality of service at the state level, alongside the strength, unity and prosperity of our country going forward. 

Happy new year to all Nigerians and may 2023 offer us the best in leadership for the good of our country.

Dakuku Peterside is a policy and leadership expert.