WHO IS DECEIVING WHOM?
Nigeria’s Politicians and the Electorate: Broken Promises, Electoral Expectations and the Crisis of Public Accountability
.........As politicians repeatedly promise transformation while millions of citizens face economic hardship, insecurity, unemployment and inadequate public services, Nigeria’s democracy confronts a fundamental question: how can the electorate distinguish political promises from credible commitments, and what happens when expectations are not met?
By Umar U. Duguri
Nigeria’s democratic experience presents a persistent contradiction: political campaigns are filled with promises of transformation, yet many citizens continue to express dissatisfaction with the quality of governance and the pace of development.
Every election season, politicians seek the confidence of the electorate through declarations of commitment to employment, security, infrastructure, education, healthcare and economic prosperity.
These promises are central to democratic competition. Candidates have the right to present their visions, defend their records and persuade citizens that they are capable of delivering better governance.
However, the relationship between political promises and public expectations deserves closer scrutiny.
Across communities, citizens continue to raise concerns about unemployment, the cost of living, inadequate infrastructure, insecurity and the quality of public services. These concerns make it necessary to examine whether campaign commitments are sufficiently realistic, measurable and supported by credible implementation plans.
The central question is therefore not whether every unfulfilled promise constitutes deception. Governments operate within economic, institutional and security constraints that can affect implementation.
Rather, the question is whether political leaders adequately explain their commitments, transparently report their performance and remain accountable when expectations are not met.
Who is deceiving whom? Or, more fundamentally, has Nigeria developed a political culture in which public promises are insufficiently scrutinised and electoral accountability remains weak?
The Campaign Promise: A Commitment Without Effective Monitoring?
In a functioning democracy, elections should provide citizens with an opportunity to evaluate competing policies, records and visions for governance.
Campaign promises are an important part of that process. They communicate candidates’ priorities and provide a basis for assessing their performance after assuming office.
The difficulty arises when promises are presented without sufficient information about their feasibility, cost, funding arrangements or implementation timelines.
Candidates may promise extensive employment opportunities without explaining the productive sectors, investment requirements and economic conditions necessary to sustain such employment.
They may promise agricultural transformation without adequately addressing infrastructure, access to credit, storage, processing, security and market access.
They may promise improved security without explaining the institutional capacity, resources and measurable indicators required to assess progress.
Such commitments are not automatically dishonest. However, their credibility depends on the evidence and practical arrangements supporting them.
A manifesto should therefore be more than a campaign document. It should provide a framework against which citizens, journalists and civil society organisations can assess government performance.
Where implementation falls short, the electorate deserves clear explanations supported by relevant information.
The Electorate: Vulnerability, Political Choice and Democratic Responsibility
Nigeria’s electorate is diverse, comprising citizens with different economic circumstances, political convictions, regional interests and expectations of government.
Some voters assess candidates primarily through their records and policy proposals. Others consider party affiliation, regional representation, political identity or the perceived strengths and weaknesses of competing candidates.
Economic hardship may also influence electoral decisions.
Where citizens face immediate difficulties in meeting basic needs, short-term material considerations can become more prominent in political choices.
This reality deserves serious examination without diminishing the intelligence, dignity or democratic rights of voters.
The challenge is to strengthen an electoral culture in which citizens can assess candidates beyond immediate inducements or partisan loyalties.
A temporary benefit cannot substitute for sustainable employment, accessible healthcare, quality education, security and functioning public infrastructure.
At the same time, political responsibility cannot be placed exclusively on voters.
Candidates, political parties and institutions have obligations to promote credible electoral competition, comply with applicable laws and respect the electorate’s constitutional rights.
The objective should be to create conditions in which citizens can make informed choices without undue pressure, intimidation or improper inducement.
Vote-Buying: A Documented Threat to Electoral Integrity
The question of electoral inducement is particularly important in assessing the relationship between politicians and voters.
The National Bureau of Statistics, in its report Corruption in Nigeria: Patterns and Trends, documented reported experiences of electoral inducement during the 2023 general elections.
According to the report, 22 per cent of respondents reported being personally offered money for their votes in 2023, compared with 17 per cent in 2019. Nine per cent reported being offered another favour in exchange for their votes.
Among those offered money or favours, 40 per cent said the inducement influenced their voting decision.
These findings indicate that electoral inducement remains a significant concern for democratic integrity.
They do not establish that every candidate engaged in vote-buying, that every inducement resulted in a particular vote or that the reported experiences determined an election outcome.
Nevertheless, they raise important questions about the conditions under which electoral choices are made.
How can electoral authorities effectively deter improper inducements?
What measures can political parties adopt to promote compliance with electoral laws?
How can citizens be protected from pressure and inducement during elections?
And what mechanisms should be strengthened to ensure that electoral competition is based on policies, competence and public confidence?
These questions require evidence-based investigation, institutional responses and consistent enforcement of applicable laws.
Political Financing and the Question of Public Accountability
Political campaigns require resources. Campaign financing is therefore a legitimate aspect of democratic competition when conducted in accordance with the law.
However, transparency in political financing remains important because citizens have a legitimate interest in understanding the financial arrangements supporting candidates and political parties.
Where campaign-finance disclosures are incomplete or difficult to assess, questions may arise about the transparency of political contributions and the potential influence of financial interests on public decision-making.
Such questions do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing.
They demonstrate the importance of accessible financial disclosures, effective regulatory oversight and transparent procurement procedures.
Citizens should be able to examine whether public contracts are awarded through appropriate procedures and whether decisions involving public resources are supported by legitimate public-interest considerations.
The fundamental principle is that public office must be exercised in accordance with the law and in the interests of the public.
Political Defections: Democratic Freedom and Electoral Expectations
Political defections are a recurring feature of Nigeria’s political landscape.
An elected official may change political affiliation because of ideological disagreements, internal party disputes, leadership conflicts or other political considerations.
A defection does not automatically establish misconduct or a breach of public trust.
Nevertheless, where elected officials change political platforms, constituents may reasonably seek explanations about the circumstances and implications of the decision.
Did the change reflect a genuine political disagreement? What implications does it have for the official’s stated policy commitments? How will the decision affect representation and the interests of constituents?
These are legitimate questions within democratic discourse.
The objective should not be to discourage lawful political freedom, but to encourage transparency and consistency in public representation.
Public Expenditure: From Government Claims to Verifiable Results
One of the most important areas of public accountability is the implementation of government programmes and expenditure.
Government announcements can provide useful information about policy priorities and intended achievements. However, announcements alone are not sufficient evidence of completed projects or measurable outcomes.
A government may announce a road construction programme.
Citizens and journalists should be able to examine the approved project locations, contract values, implementation timelines, payment records and physical progress.
A government may announce employment initiatives.
The public should be able to assess the number of beneficiaries, the nature of the employment, the sustainability of the opportunities and the methodology used to calculate the reported figures.
A government may announce the rehabilitation of healthcare facilities.
The relevant questions include whether the facilities are operational, adequately staffed, equipped and accessible to the public.
These are standard questions of public expenditure oversight.
An announcement is not necessarily a completed project. An approved budget is not proof of expenditure. A completed structure is not necessarily evidence of an effective public service.
Independent verification helps distinguish intended activities, reported achievements and measurable outcomes.
Such scrutiny is essential to responsible journalism and effective democratic accountability.
Poverty, Economic Hardship and Electoral Choices
Economic hardship can influence political participation and electoral decision-making.
Citizens facing unemployment, rising living costs and inadequate public services may place greater emphasis on immediate economic relief when evaluating political options.
This does not imply that poverty automatically determines voting behaviour or that economically disadvantaged citizens lack independent political judgement.
Rather, it highlights the importance of addressing the economic conditions that shape political participation.
A credible democratic system should enable citizens to assess candidates based on their policies, records and capacity to deliver sustainable improvements.
Government performance should therefore be evaluated not only through announcements and expenditure figures but also through measurable changes in citizens’ living conditions.
Relevant indicators include employment, household purchasing power, access to healthcare, educational outcomes, security and the availability of essential infrastructure.
The relationship between economic hardship and electoral behaviour deserves further research, particularly in communities where citizens report limited access to economic opportunities and public services.
2027: An Opportunity to Strengthen Democratic Accountability
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, the electorate has an opportunity to demand greater clarity from candidates and political parties.
The election should provide a platform for examining political records, evaluating policy proposals and assessing the credibility of campaign commitments.
Incumbents seeking another mandate should be prepared to explain their performance, identify outstanding commitments and provide evidence of progress.
New candidates should present realistic proposals supported by credible implementation plans.
Political parties should make their manifestos accessible and provide sufficient information for citizens to evaluate their priorities.
The electorate should ask clear questions about employment, security, infrastructure, education, healthcare, economic management and representation.
A candidate who promises transformation should be prepared to explain the proposed funding, implementation strategy, timeline and measurable outcomes.
A candidate who has previously held public office should be prepared to account for the responsibilities undertaken during that period.
These are reasonable expectations in a democratic society.
The Media: Independent Scrutiny and the Public Interest
The media plays a critical role in strengthening democratic accountability.
Responsible journalism requires the independent examination of public claims, government expenditure, political commitments and matters affecting citizens’ welfare.
Political claims should be verified before publication. Allegations should be clearly distinguished from established facts. Individuals and institutions facing serious allegations should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Government announcements, opposition statements and social media claims should not be treated as conclusive evidence without appropriate verification.
Investigative journalism should focus on documentary evidence, credible sources, relevant public records and the public interest.
The media must also maintain independence from political and commercial pressures that could compromise its reporting.
The objective is not to promote or undermine any political party. It is to provide citizens with reliable information that enables informed democratic participation.
What Must Change?
Strengthening political accountability requires practical measures.
Independent monitoring of campaign promises: Civil society organisations, journalists and professional bodies should document campaign commitments and assess implementation using transparent criteria.
Transparent political financing: Political parties and candidates should comply with applicable disclosure requirements, while regulatory institutions strengthen oversight.
Effective enforcement of electoral laws: Credible allegations of electoral offences should be investigated fairly and consistently, regardless of political affiliation.
Accessible public expenditure records: Citizens should have access to relevant budget information, procurement records, project locations and implementation reports.
Protection of independent journalism: Journalists should be able to investigate public-interest issues without unlawful obstruction or intimidation, while maintaining professional and legal standards.
Evidence-based electoral choices: Voters should assess candidates through their records, policies, competence, integrity and demonstrated performance.
These measures would help shift democratic competition towards greater transparency, informed participation and public accountability.
Conclusion: The Ballot Is a Mandate, Not a Blank Cheque
Nigeria’s democratic future cannot be secured through elections alone.
Elections provide the mechanism for choosing leaders. Accountability determines whether those leaders remain answerable to the people.
A vote is not a personal favour to a politician. It is a constitutional instrument through which citizens confer public authority.
Winning an election does not remove the responsibility to explain decisions, account for public resources or respond to legitimate criticism.
Equally, citizens have a responsibility to scrutinise those who seek and exercise political power.
The real test of democracy is not the number of campaign rallies held, the volume of political promises announced or the publicity surrounding government programmes.
It is whether public institutions function effectively, public resources are managed transparently and citizens experience measurable improvements in their living conditions.
The question “Who is deceiving whom?” should therefore lead to a more fundamental examination of Nigeria’s democracy: who is making the promises, what evidence supports them, what has been delivered and what mechanisms exist to hold public officials accountable?
The answers must be found in verifiable records, independent investigations, transparent governance and informed public participation.
Until accountability becomes an established expectation of political office, Nigeria risks repeating a cycle of ambitious promises, unmet expectations and renewed electoral appeals.
The electorate deserves better than political rhetoric.
It deserves credible commitments, transparent governance and the opportunity to assess public officials on the strength of verifiable performance.
THE ANALYST | STRENGTHENING INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM