JARRETT TENEBE: DEMOCRACY AT GUNPOINT?

PAT ONUKWULI urges politicians to woo voters with better arguments, not ammunition Certain things must remain beyond the pale in a democracy. Political leaders may campaign vigorously, boast extravagantly and pursue ambitious electoral targets; that is the theatre of politics. But persuasion is not coercion, mobilisation is not intimidation, and competition is not conquest. That line becomes especially consequential when a viral video reportedly shows Edo State APC Chairman Jarrett Tenebe warning that anyone standing in the path of his party’s electoral objective would face what he described as “AK-47 fire”. His party is free to pursue 2.5 million votes for President Bola Tinubu in Edo State. Ambition is legitimate; entitlement is not. Politics should persuade, not pulverise. Eligible voters carry PVCs, not rifles, and politicians should approach them with arguments, not ammunition. In a democracy, elections are contests, not conquests. Votes must be courted, not commanded; earned, not seized; counted, not predetermined; and requested, not requisitioned. They are not stored in warehouses for political delivery. Until citizens freely cast their ballots and the lawful umpire counts them, those votes belong neither to a party chairman nor to any political machine. Tenebe may offer another interpretation. Political language is often theatrical, metaphorical or deliberately provocative, and a viral clip should not replace a proper investigation. Yet words matter, especially in a political climate already burdened by distrust. Invoking a firearm during an election is more than colourful rhetoric. Institutions, not social media alone, should determine where persuasion ends and menace begins. Nigeria has been here before. Senator Francis Fadahunsi reportedly said that any Accord Party member found in Ilesa would be killed, then clarified that he meant electoral defeat, not physical harm. The clarification mattered, but so did the original words. As I argued in an earlier article, politics should be decided by ballots, not bullets, and guided by leadership and restraint, not flames. The pattern extends beyond explicit threats. Nyesom Wike has said he “stopped” Peter Obi from winning Rivers and suggested a different result might have emerged had presidential power been fully used. He disputes claims that these remarks imply manipulation, and that distinction should be respected. Still, his language repeatedly tests the same democratic boundary: influence is legitimate; control is not. Mobilisation is politics; manipulation is not. Incendiary political rhetoric is not new. Before the 2015 Lagos governorship election, the Oba of Lagos was widely reported to have warned Igbo leaders about the lagoon if they opposed his preferred candidate; his palace later called the remark proverbial. Later comments attributed to Oluremi Tinubu sparked similar controversy. Metaphor may soften intent, but it can also normalise language that less powerful citizens experience as threatening. That is why institutional action matters. The Police and DSS need not presume guilt; their role is to investigate, not condemn. INEC need not challenge every boast, but it should uphold the principle that voters, not political dictates, determine election results. Silence may signal neutrality, but prolonged silence can look like indifference. Democracy needs institutions capable of distinguishing rhetoric from threats and bravado from intimidation. The myth of Erysichthon offers a warning. After violating a sacred grove, he was cursed with an appetite that grew as he fed it, until consumption consumed him. Political power can breed the same hunger: one victory no longer satisfies, influence becomes control, control demands obedience, and obstacles become enemies. The danger arises when political ambition no longer distinguishes between persuading citizens and possessing their choices. That standard must apply equally. An opposition chairman who threatens APC supporters deserves the same scrutiny as a ruling-party chairman who threatens opponents. Government and opposition, friend and foe, powerful and powerless must all be judged alike. Otherwise, the law becomes another form of patronage. Democracy is safeguarded not by excusing our side, but by holding everyone to the same restraint. The deeper danger is not one man or phrase, but normalisation. Words repeated without consequence gradually lose their power to shock. Bravado becomes custom, intimidation becomes theatre, and theatre becomes permission. Nigeria has seen how inflammatory language can deepen division. A democracy that accepts menacing rhetoric as routine risks reducing coercion to just another campaign tactic. The choice is simple: campaign, not coercion; persuasion, not intimidation; ballots, not bullets; ambition, not entitlement. Parties may pursue two million votes or twenty million, but they cannot claim votes before they are cast. Every Nigerian ballot belongs to the citizen who casts it, the umpire who counts it and the democracy that protects it, not to anyone who seeks to secure it through menace. Dr. Onukwuli is a legal scholar and public affairs analyst. patonukwuli2003@yahoo.co.uk