The Evolving Character of the 2027 Campaigns

Postscript by Waziri Adio Nigeria’s potentially historic presidential election is 83 days away. The political parties chose their presidential candidates about five months ago, in line with the electoral timetable. The presidential campaign window officially opened on 19 August, more than two months ago. Yet the campaigns have not fully come to life. Many parties have yet to inaugurate their presidential campaign councils or unveil their policy documents. By now, the parties and their candidates should be criss-crossing the country, generating excitement and selling themselves and their ideas to potential voters, rather than largely making the rounds of television stations and issuing a flurry of press statements and social media posts. More than 40% of the campaign window has elapsed, but the campaign machinery has yet to get into full gear across the board. At this stage of the 2023 electoral cycle, the energy in the air was so thick it could be sliced. Indeed, many candidates had started campaigning before the official kick-off. The lull in the first two months of the present campaign window could create two impressions: that the stakes are lower than they were in 2023, and that the 2027 presidential election is all but settled. Both impressions would be wrong. So much rides on the January 2027 election for the leading candidates and the country, and its outcome is far from settled. The relatively quiet start is not indicative of how the rest of the campaign or the election itself might unfold. In my column of 7 June, I argued that the 2027 presidential election would be more bitterly contested than the 2023 one. I have seen no reason to revise that position. So, what is happening, and what does it tell us about the likely character of the 2027 presidential campaigns? I will make five broad observations. First, we are likely to see a greater emphasis on virtual campaigns and smaller events than on physical campaigns and mega rallies in this electoral cycle. Physical campaigns cost a lot of money. The current cash crunch makes fundraising even harder for the opposition in an election with an incumbent on the ballot. Opposition parties and their candidates have to be strategic, concentrating their energy and resources when these are likely to make the greatest impression on voters: closer to election day. Media appearances and events staged for broadcast are not always free, but they are generally cheaper than mega rallies. So, don’t expect sustained, intensive campaigning until about four to six weeks before the presidential poll. My second point follows from the first: we do not need a campaign period of five to six months. Earlier in this republic, elections were held within three to four months of the conclusion of party primaries. Advocates of a longer electioneering period argued that it would give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) more time to prepare and citizens more time to get to know the candidates. They cited examples from other countries. I was never persuaded and saw the change as an attempt to fix what was not broken. A longer campaign does not necessarily level the playing field. It can further advantage those who already have the most resources. Nor does it automatically produce a more searching examination of the issues. It may simply prolong the distraction for everyone. The more useful priority is to hold elections early enough for all election petitions and appeals to be resolved before a new administration is sworn in. Third, despite the slow start to public rallies, this campaign season is going to be heated, especially in the traditional media and on social media. What we have seen so far suggests that the rancour and savagery could surpass even the levels of 2023, which I consider the worst in the Fourth Republic. Desperation on all sides, and a willingness to stoop low in pursuit of electoral advantage, will drive this. Intemperate language, gratuitous insults and attacks, fake news aided by artificial intelligence, and incitement are becoming more common. Ridiculing opponents and discrediting their ideas have always been part of electioneering. But there must be limits. For me, fake news and incitement cross the line. Fourth, the cost-of-living crisis will be the central issue of this campaign season. I expect it to receive more attention and resonate more widely than insecurity. The recent surge in the prices of food, transport and other essentials is fresh in people’s minds, while terrorism has afflicted the country since Boko Haram began its campaign of violence. This does not make insecurity any less grave. But the rise in living costs can also be linked directly to key policies of the current administration, even where external shocks, such as the global energy crisis, have compounded the pressure. This is a boon to the opposition, and it would be unreasonable to expect it not to exploit the issue to the hilt. I support the economic reforms, as I will never tire of saying. Nigeria was inches away from complete collapse, though this was not apparent to everyone. The shock therapy administered by President Bola Tinubu’s administration was necessary and proper. However, the government could have done much more to help Nigerians cope better with the shocks. It should have prioritised social protection and targeted relief against the expected increases in food and transport costs, which absorb a disproportionate share of poor households’ incomes. The government should be taken to task over how it has managed the pain of the reforms. Election time is precisely the time to do so. But the opposition should also be pressed on what it would do differently, how it would do it and what it would cost. The opposition seems to have found a magic bullet for the affordability crisis: the petrol subsidy. Leading the charge is former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). He has promised a production subsidy rather than the familiar consumption subsidy, with support tied to verifiable barrels to prevent the usual sharp practices. But he has yet to provide the figures needed to establish the cost of the subsidy, how it would be funded and what other spending would have to give way. Moving the subsidy to the supply side does not, by itself, resolve these questions or guarantee lower food and transport costs. For his part, Mr Peter Obi, the candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), now says he would restore the petrol subsidy while eliminating the corruption associated with it. This marks a shift from his earlier support for subsidy removal. He has pointed to personal and family probity and promised to be in charge. But these assurances do not amount to a detailed plan for tackling corruption in the subsidy system. Some other candidates have joined the petrol subsidy-restoration bandwagon, mostly by clowning around. The opposition has alighted on something to which many Nigerians have a deep emotional attachment: subsidy on petrol, rather than on kerosene, diesel or aviation fuel. Yet unsubsidised petrol can be affordable when crude prices are low and other costs are favourable. It is also worth bearing in mind that restoring petrol subsidy does not automatically send the prices of other goods tumbling. Opposition candidates sometimes seem irritated when asked for the details of their plans. But both the incumbent and the challengers deserve scrutiny. Voters need to know that the candidates understand the issues and that their proposals will not make things worse. My fifth observation extends the last point: this campaign is shaping up to be heavy on vibes and soundbites and light on deep policy discussion. Given where Nigeria stands, we need a serious discussion about the country’s direction more than ever. Should we stay the course, make adjustments or take a different path? What are the candidates proposing to address the country’s key challenges and how workable are those options? About five months after the candidates emerged, more than two months into the campaign and less than three months before this consequential election, there is still too little clarity about where the leading candidates stand, especially the challengers. Yes, they have made announcements and delivered some memorable lines. But announcements are not policies. Voters need detailed manifestoes and policy documents setting out what the candidates intend to do, why and how. The apparent calculation is that few Nigerians care about policy, that most are eager to choose anyone but the incumbent, and that catchy lines are the easiest way to excite them. Some of these may be true. But there are also voters who want a credible basis for choosing among the candidates. To fulfil all righteousness, manifestoes and policy documents will be unveiled at some point. Yet the fact that this has not been done so far, with less than three months to the presidential election, says much about the priority of the leading candidates and the character of this campaign season.