Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first Africa-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Dr. Chidi Amuta is Executive Editor of USAfrica, since 1993
In the recent Abuja Municipal Area Council elections, the limping elephant of Nigeria’s democracy gave birth once again to a miserable mouse. This is not about who won or lost what seats in the much –choreographed election. It is about how many people came out to vote for who runs the FCT local councils going forward.
The officially confirmed voter turnout was at an abysmal level of between 7% and 9%. Even FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, himself no stranger to dodgy elections expressed open astonishment at such an abysmal voter turnout. It does not matter much now that his regimental shutdown of the FCT and flooding of the streets with soldiers and policemen partly led to the miserable voter turnout. But the election is over. INEC has since declared results even after delaying the uploading of results from polling booths by over four hours in some places. The outcome is a typical Nigerian and INEC flawed election.
The Abuja outcome is only a more depressing confirmation of a trend that started since the 2023 general elections. In that still-controverted election, Mr. Tinubu became president on a voter turnout of 26.7% out of a registered voter base of 93.4 millionnationwide.
Thereafter, stand –alone state governorship elections followed the same low voter turnout trend. In Edo state in 202, the voter turnout was about 28.5%. In Ondo state, it was also less than 30%. In Anambra state 2025, voter turnout was 24.4 %. Therefore, the ABUJA AMAC result, though not a statewide election, continues the downhill trend of voter turnouts in our recent elections. Low voter turnout has therefore emerged as a major feature of Nigeria’s democratic experience in recent times. The larger question now has to do with the prospects of democracy in the country when its popularity seems to be declining, going by voter turnout as an indicator.
We are dealing with a trend that touches on the very foundation of our aspiration as a democratic republic. The sustenance of every democracy depends on the populace coming out to cast their votes at periodic elections. This ritual is the most universal indicator of the health of every democracy. Politicians come to power on the basis of the quantum of votes they secure at elections. If only a minority of eligible voters show up at polling stations, something is obviously wrong with democracy in the nation in question.
Many reasons can be adduced by theorists. By far the most consequential cause of low voter turnout is the serial betrayal of successive governments. Over time, successive governments have failed to deliver good governance. efficient social services or much needed beneficial infrastructure. Every four years, squads of politicians campaign for the same things but disappear soon after being elected, leaving the people worse often than ever before.
Schools remain without roofs in states. Hospitals remain so in name only as there are no essential drugs in store. More and more people enroll in the growing poverty republic. Dilapidated roads remain in places where highways were promised. Hell persists where paradise was repeatedly promised at campaign time. This constant betrayal has bred alienation and apathy among the people. People see no reason to troop out seasonally to vote to empower fraudsters.
In that case, public apathy becomes a form of protest against governments that habitually fail to meet the expectations of the people. People become apathetic and come to see future elections as a waste of time. The majority of people stay home, go to the farms, markets or look the other way.
Low voter turnout may also be a form of protest against elections that lack credibility or fairness. If people vote but the umpire returns or declares results that are at variance with the common drift of the popular will as expressed in perceptible voting trends, they are not likely to keep voting at future elections. When on repeated occasions result sheets are tendered by INEC thatindicate figures that run contrary to what election observers and party agents who observed the actual elections recorded, the credibility of the electoral process is undermined. In that case, the voting public comes to see elections as hollow pointless rituals.
Added to the sense of futility is the widespread unreliability of INEC as an election umpire. Over time, results announced or issued by INEC have proved unreliable. In a number of cases, courts have voided results announced by INEC thereby diminishing the authority of the agency as the final arbiter in election matters. A combination of an unreliable INEC and the collusion of compromised security officials has decreased the overall integrity of our elections and deepening the alienation and indifference of voters.
There is the added sporadic deployment of violence and intimidation by political actors to frighten off their opponents. Thugs bearing dangerous weapons have been reported to invade polling centres in past elections. Where a state has a reputation for serial insecurity, voters tend to be frightened away from voting centres. In some states, the number of security agents sometimes overwhelms and intimidates registered voters. To the public, such overwhelming security presence instead of inspiring greater confidence among the people frightens people into thinking that trouble is imminent. People enjoy democracy if they can votes and hope for a better life, not when going out to vote could lead to unplanned death. Fear depresses voter turnoutmore than anything else.
Not to talk of the impact of voter monetization. Vote buying has become a rampant sector of the economy at election time. During successive elections, rich candidates tend to literally set up vote bazaars at polling stations to buy and sell votes. Voters who support candidates other than those with purchasing power tend to be discouraged from participating since there is no financial or material rewards for their effort.
The degree of fraud in our elelctions is so high that whatever dubious results are announced, the “winners” will in any case be sworn in with Bibles and Korans by delinquent Priests, Imams and thieving judges. Thereafter, the business of endless festivities in the name of government will proceed in the name of “the people”.
We have arrived at a juncture where democracy has been redefined as a system of government that makes people more miserable, poorer and incrementally more alienated. Nigerian democracy has created a society in which individual success is now defined as the ability to provide your own power, security, medicare, security. In Nigeria, you must either be able to afford to pay the Alibaba hospital bills or die prematurely. This is a democracy in which over 90% of the urban population are tenants at the mercy of blood sucking landlords. Ours is a democracy in name and external format that feeds only a thieving officialdom and their elaborate rituals and perks.
Yet in all considerations of a viable and credible democracy, voter turnout remains a cardinal barometer of democratic viability. Democracy remains the rule of the majority, not the minority. The fact that the majority stays away from the polling booths does not alter the majoritarian essence of democracy. While democracy empowers leaders through voter participation, the right not to vote is also a democratic right. Refusal to vote is in itself a vote. It can be a vote against previous governments that deliver little or no benefits. Even then, refusal to vote does not exclude a citizen from the privileges and rights of belonging to a democratic republic. The obligation to vote is one that is extracted from citizens by the political class through appeals, campaigns, responsible governance and a reliable and credible electoral system. Huge voter turnouts cannot be enforced by legislation nor is it a punishable offence under any jurisdiction. It is instead a delicate litmus test of the political acceptability of a ruling class by the people without whom democracy cannot exist.
While every democracy presupposes the rule of the majority, minority rule is implied when leaders come to power through elections that are largely boycotted by the majority of voters. A democracy that derives legitimacy from only a minority of the registered voting population is inherently defective and badly needs to re– examine its priorities and conduct of state affairs. “Minority” in a democracy is in itself a direct threat to majoritarian democracy. It is even worse. “Minority” rule so defined breeds a dangerous indifference to the popular will on the part of the rulers in a true democracy. To that extent, “minority”rule by low voter participation becomes the foundation stone for the gradual emergence of authoritarianism. A “minority” rule that grows out of a continuously depressed voter turnout is the emblematic precursor of authoritarianism.The most odious authoritarian regimes are those that emerged under the guise of ‘democracy’. Check: Adolf Hitler. Check: Benito Mussolini. Check: Donald Trump?
To counter this dangerous slide. We need more openly accountable political parties, not the present secret cults and ‘brotherhoods’. We need a new breed of politicians who are out to serve the people and improve the nation by emphasizing the improvement of the lives of the people.
In short, to rescue democracy in Nigeria, we need a democratic ‘revolution’. In the final analysis, only democracy can rescue itself in Nigeria. Nigeria must rescue democracy to save the nation. Otherwise, bad democracy may kill Nigeria.
