Elections should not be moments of emotional mobilisation followed by collective amnesia. They should serve as checkpoints in a longer process of national design, review, and course correction… Citizens, civil society, the private sector, labour, professionals, and the diaspora are to engage in the process not merely as voters, but as co-architects of Nigeria’s future. The task before us is not to choose saviours, but to build systems that do not require them.
Nigeria was founded on democratic promises; an egalitarian society anchored on freedom of movement, the sanctity of the law, guaranteed safety of lives and property, and assured economic opportunity for every citizen. Over time, these ideals have been severely tested. While the promise of democracy formally endures, many of its foundational principles have been progressively dimmed within the political configuration called Nigeria.
This erosion has made the present moment particularly excruciating. As the country approaches another crucial test of its democratic promise, expectations must extend beyond ritualistic transitions of power. This must not become yet another cycle of self-righteousness, intimidation of opposition, or the systematic drowning of citizens’ voices. Rather, it should be a moment of national reckoning.
Nigeria’s electioneering has increasingly evolved into familiar routines – alliances hurriedly assembled, slogans carefully crafted, and resources aggressively mobilised. Yet beneath this spectacle lies a deeper and more troubling continuity: elections remain largely disconnected from the fundamental questions that should define a nation’s political life:
- What kind of state does Nigeria intend to be?
- What kind of leadership deserves the trust and authority of public office?
- How should the Nigerian agenda be collectively defined, prioritised, and owned?
Our electoral cycles have thus become moments of elite bargaining, often cynically described as “selection, rather than instruments of collective statecraft. Political agendas are frequently shaped by personal instinct, short-term survival, and factional calculations, rather than by a shared national vision grounded in evidence, institutional logic, citizen welfare, and local realities.
Many political actors seeking office claim to be “called by the people.” Others posture as possessing a deep understanding of their constituencies and a firm grasp of national aspirations. Yet experience has shown that, over time, a widening divergence often emerges between these individuals and the citizens they claim to represent. This disconnect manifests in poorly defined priorities, policy incoherence, abandoned projects, and a governance system trapped in reactionary decision-making, self-aggrandisement, and elite capture of the state.
I am in no way arguing for the exclusion of leadership intuition or political judgment. Rather, I am objecting to the notion that Nigeria’s future should be entrusted to the instincts of a few. A country of over 200 million people cannot be sustainably governed by the personal convictions of a narrow elite alone. It must be governed by collectively defined priorities, informed by data, the lived realities of the majority, and a clear understanding of Nigeria’s political economy.
Only then can elections evolve from elite rituals into instruments of deliberate state design.
The Political Economy We Must Confront
Recently, I read a statement credited to Alhaji Aliko Dangote, paraphrased here: local manufacturing alone cannot resolve high domestic costs in Nigeria. This observation is both instructive and revealing, as it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding that shapes public discourse on prices and production.
The prevailing assumption is that local manufacturing should automatically translate into lower prices. In efficient economies, this logic often holds. There, production costs are largely determined by raw materials, labour, technology, scale, and productivity. Nigeria’s economy, however, persistently struggles with efficiency, where the interaction of these parameters is insufficient to explain/or resolve the high cost of goods and services.
A Nigerian Agenda must therefore transcend the logic of electoral competition. It must not be treated as a campaign document, but as a national contract; one that articulates non-negotiable socio-economic priorities and ethical obligations binding on all political parties and administrations… At its core, this agenda should affirm fundamental development principles: citizen safety and security; inclusive and productive economic participation; infrastructure that reduces the cost of living and doing business…
Even with increased local capacity, such as in domestic crude refining, supply has become steadier while prices remain stubbornly high. This outcome underscores a deeper truth: just as Nigeria’s challenges are not merely political, high domestic costs are not purely economic. Both are symptoms of the country’s underlying political-economic structure.
As Dangote has further implied, internal taxes, levies, and regulatory charges, often imposed by multiple state and sub-national agencies in the scramble for internally generated revenue, have inadvertently raised local production costs, in some cases rendering imported goods more competitive than locally produced alternatives. This dynamic reflects what may be described as a Revenue Frenzy Economy: a system in which government entities prioritise short-term revenue extraction over productive growth, thereby undermining domestic competitiveness and long-term economic sustainability.
Nigeria’s economy is thus weighed down by high transaction costs largely imposed by state failure. Energy insecurity forces firms to self-generate power. Unsafe transport corridors inflate logistics and insurance costs. Regulatory fragmentation breeds uncertainty and rent-seeking. Institutional distrust raises the cost of compliance and capital. These costs are inevitably passed on to citizens.
Meanwhile, public resources circulate within narrow elite networks, while the majority of Nigerians contend with rising living costs, declining security, and shrinking economic opportunity. Elections are often expected to offer a corrective, an opportunity to vote out ineffectual leaders and reverse poor governance. Yet for many citizens, recent electoral cycles have merely replaced office holders without altering the underlying economic logic that perpetuates dysfunction.
In this context, Nigeria’s political economy has become dangerously disconnected from production, accountability, and the idea of leadership as an obligation. Campaigns focus overwhelmingly on personalities, patronage, and mobilisation tactics, rather than on the architecture of the state; how local developmental needs are integrated into national development goals, how incentives shape behaviour, and what institutional reforms are required to lower costs and expand opportunity.
Until these structural realities are confronted, elections will continue to recycle power without redesigning the state, and the promise of democracy will remain unfulfilled.
From Politicians’ Agendas to a Nigerian Agenda
The period leading up to the 2027 elections demands a decisive shift, from politicians setting the agenda to citizens collectively designing it.
As political actors develop their respective manifestos, these documents must be grounded in the real and expressed needs of the constituencies they seek to represent. Such needs cannot be assumed or inferred; they must be articulated through deliberate and sustained engagement with citizens. Town hall meetings, invitations for citizen memoranda, sectoral consultations, and structured engagements should form the backbone of this process. Manifestos must emerge from the aggregation and distillation of these inputs, rather than from personal ambition, party instinct, or elite consensus alone.
A Nigerian Agenda must therefore transcend the logic of electoral competition. It must not be treated as a campaign document, but as a national contract; one that articulates non-negotiable socio-economic priorities and ethical obligations binding on all political parties and administrations.
At its core, this agenda should affirm fundamental development principles: citizen safety and security; inclusive and productive economic participation; infrastructure that reduces the cost of living and doing business; institutional integrity; and justice under the rule of law. These must not remain rhetorical commitments; they must be anchored in shared belief, enforceable standards, and collective accountability.
Collective accountability means citizens, institutions, and leaders share responsibility for outcomes, not just expenditures. It requires transparent policy logic, clear performance indicators, and sustained civic engagement that extends far beyond election day.
Developing such an agenda requires intentional and transparent processes, including:
- Inclusive consultations across regions, sectors, and generations;
- Clear articulation of policy trade-offs, constraints, and sequencing;
- Measurable benchmarks against which the performance of all elected officials can be assessed.
These engagements must not become platforms for political grandstanding, but serious policy forums where voices are freely expressed without fear of intimidation or retribution. When the national agenda is collectively defined and owned, and electioneering becomes issues-driven rather than personality-centred, the result is a political transition that is genuinely transformative. Elections then cease to be contests over what the country should prioritise and instead become debates over how shared goals will be achieved.
Rethinking Accountability: Beyond “Following the Money”
Accountability in Nigeria has been narrowly framed as exposure – following the money, naming culprits, and prosecuting after damage has been done. While this is essential, it is not sufficient. True accountability must be systemic, not episodic.
It must span the entire policy cycle, from design and implementation to monitoring, evaluation, and impact. It must interrogate:
- How opportunities for abuse were created and facilitated?
- What institutional incentives reward failure or mediocrity?
- Why the same patterns recur across administrations?
Collective accountability means citizens, institutions, and leaders share responsibility for outcomes, not just expenditures. It requires transparent policy logic, clear performance indicators, and sustained civic engagement that extends far beyond election day.
Elections as a Means, Not an End
Elections should not be moments of emotional mobilisation followed by collective amnesia. They should serve as checkpoints in a longer process of national design, review, and course correction.
Citizens, civil society, the private sector, labour, professionals, and the diaspora are to engage in the process not merely as voters, but as co-architects of Nigeria’s future. The task before us is not to choose saviours, but to build systems that do not require them.
Nigeria does not need another cycle of hope deferred. It needs a shared agenda, institutional discipline, and a renewed social contract anchored in obligation, justice, and productivity.
The question before this coming electioneering process is not who will win, but whether we will finally decide, together, what Nigeria is meant to become.
Dipo Baruwa is a business climate development analyst.
