Presidential debate will mitigate Nigeria’s mis-governance risks

Nigeria has seen six presidential elections since transition to civil rule in 1999. Some of the campaigning has been boisterous but Nigerians have yet to see a televised debate involving leading presidential aspirants. Meanwhile, the country elects or select many individuals with debatable qualification to leadership positions. Lagos remains a lone exception among Nigeria’s thirty-six […]

Nigeria has seen six presidential elections since transition to civil rule in 1999. Some of the campaigning has been boisterous but Nigerians have yet to see a televised debate involving leading presidential aspirants. Meanwhile, the country elects or select many individuals with debatable qualification to leadership positions.

Lagos remains a lone exception among Nigeria’s thirty-six states: the recently elected Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, engaged in a number of televised debates with Jimi Agbaje of the opposition and other aspirants.

Nigeria’s debate-free political culture has needlessly stifled policy clarity and envisioning of the future. Debates are one of the major highlights of the election season from Australia to America. This lacuna, whilst most lamentable at Nigeria’s federal level, is visible too in state elections. In the local governments and local council development areas, debate is nigh impossible. Governors brazenly hand-pick cronies to local positions.

Challenging incumbency

There are compelling explanations for this state of affairs. For the powerful office of Nigeria’s president, the little public scrutiny and weak pressure on aspirants to directly make their case to voters is most at fault. An incumbency advantage (enjoyed by sitting presidents coming up for re-election) or perceived clear popularity (when a ‘strong’ candidate towers over the challenger) is often used as carte blanche. Aspirants routinely ascend to office with little of substance known about their governance agenda.

This applies to all of Nigeria’s past presidential election front-runners without exception. From Olusegun Obasanjo in his re-elect bid in 2003, to Yar’Adua’s coronation in 2007, through Goodluck Jonathan in 2011, and Muhammadu Buhari in 2019. All made it known (or showed through their body language) that they saw little advantage in media-organised debates. There is the perceived risks from rivals, who may enjoy a disproportionate boost from televised debates to even out a lopsided contest. Also, candidates in pole position fear irredeemable damage from debating mistakes.

Circumstantial evidence also suggest the desire oftentimes to escape scrutiny on policies, character and qualification.

In the 2019 elections which pitted President Buhari against Atiku Abubakar, many neutral observers concluded that the debates, whatever their format, would have favoured the challenger. Atiku was seen to be more comfortable on the stump with greater ease in front of the cameras. Buhari is taciturn.  Maybe even a combination of the above persuaded the front-runners to eschew debate.

Better grasp of media management skills does not mark out a transformational leader. Though, debating publicly often reveals a lot about a candidate’s motivation, competence and commitment. Whatever accounts for the failure of leaders to debate in Nigeria, this must change. The regrettable reality has ill-served the country. Success in unearthing well-intentioned, informed and fit leaders requires a degree of interrogation on a personal level. Precisely because character defines leadership. By not debating, even candidates may be missing a chance at true self-discovery. By testing ideas in debates, they will become better prepared, empathetic leaders able to lead even-handedly.

Beyond well-worn tactics

Nigeria is not alone in having political aspirants who may demure on debates due to calculations of political advantage. Even Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom just this month skipped the first of two planned Leaders Debate as the UK search for a new Conservative Party leader.

The winner automatically succeeds outgoing prime-minister, Theresa May. The Westminster parliamentary system, to its credit, requires weekly debates between the prime-minister and the leader of the

Opposition when parliament is in session.

Nigeria stands uniquely among countries with a presidential system. It has not even for once organised a debate among its leading contestants. This goes much further back than the current Fourth Republic. Since changing from the UK system to its extant US-style presidential system in 1979, no incumbent Nigerian leader has ever debated head-to-head with the opposition party’s flag-bearer.

The quality of debates at the national assembly remains uneven at best. The outspoken Nigerian commentariat also often mirrors the cleavages in society. Bedraggled by multiple crises, from weak governance to insecurity and structural constraints on the economy,

Nigeria now has no alternative than to seek inspired leadership.

Debates that create regular opportunities to hear about the governance agenda directly from those at the helm opens up such a path. If not weekly as in the British system, then certainly during the windows provided by leadership contests. That will institutionalise a culture of adversarial interrogation of both government and opposition’s plans so that the public can make informed choices.

Clearer articulation presages focused action Debates can deliver high drama and spectacles, which is healthy for democracy. More important, they help citizens see up-close the intellect, talent and integrity of sitting and prospective leaders.

Citizens deserve a chance to hear details of the contenders’ plans on fundamental issues as Nigeria’s participation in the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement; revitalising the national electricity grid; reforming agriculture, health and education; managing Nigeria’s demographic pressures to reap its opportunities; addressing insecurity; and inspiring the nation to leverage its vast talents and endowments. This must become a minimum requirement of those seeking to lead Africa’s largest economy.

Indeed, if there had been a presidential debate between Buhari and Atiku in the 2019 elections, the former might not have floated improbable plans such as the one on lifting 100 million Nigerians out of poverty in the next 10 years. The president made the reference, probably inserted in his speech by handlers, during Nigeria’s Democracy Day celebration.  Not even the dynamic Indian and Chinese economies recorded such progress in the time-span suggested.

Presidential debates are serious affairs. Even Buhari might have been inclined to interrogate advisers on these figure were it in the context of an adversarial debate that could hand the poll lead to a more diligent opposition candidate.

Work on a leaders’ debates in the 2023 general elections must start now with the passing of laws to make the debates obligatory. It will nudge aspirants to devote more time to outlining attractive and viable plans whilst garnering support. It should also help to correct the perverse incentives undermining Nigeria’s politics: the disproportionate influence of patronage, violence, monetary inducement, and god-fatherism in deciding electoral outcomes.

Nigerians need to re-engage with governance beyond the votes. Few things will help to kick-start this process more assuredly than evidence-focused and unvarnished debates among aspirants. It might also help to crowd in technocrats into the political arena, enhancing campaigning processes, ability to retain power honestly and the delivery of good governance. Giving institutional and legal backing to the debates should must become an urgent priority for the president and this ninth national assembly.

 

Ola Bello is Executive Director, Good Governance Africa (GGA), Nigeria.