Understanding Campaigns in Nigeria: What to Expect

Nigeria’s political parties need to tell us who will run their campaigns, gather their supporters, and keep their strongholds. They also must clarify who will make our communities safer, improve hospitals, and ensure that jobs pay well. As we get ready for the 2027 elections, the efforts to win power are starting to show. We need to look closely at this situation.

Campaigns are tricky. There is a lot of political activity, but many people do not fully understand it. There are announcements to make, partnerships to celebrate, and rivals to attack. After all the speeches, voters should be able to explain what makes each party different and how those differences will affect their daily lives.

Take the Nigeria Democratic Congress for example. On 26 October, reports showed its new National Campaign Council, led by Seriake Dickson, with Peter Obi as co-chairman and Ibrahim Abdulkarim as campaign director-general. The party promised a "people-centred and issue-based campaign." Their appointments show who will lead the campaign efforts. Now, the party must prove how its candidates plan to govern. Just because a coalition can win an election does not mean it can run a country well.

The All Progressives Congress (APC) has a similar challenge. President Bola Tinubu launched its Presidential Campaign Council on 14 October. The national chairman stated that the party needs to compete on ideas, achievements, and policies. He noted that the campaign must show how reforms will lead to real improvements in daily life. This is a fair expectation. Nigerians should hold the party accountable for this promise.

We need to be fair and not overstate claims: the opposition is not without policies, and the governing party is not limited to the word "reform." The real question is whether the commitments each party has made are clear and credible enough for citizens to compare.

The African Democratic Congress put out policy proposals in May, after they were adopted in April. These proposals included a living wage, independent electoral management, preventive healthcare, and a production-driven economy. In August, its Orange Book laid out commitments like getting rid of secret security votes and lowering governance costs. These positions are clear and should be examined rather than ignored.

Examining these proposals means looking deeper than just announcements. What would a living wage mean for public finances, small businesses, and workers not in formal jobs? How would a government replace secret security spending with systems that allow for scrutiny? Which budgets would be cut, by how much, and who would make those decisions? A proposal becomes more believable when its supporters face these hard questions.

The Allied Peoples’ Movement also shares its positions on security, rule of law, federalism, and foreign policy. Their push for true federalism raises practical questions: which powers would change hands, which revenues would follow, and which responsibilities would remain shared? Their promise for an efficient security system needs details on personnel, funding, and accountability. These principles offer a starting point. Voters need to see how these ideas would be put into action.

Meanwhile, the APC has pointed out plans for subsidy removal, exchange-rate unification, tax reforms, and local government independence as key issues for their campaign. They also mention student loans, consumer credit, and healthcare projects. So it is not about whether they have policies, but if they can inspire confidence and if their next plans address past failures.

For a party in power, it is important to be accountable. What were the original promises? What has changed? Who gained, who lost, and what issues remain? Just having a program does not prove it works. Money spent does not always create opportunities. A project launched does not always guarantee ongoing services. The government must show how its actions lead to real improvements.

"Reform" is not enough as an answer. It describes a process that depends on results. A policy might tackle a real problem but could be poorly timed or not protective of vulnerable people. Citizens have the right to question these choices. A family struggling to afford basic needs should not feel wrong for asking when help will come. Economic credibility needs a clear goal and a believable plan to get there.

Opposition parties are not free from this responsibility. Public frustration gives them a chance to be heard, but it does not prove they can govern. They must explain what they would keep, change, or redesign. If they promise to reverse policies, they should outline the costs. If they agree with the current direction, they must specify what they would adjust. If not, voters might confuse a change in leaders with a change in policies.

Food offers a good example. All parties can claim they will end hunger. But a credible plan must connect farm security, inputs, irrigation, storage, transport, and market access. It must also address the balance between immediate relief for consumers and incentives for producers. Would temporary imports be part of the plan? Under what conditions would they stop? How would the government ensure that emergency measures do not become long-term benefits for only a few businesses?

Employment promises need similar scrutiny. Which businesses will create the millions of jobs promised? What will they produce, and who will buy it? Training is important, but just having a certificate does not mean there are jobs available. Credit is necessary, but loans cannot save a business if there are issues like unstable power supply and low demand. Candidates should explain how their plans would support real businesses and jobs, not just announce large targets.

Healthcare shows the difference between shiny projects and effective government. A new hospital can look good in photos, but real care relies on staff, medicines, maintenance, management, and how to pay for treatment. Who will manage these ongoing needs? Education raises similar questions. New classrooms are important, but how will teachers be supported, attendance improved, and learning measured? Campaign speeches should talk about the ongoing costs of public services alongside new projects.

Security needs clear policies about power and its limits. Candidates advocating for local policing must explain recruitment, funding, standards, and safeguards against misuse of power. Those promising better intelligence must address how to ensure accountability when warnings are missed. Protecting citizens from crime and from wrongful actions by the state are both important responsibilities. A convincing security plan must take both seriously.

Then comes the big question that affects all promises: what will it cost? Parties should separate immediate commitments from those needing additional funds. They should state what they would delay or cut. Savings from waste and corruption are not an endless source of money; they need specific plans and realistic estimates. Borrowing must come with a repayment plan. Private investment needs conditions that make it viable. A campaign that recognizes limits provides a more honest basis for trust.

Personal integrity also needs to lead to institutional commitments. A leader’s reputation is key, but citizens need systems that can expose wrongdoing, even from powerful individuals. What procurement information would be shared? How would oversight bodies get records and enforce consequences? Would the proposed safeguards work under a less principled successor? This is the true test of reform meant to last.

The media should make these issues clear. Appointments, defections, and endorsements are news, but they should not take over the election’s focus. Every major promise needs follow-up on funding, authority, implementation, and potential challenges. An interviewer should not accept a catchy slogan as a valid answer to a tough question. Citizens need consistent scrutiny across parties and beyond single broadcasts.

A practical step would be for each serious candidate to publish five key commitments, each with a starting point, estimated cost, funding source, responsible body, and deadline. This would give voters a clear basis for comparison and a record to hold the winner accountable. Governors and legislators should face scrutiny that matches their responsibilities.

Nigeria needs more than just political excitement. We need more public understanding to go with it. Campaign councils can organize the race for office, but candidates must explain how they will use that power.

By the end of this election, Nigerians should know more than who joined which party or which rally had the most people. They should know what their leaders promise to deliver, what sacrifices those choices involve, and how failure will be judged.

Until then, there may be campaigns everywhere, but not enough reasons to trust them to govern.