The lesson remains that credible elections depend on credible conditions, and those conditions do not emerge by chance. They are the result of deliberate choices, sustained effort and, above all, coordination. Where these elements are absent or weakened, confidence in the process is likely to suffer.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
As Nigeria moves towards another election cycle, the conversation is once again turning to security, and with good reason. Public debate is no longer confined to party competition or campaign promises; it is increasingly shaped by concerns over safety, access, and the practical ability of citizens to participate in the democratic process. In many parts of the country, these concerns are not abstract—they are realities that will inevitably influence turnout and perception.
That, in itself, is telling, because it highlights a deeper issue regarding the state of the nation’s democratic health. When security becomes the dominant lens through which elections are viewed, it suggests that the foundations of participation are under strain. It also raises an uncomfortable question of whether an election can be considered fully credible if large segments of the population feel uncertain about their safety on polling day?
Elections are not only about procedures or outcomes; they depend on whether people feel safe enough to take part and confident enough in what follows. Ballots, results sheets, and official declarations carry weight only when they are underpinned by a sense of trust. Without that trust, the process risks becoming a formality rather than a meaningful expression of the public will.
READ ALSO:
Reframing media accountability in Nigeria
We had faced a similar moment before, and the parallels are difficult to ignore. Nigeria had, in the past, approached elections under conditions of considerable strain, where the balance between security and democratic continuity was far from guaranteed. Reflecting on that experience offers a useful lens through which to assess present challenges.
In 2015, large parts of the North-East were under the control of Boko Haram, and there were serious doubts about whether nationwide elections could go ahead. Entire communities were displaced, infrastructure had been damaged, and the reach of the state was visibly weakened. The scale of the threat created a climate of uncertainty that extended far beyond the immediate conflict zones.
It was not simply a political question, but one that went to the heart of the state’s ability to function. The prospect of postponing or disrupting elections raised concerns about legitimacy, continuity, and the broader stability of the country. At stake was not only who would govern, but whether governance itself could proceed under such conditions.
What made a difference was not Nigeria acting alone, but the involvement of its neighbours in a coordinated response. This regional dimension introduced a level of capacity and strategic depth that might otherwise have been difficult to achieve within a short timeframe. It also reflected a shared recognition that the consequences of instability would not be confined within national borders.
The expansion of the Multinational Joint Task Force brought together forces from across the region at a critical time, creating a more unified and structured approach to the security challenge. This collaboration enabled joint operations, improved intelligence sharing, and a clearer sense of collective purpose. It was, in many respects, a turning point in how the crisis was addressed.
The decision to postpone the elections then was controversial, but it created space for military operations to regain ground and restore a measure of stability. While opinions differed on the merits of the delay, it provided a window in which security efforts could be intensified in a more focused manner. That period proved to be decisive in shaping what followed.
Several areas were recovered, movement became more feasible, and conditions—though still fragile then —improved enough for the process to continue. The gains were not absolute, and challenges remained, but the shift was sufficient to change the trajectory. It allowed electoral preparations to resume with a degree of confidence that had previously been lacking.
Nigerians were able to vote, and the outcome marked a significant democratic moment in the country’s history. The peaceful transfer of power that followed reinforced the resilience of the electoral system, even under pressure. It also demonstrated that progress was possible when key elements aligned at the right time.
Yet the more lasting lesson lies not in the result itself, but in the conditions that made it possible. The experience underscored the importance of creating an environment in which participation is not only technically feasible, but broadly accessible and accepted. Without such conditions, even the most well-organised election can struggle to command legitimacy.
Today, the picture is less clear-cut, and in many ways more complicated than it was a decade ago. The nature of insecurity has evolved, becoming less concentrated and more diffuse across different regions. This shift has introduced new layers of difficulty in both understanding and addressing the problem.
Insecurity is no longer concentrated in one region or driven by a single group, but spread across the country in different forms, each with its own dynamics. From insurgency to banditry and communal violence, the range of challenges reflects a broader fragmentation that resists simple solutions. This diversity of threats makes coordination more demanding.
There is no single area to stabilise, no straightforward campaign that can shift the balance ahead of elections in a decisive way. Instead, efforts must be distributed, sustained, and carefully calibrated across multiple fronts. This reality complicates planning and raises questions about how best to prioritise limited resources.
This makes the challenge more complex and demands a different kind of response—one that is both flexible and strategic. It requires not only operational capacity but also a clear sense of direction that links security efforts to broader national objectives. Without that coherence, responses risk becoming piecemeal and less effective.
What is also striking is the absence of the kind of coordination seen a decade ago, when regional and domestic efforts appeared more closely aligned. While cooperation still exists, it does not seem to carry the same urgency or visibility. This shift may have implications for how effectively current challenges are addressed.
Responses often appear reactive, shaped by immediate pressures rather than a broader plan linked to the electoral timetable. Such an approach can address short-term concerns, but it may fall short of creating the stable environment needed for credible elections. Planning that looks beyond the immediate horizon is essential.
Nigeria finds itself at a pivotal juncture. As the path towards the next election unfolds, the decisions made today will determine the country’s trajectory for years to come. The patterns are visible for all to see, stretching from the Lake Chad basin to the North-Western forests. The question remains whether there exists the political resolve to move beyond reactive measures and address the root causes of this systemic instability.
To ignore these warnings is to risk the very foundation of our democratic process. If the state cannot guarantee the basic safety of its citizens, the ballot box loses its sanctity. We must demand a shift from the pursuit of power to the preservation of life. Until then, the cycle endures—measured, persistent, and deeply unsettling. And once again, before the ballots are cast, the sound of bullets is already echoing in the distance.
The lesson remains that credible elections depend on credible conditions, and those conditions do not emerge by chance. They are the result of deliberate choices, sustained effort and, above all, coordination. Where these elements are absent or weakened, confidence in the process is likely to suffer.
The question now is not only whether Nigerians will vote, but whether they will trust the result. That distinction may prove to be the defining issue of the coming election cycle, shaping not just outcomes, but the broader trajectory of the country’s democratic development.
