For Nigerians, 2023 is about choice, and with choice comes responsibility. We face critical decisions on many issues that will define our future as a country and as citizens. The most obvious consequence of this choice is the general election. We will be voting at various levels and constituencies to elect leaders that will pilot the country’s affairs for the next four years.
The presidential election is the zenith of these elections, and its significance has far-reaching consequences for the country. On its face value, unlike earlier presidential elections where we had two real options, Nigerians have many options in this one, comparable only to the 1979 presidential race when we had to choose from five candidates.
At a closer look, you will see the practical application of American psychologist, Barry Schwartz’s paradox of choice theory. The paradox of choice stipulates that while we might believe that being presented with multiple options makes it easier to choose one that we are happy with and thus increases citizen satisfaction, having an abundance of possibilities requires more effort to decide and can leave us feeling unsatisfied with our choice.
Many citizens think the options before us make us more frustrated and less happy overall. Three or four presidential candidates are of note, depending on your perspective and depth of understanding of the political landscape. Each possesses unique attributes as well as shortcomings.
Candidates may only embody some of our aspirations and reflect some of the values we want to see in our country’s future president. However, it is still our responsibility to analyse all the information presented to us and choose a candidate we are convinced will lead Nigeria for the next four years and set us on the course to economic, social, and political growth.
The choice before Nigerians in February and March is not essentially only about candidates, but about the outcome of the socio-political and economic realities that we would like to see post-2023 elections. The contest is also about the unity of Nigerians versus the triumph of regionalism or ethnicity, security versus insecurity, and unbridled corruption versus good governance. Each presidential candidate represents a shade of this, but none embodies all the positives. Herein lies our dilemma.
We have historical precedents to rely on to unravel this dilemma. History provides a few lessons that shed light on how we dealt with similar situations, what outcomes we had, and how they affected our past and present. In the 1979 elections, which best represented multi-party elections, each presidential candidate represented a distinctive offering.
Shagari was a pro-establishment, nationalist, and free-enterprise economy advocate. Awolowo was the symbol of the welfare state, or socio-democrats, who believed that government should do the greatest good to the largest number of citizens, hence his pursuit of free education and free healthcare for all. Azikiwe was a nationalist who believed in free enterprise. Aminu Kano was pro-masses and pan-socialist. Waziri was also a man who believed in free enterprise.
Nigerians voted in Shehu Shagari as president and lived with the consequences of that choice. Many presidential and gubernatorial candidates did not necessarily produce the best results. Subsequent presidential elections in 1993, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2015 followed the binary option, where we had two dominant candidates to choose from. However, these options were only binary in the sense of having two different candidates but not in ideology, or leadership approach to solving our socio-economic challenges. In all these cases, the options before Nigerians had nothing to do with policy or ideas, but about personalities.
The current presidential election presents a unique setting – we have many options, but fewer ideas and values to choose from. Ordinarily, the assumption is that as the number of options increases, so will citizens’ utility from voting also increase. But this is not true. We may have four contenders for the presidency; however, it is clear that we have options of personalities and not ideology, value proposition or ideas on how to solve Nigeria’s hydra headed challenges.
Tinubu and Atiku represent pro-business, pro-establishment tendencies with strings of promises to inject fresh ideas to build a better country. Peter Obi and Kwankwaso, on the other hand, represent different shades of anti-establishment, pro-masses, and social democratic tendencies with a commitment to disrupt the existing system.
Peter Obi and Kwankwaso are products of the establishment and beneficiaries of pseudo-capitalist order, having served as governors in the past and being prominent members of the PDP and APC parties. They run campaigns about how bad the two dominant parties are and how they destroyed Nigeria, portraying themselves as repentant former PDP and APC members who have seen the light and have adopted a messianic triumphalism in rescuing Nigeria from the Satanic claws of the PDP and APC.
This situation sounds hypocritical, but resonates with some citizens who are discontented and disgruntled with the existing orthodoxy. Peter Obi seems to have successfully appropriated the masses who are dissatisfied with the two political parties due to past failures, and has taken advantage of the youth anger against a system they feel has a stranglehold on their necks. We know that come February 2023, either an establishment presidential candidate will emerge winner or an anti-establishment candidate will. However, no matter who wins, his job is cut out to transform Nigeria.
We are living in unprecedented times in our history. We are facing an economic crisis of a magnitude never seen before: unemployment is embarrassing, tension among different ethnic groups is at an all-time high, and insecurity is alarming. The entire world is watching to see if we will succeed or fall off the cliff. This unique era makes it imperative that we be deliberate in getting citizens to understand the importance of our choices in 2023. If we get it wrong, we will move from socio-economic purgatory to socio-economic limbo in a relatively short period of time.
It is time we examined and interrogated the policies, projects, and activities candidates have in their manifestos, the character and personality of each candidate, and their professional experience to ensure that the candidate fits the person specification for the presidency of Nigeria. It is time we do not allow parochial religiosity, ethnicity, and the politics of financial gratification to influence the candidate we choose.
The consequences of doing business as usual are too dire to contemplate. This juncture is critical and constitutes an elite dilemma. Nigerians must look for red flags among the candidates and let their knowledge of the candidates guide their vote choice. If a candidate does not have a track record of outstanding performance in previous work or professions, we must expect them to stay the same when elected president.
States that have tremendous influence on local government administration are responsible for expenditure of a lot of national revenue. In practice, states, combined with LGA, account for almost half of all federal revenue expenditure (current revenue formula is FGN 52.68 per cent, and State and LGA 47.32 per cent). The import is that the quality of governance in the states significantly impacts national development.
We are experiencing stunted growth because of the poor quality of government at the state level, which is getting worse with every cycle of elections. At this subnational level, serial failure of governance, which is a product of mediocre leadership, has led to poor socio-economic outcomes, widespread poverty, weak healthcare and educational system, insecurity, and lack of trust in governance. Our choice in this election will determine the quality of service at the state level – the strength, unity and prosperity of our country going forward. Happy New Year to all Nigerians, and may 2023 offer us the best in leadership for the good of our country.
By Dakuku Peterside
VANGUARD
