Osun: A Critical Examination of Nigeria’s Electoral Democracy and the Global Systemic Crisis

The recent governorship election in Osun State, Nigeria, has sparked a wave of optimism among the country's citizens, despite the underlying issues plaguing the nation. Nigeria, burdened by poverty, insecurity, unemployment, and institutional distrust, often experiences political fervor every four years as citizens invest emotional energy in the hope of a transformative election outcome.

The Osun election, similar to past ones, has generated this national euphoria, with many Nigerians viewing it as a potential warning sign ahead of the 2027 elections and a possibility of defeating the ruling party if citizens rally behind an alternative candidate.

However, this enthusiasm might be misleading, as the core problem facing Nigeria is not just the outcome of the next election but the system through which citizens select their leaders. The incentives that guide these leaders' actions and the social contract between the government and the citizens deserve closer examination. Nigeria's electoral cycle has become too short, preventing the kind of long-term national planning required for development.

Governments focus heavily on the next election, resulting in suboptimal long-term infrastructure projects, industrial policies, education reforms, and institutional restructuring. Continuity is thus compromised, as each administration strives to distinguish itself from its predecessor.

The argument that changing the political leadership is synonymous with altering the system is deceptive. Globally, the neoliberal democratic model is facing significant challenges. In the United States, political polarization has reached unprecedented levels, while the United Kingdom grapples with the aftermath of Brexit, and European nations witness a rise in alternative political movements.

This global crisis in neoliberal democracy is mirrored in Nigeria, where the social contract that once guaranteed citizens exchange freedoms for security, welfare, and opportunity is breaking down. Neoliberalism's promise of limited government, market discipline, privatization, and minimal state intervention has led to a contradiction: markets might efficiently allocate resources in some cases, but they cannot provide the essential public goods, social cohesion, and strategic direction needed for a nation's development.

Nigerian opposition figures seeking validation from the EU and French interests overlook the shortcomings of this approach. The EU, while acting as a reliable partner to European and especially French interests, has demonstrated little incentive to intervene in Nigeria's political affairs. Consequently, relying on European election observers or diplomatic pressure to salvage Nigeria's democratic system is a futile endeavor. Ultimately, sovereignty rests with Nigerian institutions and citizens, not with foreign entities.

The crux of the argument is whether replacing one ruling party with another in a system critics regard as structurally unchanged can bring about better governance. History in Nigeria since independence suggests that such a change alone is unlikely to produce meaningful improvements. The Osun result, showing genuine anti-incumbent sentiment and effective organizing, does not guarantee that a change of party will lead to better governance without altering the fundamental leadership selection process, wealth distribution, and the state's responsibilities toward its citizens between elections.

This historical precedent necessitates a critical reevaluation of the electoral system and the underlying framework of governance.

The broader lesson from Nigeria's post-1960 history is that international powers pursue their interests without charity. Instead of seeking foreign partnerships, Nigeria must evaluate these alliances based on its national interests. The Osun election may offer a glimpse that APC can be defeated, but what truly matters is that Nigerian citizens remain the ultimate source of political legitimacy.

To avoid a repetitive cycle of electoral euphoria and despair, Nigeria must strive for a new system of leadership selection, stronger institutions, long-term national planning, credible local government, a productive industrial policy, equitable wealth distribution, and an overall revitalization of the country's democratic framework.