Pix: INEC Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu

Abdullahi Ramalan, writes in from Jalingo, Taraba State

Since 1999, Nigeria’s democracy has walked a fragile path. The 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act give INEC the power to set timelines for campaigns, meant to keep the process fair and orderly. But one practice keeps breaking the rules premature campaigns. Politicians, across party lines, hit the ground early with rallies, sponsored media shows and subtle vote-seeking, sometimes years before the law allows. What looks like harmless ambition is, in truth, a threat to governance, party unity and national security.

The implications for the ruling party are especially severe. A government distracted by internal politicking rarely governs effectively. Ministries and parastatals that should focus on policy implementation become drawn into subtle campaign financing, starving citizens of developmental benefits. Estimates suggest that Nigeria’s 2019 general election cost over ₦250 billion in combined spending by parties and candidates, with much of this outlay happening well before INEC’s official campaign window. This pattern of resource diversion explains, in part, why promises of improved healthcare, modernized education, or security reform often stall midway into a government’s tenure. Premature campaigns also fuel destructive rivalries within ruling parties. The PDP crisis of 2013, in which seven governors and dozens of lawmakers defected, stands as a reminder of how internal wrangling over succession and early positioning can destabilize a ruling coalition and alter the national political balance. These struggles, when dragged into the open too soon, embolden rivals, confuse supporters, and put immense strain on security agencies forced to manage rallies, protests, and violent street encounters among factions.

For opposition parties, the practice brings mixed blessings. On one hand, it allows them to gain early visibility, challenge the ruling party’s dominance in the media space, and mobilize grassroots supporters. For politicians without access to state machinery, starting early seems strategic. Yet it is also a dangerous gamble. Opposition campaigns launched outside INEC’s timeframe expose candidates to selective prosecution under electoral laws, even if such enforcement is inconsistent. Worse still, premature gatherings often lack official security cover, leaving supporters vulnerable to attacks from rival groups or intimidation from state actors. The 2023 election cycle alone recorded more than 600 politically motivated violent incidents across Nigeria, many of them linked to pre-official campaign activities. In an environment where the line between political mobilization and violent confrontation is thin, premature campaigning can be a death trap for opposition supporters and a powder keg for fragile communities.

The heaviest burden, however, falls on the Nigerian people. Every premature campaign cycle deepens the governance vacuum. Policymaking is sacrificed at the altar of electoral expediency, with ministers, governors, and lawmakers focusing on electoral survival instead of service delivery. The World Bank in 2022 observed that Nigeria’s economy loses billions annually to policy inconsistency, much of it linked to leadership distraction during electioneering. Insecurity is also amplified by the rhetoric of premature campaigns. In a country with a long history of identity politics, politicians often exploit ethnic, regional, or religious sentiments to mobilize early support. These speeches and propaganda deepen the divides between Nigerians, feeding mistrust in a society already strained by insecurity. Hate speech, fake news, and social media propaganda rise exponentially in the early heat of campaigns, often spilling into real-world violence.

Youth are the most vulnerable in this equation. With unemployment at 53.4 percent in 2022, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, millions of idle young Nigerians are easy recruits for political thuggery. Politicians exploit their desperation, arming them to intimidate opponents, disrupt rallies, or settle scores. This cycle not only endangers the youth themselves but also worsens insecurity in communities. What begins as political thuggery often mutates into armed robbery, banditry, or insurgency once the election is over and the politicians who financed them vanish. Nigeria’s experience with armed groups in the Niger Delta and militant gangs in northern states shows how political recruitment during campaign seasons can spiral into prolonged security challenges.

Security agencies, already stretched thin by insurgency, banditry, and kidnapping, are inevitably caught in the crossfire. Instead of focusing resources on counter-terrorism and crime prevention, police and paramilitary outfits are redeployed to monitor illegal rallies and prevent political clashes. This constant distraction erodes their effectiveness. It also increases the risk of bias, as security agencies may be perceived as serving partisan interests rather than the state. Such perceptions weaken public trust in the institutions designed to safeguard democracy. The cycle is vicious: weakened institutions, heightened insecurity, and a political class that thrives on perpetual mobilization.

The broader implications cannot be ignored. Nigeria’s democracy suffers when elections become endless contests rather than periodic opportunities for renewal. According to the CLEEN Foundation, over 915 Nigerians lost their lives to election-related violence between 2015 and 2023. Many of these deaths were linked to prolonged campaign seasons where tensions were allowed to simmer unchecked. This erosion of democratic credibility also has economic consequences. Foreign investors avoid unstable political environments, and Nigeria has paid a steep price. Foreign Direct Investment inflows collapsed from $8.84 billion in 2011 to less than $1.5 billion in 2022, a decline worsened by the perception of chronic political instability. At a time when Nigeria desperately needs investment to tackle unemployment, inflation, and poverty, the political class continues to stoke instability through premature campaigning.

In my view, premature campaigning is one of the most dangerous yet underestimated threats to Nigeria’s democracy and security. It is not simply a breach of electoral law but a systemic failure that erodes governance, undermines institutions, endangers citizens, and destabilizes the economy. For the ruling party, it creates distractions and internal crises. For the opposition, it offers visibility but at the risk of violence and selective repression. For Nigerians, it brings instability, violence, and squandered opportunities for progress. Unless INEC strictly enforces its timelines, and unless security agencies resist the temptation of partisanship while clamping down on premature mobilization, Nigeria risks sliding deeper into a cycle of endless politics and perpetual insecurity.

The survival of Nigeria’s democracy depends on returning politics to the discipline of law and governance. Elections must be contests of ideas held at the appointed time, not perpetual wars waged at the expense of the people. Until politicians learn to govern between elections and campaign only when the law permits, Nigeria will continue to pay the price in blood, instability, and lost development.