Banner Online News

Why Renewed Hope cannot become an indefinite demand for patience, and why the 2027 verdict must be earned rather than purchased.

One of the most frustrating features of Nigeria’s political discourse is the tendency to treat patience as an unlimited obligation imposed on citizens while political leaders enjoy the immediate benefits of power.

The government asks for time. The people are asked to endure.

The government announces reforms. The people are asked to sacrifice.

The government reports savings and growth. The people are asked to wait for the benefits.

At some point, however, a democratic government must demonstrate that its decisions are producing results that justify the sacrifices demanded of citizens.

That is why the proposition that President Bola Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC) deserve another four years cannot be accepted as an article of faith. It must be subjected to the hard test of performance, accountability and public confidence.

Renewed Hope cannot be an indefinite request for patience

No serious argument holds that every reform must produce instant prosperity. Nor can any administration reasonably be expected to eliminate decades of structural weaknesses within a single term.

But there is a difference between acknowledging that development takes time and asking citizens to renew a mandate without convincing evidence that the current direction is delivering sufficiently broad and sustainable improvements.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s rejection of the argument that Tinubu simply needs more time is politically significant for this reason. It challenges the assumption that the passage of time is itself evidence of progress.

A government seeking re-election must show what it has achieved, what remains unfinished, why its methods should be trusted and how another term would produce better outcomes.

It must do more than insist that critics do not understand the reforms.

It must explain those reforms in terms that citizens can test against their lived experiences.

It must demonstrate that public money is being used transparently, that the costs of economic adjustment are not being borne disproportionately by the poorest, and that the benefits of economic growth are not concentrated among those already positioned to profit from the country’s difficulties.

Above all, it must recognise that Nigerians are not obligated to accept political assurances indefinitely.

Renewed Hope cannot become an excuse for renewed hardship without accountability.

If Tinubu believes that another four years would consolidate the gains of his administration, he must present convincing evidence of those gains and explain how the next term would improve the lives of citizens who remain under pressure.

If the APC believes its economic policies are working, it must demonstrate that success beyond the language of official briefings.

And if the party’s governors believe their administrations deserve re-election, they must show that their records justify another mandate.

The burden of proof rests on those asking to remain in power.

Defections do not automatically transfer the people’s loyalty

The same principle applies to governors who have abandoned the political platforms on which they were elected and subsequently joined the APC.

They may have the legal right to seek re-election, but they cannot reasonably demand that the electorate disregard the political choices they have made.

If they believe their defections served the public interest, they should demonstrate the benefits rather than demand unquestioning acceptance.

They should explain what their states have gained, how their decisions have improved public services and why the electorate should regard the changes as a positive development.

They must also be prepared to answer a difficult question: if their previous political platform was sufficiently credible to secure the people’s votes, what happened to the commitments that platform represented?

A politician cannot expect voters to treat party affiliation as sacred when seeking election but irrelevant when changing political allegiance.

Nor can the APC assume that the acquisition of prominent defectors amounts to the acquisition of their former supporters.

Political parties do not own voters. Governors do not own the mandates they receive. No politician can legitimately presume to speak for every citizen who voted for him.

The people retain their independence.

The 2027 elections must therefore become an opportunity for voters to assess candidates on their actual records, irrespective of the political platforms under which those candidates originally entered office.

Where a governor has performed well, the evidence should speak for itself. Where the record is poor, the electorate should be free to choose another candidate.

Where a defection has raised questions about consistency and accountability, the governor must answer those questions before asking for another mandate.

The same standard must apply to Tinubu and the APC at the federal level.

No president is entitled to re-election merely because he is the incumbent. No political party deserves to remain in power simply because it has assembled a formidable coalition of governors, legislators and influential politicians.

Political strength is not the same as public approval, and the acquisition of officeholders is not the same as earning the people’s trust.

The opposition must offer a credible alternative

A strong argument against the APC’s return to power must also confront a question that opposition politicians would prefer to avoid: what do they intend to do differently?

Nigerians have every reason to demand accountability from Tinubu and the APC. But public frustration alone is not a development programme, and anger alone cannot guarantee competent governance.

Any party seeking to replace the APC must explain how it would address the country’s economic difficulties, protect vulnerable households, improve security, strengthen public institutions, create jobs and deliver essential services. It must present realistic proposals rather than promise instant prosperity.

It must identify competent candidates, demonstrate integrity in its own internal processes and show that it understands the responsibilities of public office. It must also reject the transactional practices it condemns in the ruling party.

An opposition party that criticises the APC for political defections, patronage and the distribution of inducements cannot credibly adopt the same practices when it gains an electoral advantage.

A party that promises accountability must be prepared to account for its own decisions.

The goal should not be to replace one group of political beneficiaries with another. It should be to build a political culture in which governments are judged by what they deliver, public money is managed transparently, and citizens can remove underperforming leaders without fear or intimidation.

The APC must not be allowed to present itself as the only viable political platform simply because it occupies the centre of power. But opposition parties must earn the confidence of the electorate rather than assume that the ruling party’s weaknesses automatically make them worthy successors.

The Nigerian people deserve a genuine choice between credible alternatives, not a contest in which the electorate is asked to choose between competing networks of political ambition.

The questions every candidate must answer

As the 2027 elections approach, Nigerians should insist that every candidate seeking public office answer questions that go beyond party slogans and campaign promises.

Can citizens afford the necessities of life more easily than before?

Are their jobs and businesses more secure?

Are their communities safer?

Are schools, hospitals, roads and electricity services meeting their needs?

Are public resources being managed transparently and converted into measurable improvements in living standards?

Have political leaders respected the expectations under which they were elected?

Have governments demonstrated that the sacrifices demanded of citizens are producing sufficient, tangible and fairly distributed benefits?

These questions should confront Tinubu, APC governors, local-government candidates and every other politician seeking a fresh mandate.

Candidates who have performed well should welcome the scrutiny. Those who have failed to deliver should not be permitted to hide behind party slogans, political endorsements or the familiar excuse that the electorate must simply be patient.

Citizens should also demand clear explanations of campaign promises: what will be done, how it will be funded, when it will be delivered and how the public can measure success.

The era in which politicians could make sweeping promises without being held to specific outcomes must give way to a more demanding democratic culture.

The electorate must insist that the performance of public officeholders be measured against evidence, not propaganda.

The final verdict belongs to Nigerians

Tinubu and the APC have every constitutional right to seek another mandate. Their opponents have every democratic right to challenge them. Ultimately, the decision belongs to Nigerian voters.

But the right to contest is not a right to be re-elected. That distinction must be made unmistakably clear.

The reported confrontation at the Emir of Katsina’s palace captures the danger of a political establishment that appears more interested in securing another term than in confronting the anxieties of the people it seeks to govern.

Obasanjo’s criticism raises difficult questions about the economic consequences of the administration’s reforms and the adequacy of the government’s defence of them.

The defections of governors from opposition parties to the APC raise additional questions about political consistency, public mandates and the relationship between personal ambition and democratic accountability.

Together, these issues reinforce a larger argument: the ruling party must be judged by what Nigerians have experienced under its watch, not merely by what its campaign managers promise for the future.

The APC cannot reasonably demand that voters ignore economic hardship because the government calls its policies reforms. It cannot expect citizens to regard political defections as evidence of national progress. It cannot treat campaign gifts as a substitute for development or assume that political alliances automatically translate into popular support.

And it cannot insist that another four years are necessary without making a convincing case for why the Nigerian people should grant them. The same standard must apply to every party and every candidate.

Where a government has delivered measurable improvements, it should be able to demonstrate them. Where it has fallen short, the electorate should be free to demand change. This is not hostility to a political party. It is the essence of democratic accountability.

Nigerians owe the APC no automatic loyalty

The APC’s greatest political mistake would be to assume that Nigerians’ endurance is evidence of satisfaction. People can endure hardship without approving of the government responsible for managing the circumstances in which they live. They can collect a campaign gift without surrendering their political independence. They can listen to a governor’s endorsement without accepting the argument being advanced.

They can acknowledge that a reform may have a legitimate objective while condemning its implementation and demanding better results.

Above all, they can distinguish between a politician’s right to seek office and the people’s right to deny that politician another term.

Tinubu is not entitled to a second term merely because he is the incumbent. The APC is not entitled to remain in power because it has attracted governors from other parties. No governor who has switched political platforms is entitled to assume that the votes previously cast for him will automatically follow.

Every candidate must answer for the record. Every party must defend its performance. Every promise must be measured against results. And every voter must be free to decide.

If Tinubu and the APC believe their record deserves another four years, they should present their evidence to the Nigerian people and allow the electorate to judge it.

If their governors believe their defections have served the public interest, they should demonstrate the benefits rather than demand unquestioning acceptance.

But Nigerians should reject the dangerous proposition that political continuity is an achievement in itself. A government that has not convincingly demonstrated that its policies are improving the lives of ordinary citizens should not be handed another mandate simply because it wants one.

The presidency is not a personal inheritance. Governorships are not political possessions. Local-government offices are not rewards for party loyalty. They are public trusts. And public trusts must be earned.

The ballot must become an instrument of accountability

In 2027, Nigerians should owe Tinubu and the APC no automatic loyalty, no blank cheque and no compulsory gratitude.

The ruling party must earn the people’s votes through demonstrable performance. Where its record falls short, voters should have the courage to say no.

For a country whose citizens are struggling to recover their economic dignity, the ballot must mean more than another political transaction. It must be an instrument of accountability.

It must be a declaration that the people are not merchandise, that their mandates are not for sale, and that no political party can turn public hardship into a permanent entitlement to power.

The message to Tinubu, the APC and every officeholder who has mistaken political survival for public approval should therefore be unmistakable:

You may ask for another four years. You may assemble your governors, deploy your campaign machinery, attract defectors and make fresh promises.

But you must first explain why Nigerians should trust you with them. The people are not asking for the privilege of being governed. They are demanding the right to be governed well.

And if those who currently hold power cannot convincingly demonstrate that they deserve another opportunity, Nigerians must remember that the final word in a democracy does not belong to the president, the governors, the political parties or the campaign strategists. It belongs to the people.

In 2027, let the ballot speak—not the inducement, not the defection, not the political endorsement, and certainly not the presumption that power must be renewed simply because those who hold it want to keep it.

• Concluded