Although the Edo State election has passed, its aftermath has brought attention to the ways in which Nigerian political strategy is evolving.

Election winners naturally rejoice after winning and losers bemoan their defeat; however, this article aims to rectify false post-election narratives and emphasises how important it is for political parties to consider their strategies and structural shortcomings instead of putting up a fight of justifications and blame, which would ultimately turn INEC into a convenient scapegoat for electoral defeats.

I have very basic motivations for embarking on this journey. We have an obligation to dispel false narratives and misinformation in order to rebuild trust in our voting system and to uphold our democratic ideals, which includes ongoing voter education.

Helping voters comprehend the real reasons behind election results is essential to voter education, as it prevents them from being influenced by petty charges made by individuals with unpretentious partisan interests. Politicians frequently blame the voting public when they lose, instead of addressing problems that occurred within their campaigns or parties. The public’s confidence in the process is weakened by this loop of disinformation and deflection, which also impedes the expansion of our democracy.

We have to abandon this harmful strategy. We are not limited to endorsing the process when it benefits us. It is imperative to halt the inclination to weaken and denigrate our establishments only due to a political defeat. We need to increase public trust in our institutions. This will be my main point of discussion.

Prior to delving deeper into this discussion, it is pertinent to ask ourselves: Is INEC to blame for political parties’ defeat in the Edo election?

As usual, politicians and their allies were ready to denounce the electoral body and level suspicions of manipulation as soon as the results of the Edo election were made public.

I really believe that celebrating and accepting elections we win while condemning those we lose is a sign of political immaturity. Let me be clear about that. Democracy shouldn’t be changed to accommodate political whims and avarice.

Let’s get back to the conversation. The opposition parties’ desire to place the blame for their defeat in Edo on INEC belies the fact that the true causes are found in the parties’ organisational design, tactical approach, selection of leaders, and popular will.

For example, it is evident that a number of circumstances, including the involvement of party agents, internal party strife, Governor Obaseki’s disagreement with the Oba of Benin Palace and his deputy, and a host of other issues, contributed to the PDP’s defeat.

Let’s now investigate the ways in which the electoral process is evolving, namely the functions performed by party agents and the new forms of political commerce, and how these have greatly impacted the parties’ chances of winning or losing elections.

Party Agent Role: Transactional, Not Organic

Parties’ use of transactional agents during elections is one of the major concerns that have come to light. In our experience as election watchers, these agents are frequently temporary employees who are more motivated by financial gain than by allegiance or ideological commitment. Instead of being devoted party members, these agents are transient recruits. Due to their agents’ newfound failure to operate in the candidate’s best interests, the electoral process is undercut by this change.

The candidate is effectively the party agent at the polling place, per election law. They provide a smooth and equitable procedure as the party’s immediate representatives. But, purchasing party agents is a startling new tactic used by politicians. In order to benefit themselves, party officials would frequently collude with rivals and sell off their candidate.

Reports of results sheet manipulation frequently originate at the polling unit level. It is crucial to stress that, should political parties claim that results were manipulated at polling places, such an attempt would almost certainly need the cooperation or collusion of party operatives, and would be extremely unlikely to happen in the absence of such support. Because the betrayal has already taken place at the voting place, it makes little difference what transpires during the secondary stage of results collation if a party agent sells out his candidate and such results are put on the IREV.

Not INEC, but the political parties themselves have a structural problem that needs to be addressed. Parties must accept accountability for the honesty and allegiance of the campaign workers they send out.

Voters’ Power and INEC’s Reforms

It’s interesting to note that politicians need to recognise that repeated voting and ballot snatching are examples of more overt election misconduct that Nigeria has overcome. Returning power to the people, the electoral body has significantly improved Nigeria’s elections process. A lot of the changes and innovations that INEC has implemented have addressed the era of widespread ballot snatching, voter intimidation, and the use of duplicate Permanent Voter Cards (PVCs).

Technological innovations such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), for instance, have made it harder for fraud and vote rigging to occur. This ensures that only eligible voters can cast ballots and that the results accurately represent the will of the electorate. The days of hiding in a room and making up numbers or allowing a single man with hundreds of voter cards to cast several ballots are long gone. As a result, blaming INEC for election losses draws attention away from the real causes.

Thanks to electoral reforms, voters now have far more power and may influence how elections turn out. But the issue still stands: How will this power be used? It is the voters’ duty if they decide to sell their votes for financial benefit. Even though INEC has changed the voting procedure, it is now entirely up to the electorate to decide whether or not to preserve its integrity. Voters need to be warned about unpleasant deeds by the media and CSOs. It is imperative that political parties recognise the illegality of providing incentives for vote buying.

In the end, it’s clear that the Edo election represented the people’s will. We cannot ignore the will of the Edo voters, even though it is clear that there was vote buying during the election. It is improbable that votes could be purchased on this magnitude unless the electorate has consciously opted to support the candidate. Voters in Edo are renowned for having strong opinions and being resistant to persuasion. The people of Edo rejected the influence of political godfathers like in 2016 and 2020. They first backed Adams, and then they sided with Obaseki against Oshiomole and the APC.

Press conferences along with unfounded accusations

Politicians’ first reaction, shown in Edo as well, is to call news conferences after elections and charge widespread electoral manipulation, frequently without offering hard proof. It is crucial to stress that ballot papers are used at polling places to make election decisions. Press conferences are not recognised by the constitution as acceptable means of contesting election results; instead, electoral disputes need to be supported by evidence and brought before the relevant courts. The persistent accusations are a ruse to damage the electoral umpire’s reputation and authority.

Who is really to blame if party agents work with rivals to betray their candidates at the polling unit level? Given that these agents’ actions have a substantial impact on election results, this question ought to cause parties to reflect on themselves. Furthermore, political parties’ claims to have “situation rooms” to oversee elections seem implausible given that these “rooms” are rarely made available to the media, thus contributing to the parties’ lack of openness.

The recently finished election was a sophisticated example of edo politics. Nothing about how INEC handled the election is related to this.

Sadly, identity politics have not replaced other political trends in Nigerian politics. Prior to hearing about your offerings, people are curious to know where zone you are from. First identity, ideas second. In the Edo election, this was a major factor.

Up until Adams Oshiomole disseminated the one-man, one-vote mantra and, with the assistance of the court, overthrew the Tony Aninih apparatus, Tony Anenih was revered as the founding father of Edo politics.

The Aninih organisation was successfully brought down by Oshiomole, but it took him eight years to get Godwin Obaseki elected as his replacement in 2016. In 2020, Oshiomole made Obaseki defect to the PDP in an effort to cement his role as godfather. Surprisingly, at the time, Obaseki had the backing of a few APC governors. The PDP won that election with the slogan “Edo no be Lagos.”

However, Obaseki’s attempt to maintain his godfather status after eight years caused a rift with his deputy, Phillip Shuibu. Oshiomole has also returned to national politics and is backed by the Abuja government.

Therefore, a number of issues might be blamed for the PDP’s loss. First, Obaseki’s pre-election politics were very important. Unfortunately, Asue, the PDP candidate, was just a piece in Obaseki’s political chess piece. Furthermore, things were not made any easier by Obaseki’s evidently tense relationship with the Palace of the Oba of Benin. It is well known that Obaseki brought PDP governors to the Esama Palace during their visit, a move that the Oba’s Palace considered impolite.

Obaseki’s administration was viewed as elitist by the general public. The satirical moniker “MoU governor” alluded to his administration’s several Memoranda of Understanding that produced little discernible progress. The PDP’s continued internal conflicts, including as factionalism and his outspoken altercation with his deputy, also made the party less cohesive and popular.

The Reduction in Antiquated Election Abuse

Regretfully, even though INEC has significantly improved the electoral process, the political elite continues to be the weakest link in our efforts to uphold those electoral reforms.