By 2027, Nigerians will once again be asked to make one of democracy’s most important decisions: who should represent them and who should govern them. But between one election and another, an equally important question deserves attention: how much opportunity do Nigerians actually have to speak directly to those elected in their name? Democracy should not be a conversation that takes place only once every four years.
This is particularly important for members of the National Assembly. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are sent to Abuja to represent their people, make laws and provide oversight. Yet, in many constituencies, meaningful engagement between lawmakers and citizens becomes irregular once elections are over. Nigeria should therefore consider making monthly constituency town halls a normal part of legislative representation.
There is no need to pretend that Nigerian politics operates entirely according to political science textbooks. Governors wield enormous influence over party structures in their states and frequently have considerable say in who gets nominated, supported or positioned for seats in the National Assembly. Some lawmakers are consequently regarded as political protégés, what Nigerians commonly call the ‘godsons and goddaughters’ of governors and other powerful politicians. Others could perhaps be described, with some humour but also uncomfortable truth, as ‘cash-sons and cash-daughters’: products not so much of political mentorship as of the financial muscle and transactional character of our politics.
If governors possess this much influence over who goes to Abuja, why not put some of that influence to good democratic use? A governor who helped a senator or House member emerge should also encourage that lawmaker to return home every month, sit with constituents, listen to them and take their concerns back to Abuja. Political influence should carry public responsibility.
These town halls should not become another political jamboree where praise singers occupy the front row, politicians deliver long speeches and everybody goes home without meaningful engagement. The representative should actually listen. Farmers should explain the challenges affecting agriculture; teachers should discuss education; traders and entrepreneurs should talk about taxation and the cost of doing business; young people should speak about unemployment and opportunities. Traditional and religious leaders, women, professionals, civil society organisations and persons with disabilities should also have their voices heard.
A legislator should be able to return to Abuja and say during a debate that a particular position reflects what constituents expressed at their town hall. That is representation. We have become accustomed to judging legislators mainly by constituency projects: who built classrooms, installed solar streetlights, provided boreholes or distributed empowerment materials. These interventions may be useful, but legislators are not primarily elected as contractors or development agencies. Their responsibilities include legislation, appropriation, oversight and representing their constituents in national decision-making.
Regular town halls could therefore improve both accountability and the quality of legislation. When an important tax bill is before the National Assembly, why shouldn’t legislators hear first from businesses and workers in their constituencies? When constitutional amendments are being considered, citizens should have an organised opportunity to express their views. The National Assembly is supposed to be the People’s House, and the people’s voices should regularly find their way into that House.
Governors should encourage this culture regardless of party. This is not an argument for governors to control legislators; the independence of the legislature must be protected. It is an argument for converting political influence into public accountability. Meetings could rotate among local government areas, dates could be publicly announced and lawmakers could report what they have done in Abuja. Each meeting could produce a simple constituency priority document, with the representative reporting at the next meeting on what progress has been made.
But accountability should not stop with legislators. As preparations gather momentum towards the 2027 general elections, presidential candidates should recognise that Nigerians deserve something better than vague promises and post-election policy surprises. Candidates should tell the electorate, as clearly as possible, what they intend to do with the country before asking for its mandate.
Nigeria faces fundamental questions that cannot continue to be avoided during campaigns only to emerge after a government has been inaugurated. Does a presidential candidate believe Nigeria should retain its present federal arrangement? Does he or she support greater devolution of powers and resources to the states? Should Nigeria consider stronger regional structures or a return to parliamentary government? What is the candidate’s position on proposals for a looser or confederal arrangement? These are not merely academic questions; they concern the basic architecture and future of the Nigerian state.
The economy deserves the same clarity. What is a candidate’s position on the naira and the exchange-rate regime? If further depreciation or devaluation forms part of the economic programme, Nigerians should know before voting. If subsidies are to be removed or restructured, explain the proposal during the campaign. If major new taxes are contemplated, tell the electorate. Candidates should similarly explain their approaches to inflation, public debt, electricity, unemployment, industrialisation and the cost of living.
No president can foresee every crisis. International conflicts, economic shocks and emergencies sometimes compel governments to alter course. But there is a difference between responding to unforeseen circumstances and introducing fundamental policy changes that were never properly presented to the electorate. Major reforms should, as far as reasonably possible, derive from an informed democratic mandate.
The 2027 presidential election should therefore become a competition of ideas as much as a contest of personalities. One candidate may favour greater market liberalisation while another prefers stronger state intervention. One may support restructuring while another defends the existing federal arrangement. One may favour parliamentary government while another rejects it. Let the alternatives be clearly presented and allow Nigerians to decide.
Our television stations, newspapers, universities, professional bodies, organised labour, business associations and civil society should make such policy clarity unavoidable during the campaign. Presidential debates should interrogate candidates specifically about the naira, restructuring, taxation, subsidies, debt, security and the constitutional structure of the country. Where a proposed policy will impose immediate hardship in expectation of future benefits, candidates should have the courage to explain that trade-off before the election.
The larger issue is the relationship between citizens and political power. Democracy cannot function properly when politicians intensely seek the people’s attention during campaigns and become difficult to reach afterwards. Every month, legislators should return home to hear what their people are saying, while those seeking the presidency should clearly explain what they intend to do before Nigerians vote.
Nigeria faces too many serious choices for another election dominated mainly by personalities, ethnicity, religion, slogans and political arithmetic. Those seeking the people’s mandate should tell the people what they intend to do, while those who already hold that mandate should regularly return to hear what the people want. That is how the People’s House can genuinely become the people’s house, and as 2027 approaches, Nigerians should insist on one simple democratic principle: tell us before the election, not after it. Enough of post-election policy surprises.