Editorial: Afraid of ballot? Power without confidence is a democratic paradox

Professor Chidi Odinkalu recently made an observation that has resonated widely: in Nigeria, the ruling party controls the electoral management body, the police, the domestic intelligence service, the judiciary (at least in perception), over two-thirds of the National Assembly, 30 state governors, and claims the support of millions of voters. Yet, he asks, it appears afraid of votes.

Whether one agrees with every element of that characterization or not, the underlying paradox demands serious reflection. When a government wields extensive institutional power, fear of transparent electoral competition becomes not only unnecessary but revealing.

Democracy is sustained not by the concentration of power but by confidence in legitimacy. A government that truly believes in its performance and popular mandate does not fear scrutiny, dissent, or the ballot box. It welcomes them as validation.

What weakens democracy is not merely the existence of dominant political control; it is the misuse of state institutions to shield incumbency from accountability.

The Nigeria Police Force, the Department of State Services, and other security agencies exist to protect citizens and uphold the Constitution—not to tilt political contests.

The Independent National Electoral Commission exists to administer elections impartially, not to serve partisan interests. The judiciary’s strength lies in its independence, not in perceived alignment.

When opposition voices are harassed, civic actors intimidated, public protests securitized rather than heard, and electoral processes approached with anxiety rather than openness, citizens draw their own conclusions.

Having worked for decades on police accountability and rule of law reform, I have consistently argued that security institutions must be insulated from partisan capture. Once law enforcement becomes entangled in political contestation, public trust collapses—and without public trust, effective security becomes impossible.

Democratic legitimacy flows from consent. Consent flows from credible elections. Credible elections require neutral institutions, transparent processes, and equal opportunities for political competition.

If a ruling party truly controls as much institutional terrain as alleged, it should be the most confident participant in a free contest. Fear of votes, if it exists, signals either doubt about performance or distrust of the electorate. Neither is healthy for a democracy.

It is equally important to resist dangerous rhetoric. Casual claims that a political party “controls bandits”—unless supported by credible evidence—can inflame tensions and distract from the serious work of addressing Nigeria’s insecurity, which stems from governance failures, poverty, arms proliferation, weak justice systems, and regional instability.
Yet the deeper concern is the shrinking civic space.

Increasingly, dissent is framed as subversion, protest as rebellion, and criticism as disloyalty. That climate, more than any social media post, fuels the perception that those in power fear the people.

A confident government reforms institutions to strengthen credibility. It ensures INEC’s independence is beyond question. It professionalizes the police and shields them from political pressure. It respects court orders. It tolerates opposition rallies. It protects journalists. It guarantees that votes count—and are seen to count.

Democracy is not a favour granted by those in power; it is a right owned by citizens.

If Nigeria is to move forward, we must shift from the politics of control to the politics of legitimacy. Power that rests on institutional dominance but lacks public confidence is fragile. Power that rests on transparent, competitive, and credible elections is durable.

The ultimate antidote to fear of votes is performance, accountability, and trust in the people.

In a constitutional democracy, the ballot is not a threat. It is the source of authority. And no party secure in its mandate should be afraid of it.