As youth
participation in governance gathers steam globally,
the campaign rests moribund in Nigeria, stalled by local factors. Given
this, the #Nottooyoungtorun bill currently being
considered by State Houses of Assembly is an encouraging effort at turning the
campaign into policy, inspired by the maxim “if the youth are old
enough to vote, they are old enough to run”.
Truthfully,
limited youth participation in Nigeria goes beyond age limits for political
positions and the introduction of independent candidacy. Paramount
amongst the stifling issues are concerns around campaign funding and electoral
violence. As Nigeria begins to tackle youth participation, it is worth
taking some time to look at the issues that may prevent the youths not just
from running, but from winning.
Money Wins Elections
The saying “money
wins elections” is more than just a clichĆ©; it has proven to be true, at
least in the United States. As Alexander Heard
quaintly suggested, money is the necessary “cost of democracy”.
In Nigeria,
legislation imposes limits on campaign finance, but compliance is
minimal. The 2010 Electoral Act pegs the spending limit for presidential
candidates at ₦1 billion. However, the two principal political parties are estimated to have spent ₦8.7 billion and
₦2.9 billion in their respective presidential campaigns.
Naturally, these
costs present a high barrier to entry for young and ambitious candidates with
fewer income-earning years under their belts. As first time participants in the
political process, lack of access to traditional patronage networks coupled
with weak enforcement of campaign limits entrenches the electoral advantages of
older and more seasoned politicians.
One solution lies
in a fundraising technique usually associated with start-up financing.Crowdfunding, which involves raising small
amounts of money from large numbers of people, has the potential to partly
bridge the funding gap for willing candidates.
Already,
donation-based crowdfunding platforms such as gofundme.com and Imeela are
slowly emerging. A recent crowdfunding report stated that of
$83 million raised in the African crowdfunding market in 2015, nearly $8
million was from Nigeria alone. Working on the assumption that the unofficial
financial commitment required for a senatorial candidate is ₦200 Million
(official requirement is pegged at ₦40 million), the viability of crowdfunding
may be limited to lower profile political positions.
Admittedly,
candidates interested in crowdfunding will face a unique challenge in Nigeria,
a country with unique electoral funding techniques. Nigeria operates a
‘stomach infrastructure’ approach to campaigning, where candidates give money
to voters, rather than the other way round. Asking Nigerians to fund
campaigns is not unusual; indeed it happened in 2015, but it is not the usual
dynamic.
In 2017
elections, Kenyan attempted to turn this model on its head by eliciting
donations from the public, and one candidate managed to raise up to
$53,000.
Take note, young
Nigeria.
Ballots not Bullets
Over time,
Nigerian politics has become a lucrative endeavour. The strong financial
incentives of public office – whether elected or appointed – have made
elections a do or die affair. As such, there is a strong
trend of violence and thuggery. For ambitious candidates, especially the
younger candidates with smaller networks of aggressive supporters, the violence
is simply overwhelming.
Luckily, young
people, recognising this situation, are actively opposing electoral violence.
This was exhibited in Nigeria’s 2015 election with the “Vote Not Fight”
campaign, where young people joined with the media, creative industries, civil
society and nongovernmental organisations to demonstrate their desire to have
peaceful elections.
The international
community recently threw its weight behind this idea, through the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250 on youth,
peace and security. The resolution encourages countries to incorporate
young people as partners in promoting peace and security and to give them a
real say in how they are governed.
That being said,
this problem is one that cannot be easily resolved. The irony remains that most
of the thuggery is carried out by younger, physically able ‘voters’. But, these
actors are motivated largely by money and patronage, which younger voters do
not have as much access to. Indeed, this again highlights the primacy of
money in determining the success of young participants in Nigerian
elections.
Weapons of Mass Mobilisation
Social media presents the greatest
opportunity for young people to mobilise support for their campaigns, without
breaking the bank. Candidates can circumvent traditional and expensive methods
of accessing voters by connecting directly with voters online. With modern
data analytics, it is easier to identify and target specific demographics like
women and students.
Few mediums can
compete with the sheer speed at which news, poll results and information can be
shared on social media. Statistics show that young people are the primary users of social media in
Nigeria and that 65% of the country’s voting population
comprise this demographic. And as the role of social media in
influencing political action by young people was seen in the Arab Spring, the potential for impact in
Nigeria continues to grow.
However, the
impact of social media should not be exaggerated. The internet is not
exclusively owned and controlled by young people. The growth of marketing and
media agencies in Nigeria means that senior politicians can pay to play.
Targeted marketing campaigns by agencies on behalf of less tech-savvy and
senior politicians still gives them the same access that younger candidates
have. In this regard, it is worth remembering that while social media can
leverage the reach of younger candidates, it does not discriminate against
usage by older and more established candidates.
Bitter Truths
After all is said
and done, one more point is usually overlooked in youth participation. Being
young does not make one a good leader. The younger demographic must possess the
human capital that makes them better than those they choose to replace. This
involves developing the skills that established politicians are criticised for
lacking.
It is not enough
to carry banners claiming marginalisation. Do our young people possess core
competencies of leadership and nation building? Do we have better policy-making skills, understanding of
political systems and civic participation than the current crop of leaders? How
do Twitter-savvy youths and student union executives match up to nationalistic
founders whose grasp of leadership, self-determination and Pan Africanism has
been compared to the American founding fathers?
These are
questions to ponder before taking the plunge into politics. After all, better
the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
No comments: