Peace is Local

Political activities in Nigeria are in top gear six months before the 2023 general elections. Beyond the politicking and projections, the polity is heating up with zealous online and offline debates among different supporters of the political blocs. Many people view the 2023 polls as a “make or mar moment” for Nigeria’s troubled stability and development. However, early violent clashes appear to suggest a repeat of history regarding ‘fiercely contested’ Nigerian elections. Recently, supporters of the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clashed in Zamfara state, an area troubled by recurrent armed banditry. The clash left one person dead and 18 others injured. On 17th October 2022, PDP members decried that suspected thugs disrupted their campaign train.

Nigeria has a history of electoral violence, and the upcoming elections may not be different. First, the three major contenders for the presidential slot represent Nigeria’s three dominant ethnic groups. Elections in Nigeria are keenly contested along identity fault lines such as religion, ethnic group and sometimes, geopolitical zones. The build-up of tensions and identity reflections may trigger violent conflicts along these fault lines. Second, Nigeria has many violent conflict hotbeds, so informal security provisions are increasing across the board. In the past, formal security organisations were accused of being partisan and perpetuating electoral violence. The tendencies of partisan securitisation may be higher with the spread of poorly regulated, undertrained and often identity-based informal security groups. Third, the conflict situation may be used as an excuse to overly securitise the polls and stifle political activities. For instance, the Zamfara State Government issued an executive order barring campaigning activities due to insecurity.

Recent incidents of political violence put a question on peace accords before the election. Peace accords have been signed at national and state levels, especially among contenders for the presidential and governorship positions. There have also been instances where the political aspirants met and maintained cordiality and displayed the spirit of sportsmanship. However, how will the symbolic events and encounters cascade to attitudinal change among the various political followers and supporters’ groups? Peace accords do not necessarily translate to peaceful political engagements if followers of political contenders and blocs do not subscribe to them or show signs of commitment. The latter is much more difficult, considering political support is fluid, if not fleeting. Therefore, commitment to peaceful political engagement may change when electoral interest, choice and situation change. Equally, it is arguably impossible to hold every electorate accountable.

Indeed, a peace accord is arguably a misrepresentation of reality if cordiality is only maintained at the aspirants’ level without trickling down to the supporters’ groups and other affiliations, including those with ethnoreligious leanings. At best, it is a projection of what should be rather than what is. Furthermore, political aspirants may not be held liable for the conduct of their supposed followers, especially if there is no evidence of direct or indirect instigation of violence. However, many political contenders, especially those engaging nationally, often raise group sentiments to garner more support. But this trend can trigger more than support. It can heighten group consciousness leading to fierce group struggles based on pre-existing conditions of violent conflict. Managing the tensions and possibility of violence must begin with a multi-stakeholder commitment to peaceful polls.

There is a need for political aspirants and parties to continue conversations of peaceful engagement. This is based on the premise that political aspirants will stay committed to the various peace accords signed. The conversations on peaceful engagements should be supported by Nigeria’s development partners and civil society organisations, who will provide capacity training, sensitisation workshops and campaigns targeted at political parties, support groups and other stakeholders involved in the electioneering activities. The essence is to cascade the elements of the peace accord down to individual supporters. Although total success may be unlikely, the engagements will help water down the disposition to non-peaceful means during the election cycle.

Nigeria’s security organisations must maintain non-partisanship in the 2023 general elections. Ongoing violent conflicts are already stretching their technical and resource limits, and further breakdown of law and order will worsen the nation’s security framework. Security organisations’ responsibility to the election should also include regulation of informal security units that may be used as political weapons. While relevant Nigerian agencies should prepare for hitch-free 2023 polls, the government should live up to its statutory obligation to protect people and their properties. Managing the current wave of terror in the country. A real-time conceptualisation and analysis of current security dynamics in the hotspots will help map out effective security measures that can manage the propensity of violence and prevent losses to lives and livelihoods. Beyond the elections, the government must save lives and properties from further losses.

Stability within Nigeria’s election window lies on most stakeholders, from the aspirants down to the electorates, committing to peaceful engagements. Nigeria’s diversity and current security challenges should also be considered in the political discourses and activities. Peaceful polls are largely guaranteed by responsible and transparent engagement from all stakeholders.