Post by Adedayo Oduwobi (@stopit)

IMAGINE APPLYING FOR A JOB, THEN SENDING SOMEBODY ELSE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DESERVE IT.

You submit your CV. The employer invites you for an interview. But instead of appearing to defend your qualifications, you send your friends to explain your achievements, justify your mistakes and promise what you will do if employed.

Would the employer simply accept that arrangement?

Of course, there may be situations where a representative is appropriate. But when the decision concerns your own competence, character and suitability, the employer has a legitimate interest in hearing from you.

That is why the debate over President Tinubu’s campaign strategy matters.

A presidential election is not an ordinary recruitment exercise, but the principle of accountability is relevant: the person seeking the mandate must take responsibility for the record attached to that mandate.

Campaign coordinators can mobilise voters. Governors can defend the administration. Ministers can explain policies. Party officials can highlight achievements.

But none of them can erase the President’s personal responsibility for the decisions made under his leadership.

If a policy has imposed hardship, the President must be prepared to explain its purpose, its consequences, the measures taken to protect vulnerable people and the evidence that it is delivering results.

If the government promised improvements in electricity, security or economic opportunity, the public deserves an honest account of what has been achieved and what remains undone.

If the administration believes its reforms are working, it should present evidence that reaches beyond government offices and political conferences into the daily lives of ordinary Nigerians.

THE PRESIDENT’S RECORD CANNOT BE DELEGATED, EVEN IF HIS CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES ARE.

There is a danger in allowing political loyalty to replace independent judgement. Once party supporters become more concerned with protecting a candidate than examining his record, elections stop being a serious assessment of leadership and become a contest of emotional allegiance.

That is how citizens can end up defending leaders who would never accept the same excuses from their own employees, contractors or business partners.

And let us remember the lesson of past campaigns. Nigerians have heard promises before. They have heard timelines, targets and assurances. The responsibility of the electorate is to compare those promises with actual results—not simply to repeat what party officials say.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER APC CAN ORGANISE A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS EARNED ANOTHER MANDATE.

The APC has inaugurated its campaign council. It has political leaders, governors, legislators and mobilisers ready to take its message across the country.

Fine. Let them campaign.

But Nigerians should ask them difficult questions.

What has improved in my community? What has become more affordable? What has become safer? What has become more reliable? Which promises have been fulfilled? Which have not? What will change during a second term that did not change during the first?

And if the campaign team cannot answer those questions convincingly, the electorate should not confuse the size of a political organisation with the quality of its record.

A PARTY CAN SPEAK FOR ITS CANDIDATE. IT CANNOT VOTE ON BEHALF OF EVERY NIGERIAN.

The final decision belongs to the people.

PART 4: If Nigerians are dissatisfied, what is the most powerful and lawful way to respond—and can their votes produce the change they want?

0 likes · 0 comments · 0 shares