By Austin Isikhuemen.
This argument was first made through an essay I wrote on 29th November 2022. I called attention to the need for a debate among the candidates contesting for the Presidency. My suggestion was not heeded.
Our politics and its outcomes have been worse for it. Those who did not want any debate, a forum for sharing of plans and interrogating feasibility and fitness, won.
So INEC and the Courts ruled.
The unsavory outcomes on the polity were what the streets passed judgment on in the last few days starting from 1st August 2024. The embers are still hot in the north.
As the Edo Guber elections draw near and campaigns are at fever pitch, I will call attention again to the need for candidates’ debate as a quality control mechanism to allow us choose the very best for our state. The three front runners are the candidates of the LP, APC and PDP in no particular order. They must come out and face the cameras and the people and tell us what they would do if elected. They need to show us their roadmaps and articulate its feasibility. They would then answer questions that would indicate their ownership of their manifesto and that they are not just reading what some forces in the shadows wrote for them.
Below were my arguments in 2022. They are still valid today.
Nigeria has been through a lot. She has seen a lot and is currently a nation in transition. Some would argue that it is just a country and not yet a nation. Never mind those semantics or hair splitting. But we all agreed that we are not exactly where we should be or want to be.
We are not anywhere near what the resources in man and materials we were disproportionately endowed with ought to have placed us in development terms. Insecurity, economic situation and social divisions have pushed Nigeria to the edge of a cliff. This is why the general election of February 2022 have existential implications for the polity.
A democratic election, when well-managed, is like a manufacturing process of which I am fairly familiar. It involves various inputs passing through processes that ultimately turn out outputs made up of finished products and some byproducts.
A key component of a manufacturing concern that wants to produce quality products that meet and exceed customer and consumer requirements is a quality control system. That is the system that guarantees that only products that meet specification are passed as fit for purpose and are shipped to market.
It is that system that ensures reproducibility of desired product attributes and reduces variability to the barest minimum. This is what ensures that the taste of a bottle of Malta Guinness bought at Nnewi tastes the same as that bought in Kaura Namoda or Iseyin.
Quality control as a part of the overall quality assurance system requires sampling. The removal of some work-in-progress at different stages for testing in order to ascertain their fitness that will guarantee that the finished product will be in specification.
Quality control tests are of various types. Some are destructive in nature and this means the removed samples are not returnable to the production line while in other cases the tested sample can be reworked or returned to the process.
Quality assurance is costly but lack of it can be catastrophically so, for, without it, you can end up with a product that is unfit for purpose and a business can die as a result.
The electioneering process, like all processes, has inputs and outputs. It is the quality of input and the robustness of the process that determines the quality of the final output.
The purpose of elections in a democracy is to select the best fit for leadership positions through a process that is democratic and ultimately representative of the choice of the majority. It ought to be as simple as that.
But it is not. This is because those who are inherently unfit would always want to pass themselves off as fit, and to achieve their aims they subvert the system using various stratagems and shenanigans.
It is the desire to catch these rouge inputs and counterfeits that some quality control strategies have been gradually built in over the years in more enduring democracies. One of these quality control measures is the use of debates by candidates aspiring to electoral positions. Some variants of this is the Town Hall format which has become popular over the years especially in the United States from where Nigeria copied its presidential system of government.
In a debate, the candidate gets a chance to sell him/herself and his ideas personally to the electorate. The electorate see him/her directly, hears from him directly and gets a chance to experience his fitness or foibles firsthand. Unlike in the primitive democracy of Greece where everybody turned up in the village square to participate and vote, the typical debate is now able to reach an audience that runs into millions through the use of technology. Television and social media spurned by the internet has made it possible for Nigerians at home and in the diaspora to watch such debates live or later at their own convenience.
Such Debates or Town Hall events are not for entertainment. They are primarily meant to provide opportunity for the voters to assess the candidates through the answers they provide to questions asked by seasoned journalists and the ordinary participants. Comperes sometimes collate questions from the public in other to compile the relevant questions to ask at such fora.
The questions are designed to probe the depth of the candidates thinking and knowledge of the problems facing the country or constituents which he/she is asking to be elected to solve. It is also an opportunity to drill into such candidates’ pasts and antecedents to draw a correlation between what he has done previously and what he is promising to do if elected.
People watch the temperament and demeanour of the candidate while tackling provocative questions. All these are done to enable voters make informed judgments on the suitability, or otherwise, of candidates seeking elective offices.
In the light of the foregoing, a debate is definitely an opportunity to be grabbed with both hands by a candidate who has capability, integrity, oratory, antecedents and bonhomie to demonstrate. Participation is a sign of confidence in your ability and it is also a sign that you have nothing to hide or you are ready to defend your past actions in a convincing way that will not hurt your chances.
Debates can greatly improve your chances. Conversely, it can ruin it too. Especially if you are unprepared, have lots of skeletons that may be exhumed at such a forum or you have aspects of your character or physical wellbeing that may get exposed at the podium.
I am not sure a stutterer would gladly accept a debate invitation, for example. There is the saying that it is better to keep quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all their doubts! Debates can therefore be a double edged sword which can cut both ways!
Debates have become accepted in the Nigerian electoral system and have played the expected role over the years.
Who can forget the Lagos gubernatorial debate where Fashola virtually killed the extant and future ambitions of a Lagos socialite, who before then had fancied himself electable? We have had some debates recently with the TV networks even making it possible for sub national election debates to be watched nationally. It is unarguable that such debates have helped deepen our democracy as imperfect as they have been. Our polity would have been worse off without them.
Debates have become a useful quality control tool which we must sustain if we are not to reverse the gains of the last few decades in our democratic journey. Those against debates need to have a rethink. Debates throw light on the candidates to enable a critical examination of their fitness for purpose – a political microscope of sorts. Only candidates with an ‘ugly’ side do not want the electorates to see or can justify their running away from debates and serious town hall engagements.
Refusal to take part in a debate is disrespect for the electorate. It is an indication that such candidates are relying on ulterior machinations rather than the votes of the masses to win an election. Can anyone imagine a Presidential candidate in the United States refusing to attend a debate? Would his candidature not be dead on arrival? A trend being observed in this electoral cycle is the case of candidates turning down invitations to public town-hall engagements but arranging their own where they decide the nature, structure, pre-arranged questions, who asks them and all the shebang.
There is no scrutiny in such subterfuge. Only the guaranteed and paid-for cheers of followers and sloganeers. While party arranged town-hall events have their place and value, it cannot, and should never be allowed to, become a replacement for the superior and more public interest serving variants.
Refusal of candidates to attend debates and Town-hall engagements did not start today. We saw in the past when a candidate who refused to attend debates in our country had a stage-managed one at Chatham House in our colonial metropolis. I hear such is about to repeat itself. Also, a debate can never be a one man affair!
This is a trend we must discontinue in the interest of our democracy. We saw Kenya recently. Before then, we saw Ghana. Even the clumsy one that played out in Museveni’s Uganda. Nigeria ought to be a shining city on the hill for the rest of Africa in terms of democratic practices and leadership recruitment! In my secondary school days, you could never become a Senior Prefect if you could not debate and do well in public speaking. It did not mean that that was the only requirement but it was key component.
Public debates require thinking on your feet, mastery of the subject matter, logical reasoning, problem solving skills and appreciation of modern trends and concepts. All candidates must return to the Debates podia and Town Hall events to which they are invited. Organizers must give formal invitations and adequate notice to the candidates to enable them fit such events into their plans, which I admit, are tight at this stage.
Debates and Town Hall events, as quality control mechanisms, will help Nigerians separate the wheat from the chaff, the serious from pretenders, and the winners from the also-rans. Attendance is a sign of courage and running away is a sure sign of the uncertain.
