2027 Elections: Why the Economy Must Be the Real Campaign Issue

By Njideka Maduka 

Part of our radio conversation today was centred on what should be the focus of the campaign for the 2027 general election, particularly for the presidential candidates.

As we know, the 2027 election campaign season started last Wednesday, August 19. My position was that, outside security, the economy should be our biggest focus as far as the 2027 election is concerned.

Thankfully, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, Atiku Abubakar, has already started that conversation.

Now, what's Atiku bringing?

Atiku has proposed a return to fuel subsidy. His proposal is to replace the old import-subsidy model with a targeted, capped and independently audited production subsidy for domestic refiners, with the stated aim of lowering petrol prices while encouraging local refining. He has said this would be on a temporary basis.

It's not every day that a politician backtracks on an earlier position, especially on an important issue like this.

We all recall that during the 2023 presidential election, the three major candidates, including Atiku, President Bola Tinubu of the APC and Peter Obi of the then Labour Party, supported the removal of fuel subsidy.

President Tinubu eventually removed the subsidy after assuming office, and Nigerians have experienced the consequences, particularly the sharp increase in the cost of living and the pressure on household purchasing power.

Now Atiku has changed his position.

Instead of the old system, where subsidies were tied largely to imported petrol, amid longstanding concerns about fraudulent subsidy claims, he is proposing that government support should be directed at domestic refiners.

And this is what I think the election campaign should be about.

Because a number of stakeholders and political opponents have already questioned the practicability and fiscal implications of Atiku's proposal.

The Presidency has described it as retrogressive and questioned how it would be financed, while Atiku's camp insists that what he is proposing is not a return to the old subsidy regime but a new, targeted production subsidy.

Again, this is exactly what I want the 2027 campaign to be about.

If critics are questioning Atiku's proposal, then Atiku should explain it.

How much will this production subsidy cost?

How will government fund it?

How many domestic refiners will qualify?

How will government determine how much each refinery receives?

Who will monitor the refiners?

How will Nigerians know that the money is actually producing the intended result?

And what happens when the refiners cannot get enough crude?

This is particularly important because domestic refiners have had concerns about access to crude. Dangote Refinery, for instance, has repeatedly complained about difficulties in securing sufficient local crude supplies.

So what happens under Atiku's proposed model if local refiners cannot obtain enough crude?

Will government continue to subsidise production if refiners have to source crude from outside the country?

Will Nigerians still feel the benefit anticipated from lower petrol prices?

These are the questions Atiku should be answering.

President Tinubu also described Atiku's proposal as evidence of what he called "serious ignorance" of governance and the economy.

But he does not go on to explain extensively how that equates to a lack of understanding of governance and the economy.

Beyond that statement, Nigerians also need the President and his government to explain what they believe the next phase of the economy should look like.

Because, to be fair, before the Tinubu administration removed the subsidy, there were many stakeholders who had looked forward to its removal. There was a widespread argument that the subsidy regime had become too expensive, opaque and vulnerable to abuse.

So, yes, subsidy removal was something many Nigerians expected and, in principle, supported.

But the question for the Tinubu administration during this campaign season should be different.

After subsidy removal, where exactly are we now?

Not only are Nigerians asking questions about the savings from subsidy removal, they are also asking whether the current economic situation is the new normal.

Are Nigerians expected to permanently live with a naira that has lost so much value against the dollar?

Like, is it impracticable for us to ever return to a much stronger naira, or even something closer to the exchange rates we had during the Jonathan or Buhari administrations?

The current administration has repeatedly pointed to economic stability and improved macroeconomic indicators.

But the question I think Nigerians should be asking during this campaign season is: When do we move from stability to actual growth that Nigerians can feel?

When does economic stability translate into lower living costs?

Because in other climes, economic performance and the cost of living can have serious political consequences.

Take the United Kingdom, for example. Former Prime Minister Keir Starmer had made cutting the cost of living his government's "number one priority." Yet, according to Sky News, consumer price inflation rose from 2.2 per cent to 3.8 per cent during his first year in office, before falling back to 2.8 per cent.

According to the report, the rate was still higher than the target rate, although lower than many experts had predicted after it became clear that the Iran war would not be over quickly.

So, the cost-of-living crisis, alongside other economic and political difficulties, became part of the broader picture of declining confidence in his government and ultimately his resignation as Prime Minister.

So, for me, this is the question Nigeria's 2027 campaign should be asking:

What does economic stability actually mean to the ordinary Nigerian?

Are we going to continue working with a naira-to-dollar exchange rate of ₦1,500, ₦1,400 or even ₦1,300 to the dollar?

More importantly, when does economic stability begin to translate into improved purchasing power and a reduction in the cost of living?

And then we have the third major contender, Peter Obi.

Obi also needs to explain his position on subsidy removal.

He has consistently said that he supports the removal of fuel subsidy. After Tinubu announced the removal, Obi argued that the implementation was too sudden and that it should have been done in phases and accompanied by relief measures.

So what exactly would that gradual and organised approach have looked like?

How long would the transition have taken?

What relief measures would have accompanied it?

These are the things Nigerians should be asking him.

We need to hear the details.

ANOTHER CONCERN

But there is another concern I raised during our programme today.

A significant number of Nigerians are not focused on issue-based campaigns.

Because regardless of how badly the economy is biting, it does appear that when election day arrives, many people may forget the situation they have been complaining about and the reasons they wanted to vote in the first place.

The economy takes a back seat.

Security and other issues take a back seat.

Then regional interests, ethnic interests, religious considerations and personality-driven politics take over.

And added to that unfortunate situation is the menace of vote buying.

Ahead of and during the recent Osun governorship election, there were widespread reports of vote buying, including allegations that agents of the All Progressives Congress, APC, and Accord Party offered voters between ₦10,000 and ₦20,000 in different parts of the state.

A later report based on Saturday PUNCH put the total funds allegedly deployed by the two parties across various election-related expenses at more than ₦100 billion.

If candidates and political parties can spend enormous amounts of money during elections, while voters are willing to exchange their votes for immediate financial benefits, it does appear that any election won now may not be the true reflection of people's wish.

This is what Nigerians who are interested in issue-based campaigns and issue-based voting should be fighting.

How do we make issues become the central focus of this election campaign?

How do we take the message to the people and get them to pay attention?

How do we get Nigerians to connect their current living conditions to government policies and begin to ask serious questions about how those policies have affected them?

Can we have opinion leaders and influencers who will pass the message that the 2027 election should not be about tribe or religion?

It should be about the Nigerian who has lost purchasing power.

It should be about the Nigerian who can no longer afford the same quantity of food with the same income.

Because the reality is that the hardship Nigerians are experiencing is serious.

And therefore, every party that wants to govern Nigeria must come before the people and explain what it intends to do.

Not just what it will do.

But how.

What economic policy will take Nigerians out of this economic quagmire?

For me, this is what the 2027 presidential campaign should be about.

The economy should be at the centre of that conversation.

I rest my case.