By Hakeem Baba-Ahmed

IN the discipline and trade of strategy and public policy analysis, scenario-building is always a challenging component. It involves predictive skills, an understanding of options and alternatives, the disposition of key elements in the design and implementation of policy, the policy environment, and the realistic utilisation of evidence, particularly projection. 

The next few weeks in Nigeria should excite and challenge specialists in this area, particularly when applied to a wider political context. There is enough on the ground to identify key elements that will influence the build-up to the election, the conduct of the election itself, and developments that will be related to the conduct and outcome of the election. 

The security of the electoral process is a subset of community security. The alarms being raised over the threat of violence during the elections, including those coming from INEC, and the responses of the Federal Government are matters of serious concern. These threats are rising, not diminishing, and they take many forms.

Attacks on INEC facilities, police stations, and other sensitive government structures, as well as killings, indicate that government is losing control of the terrain in parts of the South-East, and this will become more difficult to reverse as the elections approach.  

In many parts of the North, many communities live under the influence of violent criminals who could inhibit turnouts and deployments by INEC. These factors have the potential to impact voter participation and even election credibility. Then there is the worrying concern that governments could manipulate responses to threats in a manner that affects the interests of their parties and candidates.

The possibility exists that the federal and state governments could improve their capacities and responses to these threats to levels that, in practice, could reduce them, but this is unlikely. President Goodluck Jonathan made an effort to roll back the presence of Boko Haram insurgency weeks before the 2015 elections. The gains made as a result of that effort ended up in votes cast for rival candidate Muhammadu Buhari in states in the North-East. 

There are options that could be utilised to deal with the very high levels of insecurity between now and the elections. One will involve a comprehensive and imaginative approach involving the entire assets of the Federal Government and the active involvement of state governors.

This option is contingent on some form of consensus that all interests will benefit from a major de-escalation of threats around creating a safer environment for the conduct of the elections. The Federal Government, which has both an obligation to secure citizens and a strong interest in how insecurity in specific areas affects its political interests, will be key players in this agreement.

Another is governors, all of whom are in some form of contact with sources of threat, as well as means by which they can influence their dispositions toward all electoral processes. The third type of threat is deployed by politicians, who specifically target the election process and the safety of voters and local populations.

It is highly unlikely that this consensus can be built, because the security of the elections is likely to be increasingly politicised, and non-state actors will seek to exploit the weak deployment of security, law and order assets, and relationships with political interests to strongly influence the elections. 

Political rhetoric will heighten tensions, which will peak as the elections approach. There are no restraining mechanisms against inflammatory language, politically-inspired violence, or threats to the elections themselves. Politicians are basically done with attempting to convince the electorate of the value and quality of their ideas and strategies.

Contestants now target options that improve the optics of large and loud crowds while hurling terrible insults and accusations that will send them to jail if this were not the time when the law goes to sleep. The field is narrowing around three candidates: Tinubu, Atiku, and Obi.

These three, and perhaps a few more who might succumb to urges to engage in alliances with larger parties, are likely to get to the elections bruised and bitter after a tough and long election contest into which everything has been thrown. Ethnic, regional, and religious sentiments would have been the sole determinants of voter disposition in much of the country.

The nation is beginning to hear worrying murmurs about the consequences of certain candidates losing the elections. An Atiku or Tinubu victory could trigger some unrest in parts of the country. An Obi victory is likely to create massive post-election political instability. A runoff would put the country’s already precarious peace and security in jeopardy. 

The concerns over the possible impact of the elections on a country already on its knees are deep and genuine. So much depends on how the presidential and national assembly elections go on February 25. An outright victory by one candidate in an election that substantially meets the legal requirements of a credible election may be a key factor in determining reactions, but it is by no means sufficient.

Reactions motivated by largely ethnic and religious sentiments, regional champions, and politicians who seek more than a credible election are likely to cause serious violence. The second set of elections in March could be seriously threatened by widespread negative reactions to the first set of elections. 

The elections in February represent a defining moment for Nigeria. Many of the scenarios regarding the elections are frightening, but they are not necessarily inevitable. President Muhammadu Buhari says his most important ambition is to have a credible election conducted under his watch.

A credible election requires a lot more than funding INEC and creating some distance between him and his successor. If the nation will transit from a challenging election into a stable country led by a leadership that is not challenged by the fallout from the elections, he and the governors and leading candidates have to do a lot more.

He must mobilise all resources under his control and tap others that are amenable to being influenced to ensure that we have credible elections in an atmosphere that does not leave the country paralyzed by election-related crises. Politicians need to be reminded that in democratic electoral contests, you could win or lose. Nigerians need to understand that this is their country, and no politician’s ambition is worth allowing it to be destroyed.