In Nigeria, off-cycle elections have increasingly evolved into intense political contests where the stakes extend far beyond the immediate electoral outcome. Rather than serving as democratic exercises to renew public trust, they often become “do-or-die” battles through which the ruling federal government seeks to retain, expand, or reconfigure its political strongholds.
This tendency reflects a deeper crisis in Nigeria’s democratic practice, one where power is pursued not as a vehicle for public good, but as an end in itself. When the natural duty of justice and moral duty of civility, requiring that political decisions be made in ways others can reasonably accept, is neglected, mutual suspicion floods the public sphere. This atmosphere of distrust creates fertile ground for political banditry, coercion, and manipulation, all of which are clear enemies of democracy.
In a plural society like Nigeria, where ethnicity, religion, sectionalism, and regional rivalries often define political identity, these divisions are routinely weaponised. Vote buying, rent-seeking politics, and paternalism reduce elections to zero-sum contests of survival, where victory for one group is perceived as defeat for all others. The experiences of states such as Anambra, Edo, and Osun reveal this ongoing dilemma, where the struggle for legitimacy collides with the persistence of undemocratic practices.
Off-cycle elections refer to gubernatorial or legislative elections that are held outside the general election timetable. In Nigeria, this phenomenon emerged primarily from judicial interventions that altered the tenure timelines of certain governors and state assemblies. Court rulings that nullified flawed elections or adjusted the start and end dates of political tenures created a staggered electoral calendar across states such as Anambra, Edo, Kogi, Bayelsa, and Osun. While these elections are constitutionally valid, they have gradually acquired a distinctive political character that sets them apart from general elections. Unlike nationwide polls that divide attention among hundreds of constituencies, off-cycle elections concentrate the entire weight of the federal government, security agencies, political parties, and the media on a single state.
The imbalance of power between federal and state actors enables the ruling government to deploy its institutional leverage (financial, coercive, and symbolic) to tilt the electoral field. Thus, what should serve as a democratic mechanism for sub-national renewal instead becomes a contest of central authority and local resistance.
Off-cycle elections in Nigeria have become strategic instruments through which ruling parties seek to preserve or extend their dominance beyond the normal electoral cycle. Because these elections typically occur in one or a few states at a time, they provide the federal government in power with a concentrated arena to deploy state resources and institutional influence without the broad scrutiny that accompanies general elections. In practice, this often turns what should be a democratic process into an orchestrated contest designed to reinforce the supremacy of the center over the periphery. The use of incumbency advantage is a defining feature of this dynamic. Ruling parties frequently mobilise federal institutions such as security agencies, regulatory commissions, and even public media to shape the political terrain in their favour. The deployment of federal might, ranging from the selective use of law enforcement to targeted economic inducements, creates an uneven playing field that discourages opposition participation and weakens public trust. Consequently, off-cycle elections become less about representing the will of the people and more about sustaining political networks of loyalty and patronage.
Moreover, the political rhetoric surrounding these elections often assumes a warlike tone, with actors describing them as “do-or-die” affairs or “battles for survival.” Such language reflects a deeper pathology within Nigeria’s political culture, where victory is pursued at all costs and defeat is equated with political extinction. In this zero-sum environment, governance becomes secondary to conquest, and the moral foundation of democracy, the idea of leadership as a public trust, is steadily eroded. The cumulative effect of these practices is the normalisation of political manipulation as a legitimate electoral strategy.
When citizens come to expect interference, intimidation, and inducement as routine features of elections, cynicism replaces participation. Voter apathy deepens, and the very notion of democratic accountability is hollowed out. Thus, off-cycle elections, rather than strengthening Nigeria’s democracy through continuous civic engagement, have too often served as mechanisms for the entrenchment of power and the perpetuation of undemocratic norms.
At the heart of every functioning democracy lies the principle of legitimacy, the idea that political power must be justified before reasonable citizens on grounds they can accept. Legitimacy gives democracy its moral and ethical foundation, ensuring that authority is exercised not merely through legal mechanisms, but through the consent of the governed. In the Nigerian context, however, the repeated subversion of electoral processes in off-cycle elections has eroded this foundation.
When electoral outcomes are shaped by manipulation, coercion, or corruption, the moral claim of government to represent the people’s will becomes questionable. The moral duty of civility, as understood in democratic theory, requires that citizens and political leaders conduct themselves with respect for fairness, reason, and shared public values.
It demands that decisions, even when contested, are made within a framework that others can reasonably accept. Unfortunately, Nigerian political actors often disregard this duty, replacing deliberation with domination and persuasion with coercion. The result is a public space clouded by suspicion, cynicism, and hostility, conditions that make mutual understanding and collective progress nearly impossible.
When civility collapses, elections become mere rituals of competition devoid of moral meaning. Political actors prioritise short-term victory over long-term legitimacy, and the rule of law gives way to the rule of power. Citizens, disillusioned by repeated betrayals of democratic ideals, gradually withdraw from active participation, leaving the political field to elites who operate without moral restraint. Thus, the crisis of legitimacy in Nigeria’s off-cycle elections is not only institutional but deeply ethical. It reflects a failure of both leaders and citizens to uphold the moral values that sustain democracy. Restoring legitimacy, therefore, requires more than procedural reforms. It calls for a reawakening of civic virtue and moral accountability among political elites and the electorate alike. Democracy can only thrive when those who exercise power do so with humility, respect for the public good, and adherence to principles that transcend partisan or sectional interests.
While the regular conduct of elections symbolises constitutional continuity, the persistent manipulation of these processes for partisan advantage undermines their moral and political legitimacy. What should serve as mechanisms for democratic renewal have instead become instruments of control where the struggle for power eclipses the pursuit of justice, fairness, and accountability. Recalibrating Nigeria’s democracy, therefore, requires a multidimensional approach.
Institutionally, the independence and capacity of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be strengthened to ensure transparency, professionalism, and resistance to political pressure. Security agencies must operate with neutrality, guaranteeing that electoral environments are safe yet free from intimidation.
Socially, civic education must be deepened to empower citizens to resist vote buying and identity-based manipulation. Ethically, political leaders and parties must recommit to the principles of justice, accountability, and respect for the rule of law, recognising that power gains meaning only when exercised with legitimacy, moral restraint and by the cultivation of trust, fairness, and shared purpose among its citizens.
This essay has shown that the enemies of democracy in Nigeria are not abstract forces but practical realities: the abuse of incumbency, the weaponisation of ethnicity and religion, the commodification of votes, and the erosion of civic virtue. Off-cycle elections, concentrated and high-stakes by nature, magnify these tendencies and reveal the fragility of democratic ethics. They also demonstrate that democracy cannot thrive where the moral duty of civility is ignored, and where legitimacy is sought through coercion rather than consent. If conducted with integrity, they could become opportunities for deepening democratic culture rather than distorting it. The survival of Nigeria’s democracy, therefore, depends not on the frequency of voting, but on the fidelity of those elections to justice, civility, and the collective good.
Prof. Dukor is President/Editor-in-Chief of Essence Library (Cultural and Scientific Development Centre), Department of Philosophy, UNIZIK.
