Democracy Atlas rule 5: Show — don’t tell — how things work and what is trustworthy
Nigeria’s civil society groups leverage transparency to build public trust
Rule 5: Show — don’t tell — how things work and what is trustworthy: When people don’t understand how a system is supposed to function, it is hard for them to tell if it’s working properly. They may end up believing false information because they don’t know how to find out what’s true. Show them how.
This is particularly important in terms of elections. It’s easier for people to trust election results if they understand the process from beginning to end. Be transparent about what goes into voter registration, verification, participation, and tabulation — especially for those who tend to support the leader in power. Establish an electoral paper trail — possibly in the form of a broad network of observers with detailed polling place observations — so voters can see for themselves how votes were counted. Organize civil society groups to verify that the government does what it says it will do (and refrains from doing what it promises not to).
The U.S. elections system is built on trust, making it vulnerable when agents of sabotage campaign against the system. To counter these efforts, find a way to make the process more accessible without lending credence to false claims of doubt. Strive to provide proof of one person, one vote, in a way that both satisfies skepticism and avoids disenfranchising eligible voters.
Following the 1998 death of Nigeria’s military dictator, Sani Abacha, there was a sudden window of opportunity for Nigerians hoping to restore their country’s democracy. Abacha’s successor, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, promised a swift transition to civilian rule and established a new commission to administer local, state, and national elections.
Despite misgivings over the military’s prominent role in the transition to civilian rule, civil society groups rallied the public and held the outgoing regime to its promises in support of democracy.
And during the twenty five years since the end of military rule, election monitoring groups and other civic organizations have been key to forging Nigeria’s path toward a stronger democracy. But that road hasn’t been easy.
Pro-democracy civil society groups helped build public trust in Nigeria’s elections
Given the painful legacy of Nigeria’s decades-long military dictatorship, supporters of the country’s democratic transition were understandably wary of the military’s promises to relinquish power and facilitate free elections. And infighting between skeptics of the elite-driven transition and those who reluctantly accepted the military’s role in the process threatened to splinter Nigeria’s nascent pro-democracy coalition.
It was against this backdrop that the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) — a diverse coalition of over 60 civil society groups — formed to increase public participation in the elections and assuage the concerns of those apprehensive of the military’s continued involvement in the democratic transition.
Crucially, the TMG helped bridge ethnic and regional divides, while also remaining strictly nonpartisan. In the run-up to the new elections, TMG members developed voter education programs to build the public’s understanding of democratic principles like “one person, one vote” and the secret ballot.
The TMG also trained election observers to spot and respond to potential irregularities at the polls, which helped create a nationwide paper trail that was later used for post-election analysis.
As the first presidential contest drew near, the TMG deployed nearly 11,000 election observers across the country — a particularly impressive feat given the condensed election timeline and turbulent political environment of the previous year. And thanks in part to its extensive network of observers, the TMG was able to gather nationally representative data, which helped boost its credibility in the aftermath of the elections.
Despite hopes for a free and fair presidential contest, the TMG’s post-election report documented a number of irregularities at the polls. Though the elections were generally peaceful and free of large-scale violence, international and domestic observers (including former President Jimmy Carter) provided first-hand accounts of ballot box stuffing and inflated voter returns.
While many questioned the election commission’s suspect turnout figures, the TMG and other civil society groups were forthright in showing the public what had actually occurred during the election — flaws and all. Because of its pre-election preparation and noted commitment to accuracy, the TMG’s report carried weight with those in search of ways to improve future contests.
The TMG’s “show, don’t tell” approach to election monitoring paid off, and its much-vaunted public transparency and political neutrality helped build continued trust in its work.
Following that first presidential election in February 1999, the TMG and other pro-democracy groups continued to observe elections and conduct voter education initiatives with the goal of upholding Nigeria’s democratic progress. Eventually, the TMG expanded its footprint to monitor the voter registration process (often marred by fraud). And other groups followed the TMG’s lead and stood up additional election observation efforts in advance of future contests.
But democratization is rarely linear
Civil society groups and election observers continued their work to instill public confidence in Nigeria’s elections throughout the early 2010s — with mixed results. Despite some improvements in technology and new accountability measures, the elections system still faced logistical issues and technical difficulties that damaged its credibility.
This all came to a head when, in a sign of organizational disarray (and potential malfeasance by the incumbent government), the election commission abruptly postponed the February 2019 elections hours before polls were set to open.
Leading up to election day, observers reported that many voting sites lacked proper election materials — while also noting that more incumbent-friendly states had already received the necessary materials and were prepared for the vote.
After election observation groups threatened to expose these irregularities, the election commission rescheduled the elections for the following week. But some polling places were still unprepared come the rescheduled election day, frustrating voters and further damaging the commission’s reputation.
Though the system also faced a number of other pre-election challenges, including budget shortfalls and violence, the commission’s failure to “communicate sufficiently with political parties and the public about election preparations” dealt the biggest setback to public trust.
Even though some election officials eventually owned up to their mistakes, the clear lack of transparency leading up to election day undermined trust in the commission’s ability to manage free and fair elections.
Pro-democracy leaders successfully advocated for reforms ahead of the next elections. In response to civil society’s calls for greater transparency, the election commission introduced new biometric voter identification software and an online results portal to improve trust in the reporting system. And new protections for the voter accreditation system were included as part of the 2022 Electoral Act with the aim of restoring the commission's credibility.
Still, the political opposition, civil society, and independent observers remained vigilant in their monitoring and publicizing election misconduct. During the 2023 elections, monitoring groups reported on the late arrival of election officials to polling sites, as well as “glitches” in the new accreditation process amid an environment of heightened voter intimidation.
The election commission also went back on its pre-election promise to publish results via its online portal as soon as votes came in, eroding confidence in the election night returns. Civil society groups once again tried to fill the void and provide the public with timely and independent information following the election.
The commission’s continued lack of transparency and “widespread disorganization,” coupled with its alleged bias toward the incumbent government, fueled public dissatisfaction with the elections system. Again, the commission failed to bring voters behind the curtain and show them how the system actually worked.
But through it all, pro-democracy civil society organizations have helped Nigeria write an impressive story of democratic resilience following decades of military dictatorship. To be sure, Nigeria’s democracy faces a host of challenges — including endemic corruption, discrimination, and extrajudicial violence — that exist beyond the elections system. But Nigeria’s election monitoring groups have helped sustain civilian rule by promoting public accountability and openness.
Today, Nigeria’s elections system, though battered, still stands — because the people and groups fighting for its survival continue to show their commitment to transparency and accuracy in the pursuit of democratic progress.
We would love your help spreading the word on these lessons. We’ve taken the liberty of drafting a few social media post suggestions, or you can write your own — it takes two clicks to share.
 | A guest post by
|
This is part 1 of my series on Civil Conflict. Please tune in. Subscribe to get notification of the entire series.
Restack please.
https://thefiringline.substack.com/p/how-republics-fracture-a-short-history