Dr. Sam Amadi says Nigerian politicians are reluctant to participate in public debates because the country’s electoral system does not always make policy discussions central to winning elections.
Speaking during an interview with ARISE News on Tuesday, Sam Amadi said politicians would be more willing to debate if they believed they needed to convince voters through their policies and ideas.
“Because Nigerian politicians are reluctant to come up and debate one another or to come to be interrogated about policy because they don’t think it wins election.”
Amadi said debates are primarily an avenue for candidates to present their competence, policy proposals and qualifications to voters, but politicians may see little incentive to participate when other electoral strategies are perceived to be more decisive.
“Look, like I keep saying, what wins is what they do.”
He stated that where elections are free and fair and politicians understand that victory depends on winning the support of voters, candidates would have greater motivation to prepare for and participate in debates.
“If elections are going to be free and fair and politicians know that they are battling to win the hearts or minds of voters, then they will explore opportunities to express and show to the voting public that they are good for the job.”
According to him, such candidates would also be willing to prepare themselves and present their manifestos effectively to the electorate.
Amadi said politicians who believe electoral victory depends on factors other than convincing voters may have little interest in policy debates.
“But when they think that none of this counts, that look, what matters on the day of election is you have the structure, you have the money, you buy the voter, you buy the INEC official, you buy the court, they’re not going to bother.”
He called for presidential debates to be properly structured rather than treated as one-off events focused mainly on appearances and rhetoric.
“It shouldn’t be just a one-off debate. It should be structured in a way that, you know, we get to get to substance, not just optics, not just some nice rhetorical flourish here and there.”
The political analyst suggested that presidential candidates could participate in multiple debates covering areas such as domestic policy, foreign policy and direct questions from members of the public.
“And then the audience will be syndicated in a way that it represents what seems like a sample of the Nigerian voting population.”
Amadi said well-structured debates would give voters an opportunity to assess candidates more closely, including their ability to respond to difficult questions and pressure.
“So if you do a good job of that kind of structure of a debate, then you are doing two services: you are providing voters with real opportunity to be a rational voter, assess candidates at close quarters, see how they deal with pressure, see how they deal with difficulties and mistakes.”
He added that debates would also give candidates an opportunity to communicate their vision directly to the electorate.
“And then you’re also giving candidates opportunity to talk to voters in a way that voters can see the vision they have for the country.”
Amadi emphasized that the effectiveness of political debates would ultimately depend on the credibility of the electoral process, arguing that politicians would only invest more in debates if they believe their performance can influence voters and determine the outcome of elections.
“If elections are free and fair and politicians see that there’s no way to victory except through the voters, appealing to them, messaging, campaigning vigorously, then next time around they’re going to look forward to a debate and prepare.”
He said where candidates believe electoral outcomes are predetermined, there would be little incentive to engage in vigorous campaigns or policy-focused debates.
Ojo Triumph
Follow us on:
