Nigeria’s political landscape has once again been stirred by strong words and stronger reactions. This time, the debate centers on respected political economist and public intellectual, Pat Utomi, who recently voiced grave concerns about Nigeria’s political trajectory—particularly regarding developments surrounding the Electoral Amendment Bill.
Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Utomi declared:
> “The line is drawn. It is politicians in power versus the Nigerian people. Before us is life and death. Choose life that you may live.”
The post immediately ignited a wave of responses, particularly from supporters of the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu. While some Nigerians resonated with Utomi’s warning, others sharply rejected what they described as alarmist rhetoric.
This moment captures a larger national tension—between political pessimism and economic optimism, between reform advocates and status-quo defenders, and between those who view current electoral debates as existential and those who see them as routine democratic evolution.
Understanding the Electoral Amendment Debate
Nigeria’s electoral system has undergone multiple reforms in recent years, particularly following the passage of the 2022 Electoral Act, signed into law by President Tinubu’s predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari. That legislation introduced technological innovations such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and expanded the legal framework for electronic transmission of results.
However, conversations about further amendments—especially regarding internal party democracy, candidate nomination processes, judicial oversight, and electoral transparency—have continued to generate controversy.
Critics argue that any move perceived as weakening technological safeguards or increasing political control over electoral processes could undermine democratic gains. Supporters, however, insist that reforms are necessary to streamline procedures, reduce litigation, and strengthen institutional stability.
Utomi’s “life and death” framing appears to situate the debate within a much broader concern: the future of Nigeria’s democracy and whether political power is increasingly centralized at the expense of citizens’ agency.
Utomi’s Position: A Moral and Civic Warning
Professor Pat Utomi has long positioned himself as an advocate for governance reform, transparency, and citizen participation. His statement suggests a belief that Nigeria stands at a democratic crossroads.
The phrase “life and death” is not necessarily literal but metaphorical—signaling, in his view, that the stakes of governance are existential. In political rhetoric, such language typically reflects fears of democratic backsliding, institutional erosion, or policies that could deepen socio-economic hardship.
For Utomi and like-minded critics, the concern is not merely about one bill but about the broader trajectory of governance: Who truly holds power? Are institutions sufficiently independent? Are reforms empowering citizens or consolidating control among incumbents?
These are legitimate questions within any democracy. Political discourse, especially in young democracies, often oscillates between urgency and reassurance.
The Counterargument: Is Nigeria Really in Crisis?
Supporters of President Tinubu have strongly rejected Utomi’s characterization.
One response argued:
> “Nigerians do not feel like they are in a life or death situation. You cannot gaslight anyone here baba.”
Another stated:
> “The worst is over and what Nigerians are seeing now is improving economy, reduced inflation, and other positives.”
These sentiments reflect a belief that Nigeria is stabilizing economically and institutionally, rather than collapsing.
Indeed, the Tinubu administration has introduced sweeping economic reforms, including the removal of fuel subsidies and exchange rate unification policies implemented in 2023. While these reforms initially triggered inflationary pressures, the government maintains that they are foundational steps toward long-term fiscal sustainability.
Supporters argue that inflation trends are moderating, foreign reserves are stabilizing, and investor confidence is gradually improving. In their view, describing the moment as “life and death” undermines national morale and exaggerates political disagreements.
Another critic of Utomi remarked:
> “Haba Prof, this is totally uncalled for. We are citizens too and we are certain we are not at war. Remember you are a politician too weaponizing the tyranny of the minority for public incitement.”
This response highlights a deeper skepticism: that opposition figures may frame issues dramatically to mobilize support or position themselves strategically.
Rhetoric vs. Reality: Where Is the Line?
Political rhetoric has always been part of democratic contestation. However, its tone often reflects broader public anxiety.
Nigeria faces undeniable structural challenges—youth unemployment, insecurity in some regions, currency volatility, and public trust deficits in institutions. For some citizens, these realities make strong language understandable. For others, improvements in macroeconomic indicators and gradual stabilization contradict claims of existential crisis.
The real question is this: Does strong rhetoric help or hinder democratic maturity?
On one hand, passionate civic engagement is a hallmark of democracy. On the other hand, framing political disagreement as “life and death” risks polarizing citizens and deepening mistrust.
Democratic progress depends not only on policy outcomes but also on the tone of discourse. When narratives become absolutist—“us versus them”—compromise becomes more difficult.
Electoral Reform and Public Trust
The heart of this debate remains electoral credibility.
Public trust in electoral institutions determines the legitimacy of governance. Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has faced scrutiny in past elections, including logistical challenges and disputes over result transmission.
Any amendment to electoral laws must therefore prioritize transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness. If citizens perceive reforms as partisan, distrust will deepen regardless of intent.
Conversely, if reforms enhance clarity, reduce litigation, and improve technology deployment, confidence may increase.
The key lies in process: broad consultation, bipartisan engagement, and transparent communication.
Democracy Is Not War—But It Is Serious
The critics of Utomi raise a valid concern: Is it helpful to frame political debate as warfare?
One response asked pointedly:
> “Life and death over what exactly? The attempt to grab power? Why should any citizen die in your war when you are yet to articulate what you will do differently?”
This speaks to a broader expectation in democratic societies—that opposition voices must not only criticize but also present credible alternatives.
Democracy thrives on constructive competition. Citizens expect both accountability from those in power and clarity from those seeking it.
The Bigger Picture: A Nation in Transition
Nigeria is navigating complex reforms—economic restructuring, fiscal recalibration, and institutional recalibration.
Transitions of this magnitude often generate friction. Political leaders, intellectuals, and citizens interpret the same data differently depending on their values, experiences, and expectations.
For some, the hardship accompanying reform validates alarm. For others, early stabilization indicators validate optimism.
Both perspectives coexist within democratic space.
Conclusion: A Call for Measured Engagement
Professor Pat Utomi’s remarks have succeeded in one undeniable way—they have reignited national conversation about electoral reform and democratic accountability.
But the broader lesson may be this: Nigeria’s democracy requires less polarization and more precision.
If electoral amendments threaten democratic integrity, they must be scrutinized rigorously and debated transparently. If economic indicators are improving, those gains must be communicated honestly and evaluated objectively.
Nigeria is not at war. But neither is it beyond the need for vigilance.
Democracy is rarely comfortable. It is noisy, contentious, and emotionally charged. Yet its strength lies not in dramatic declarations but in institutions that withstand scrutiny and citizens who engage critically without succumbing to despair.
The line may indeed be drawn—not between politicians and people—but between rhetoric and reason.
And in that space, Nigeria’s democratic future will be decided.
0 Comments