Rethinking Elections in Nigeria: The Centre LSD Approach

By Monday Osasah

Through voter education, election observation, leadership development, and its THRIVE framework, Centre LSD is advancing an election conversation that puts citizens, credibility, and public accountability at the centre.

For a mother hoping that a public hospital will have medicines when her child falls ill, an election carries a deeply personal expectation. For a young graduate searching for work, it represents the possibility of opportunity. For a farming community struggling with an impassable road, it offers another chance to demand attention.

These expectations give the ballot its meaning. Citizens choose leaders because the decisions those leaders make will shape their lives.

Yet election conversations can become consumed by candidates, party calculations and predictions of victory. The people whose needs should define the contest can gradually disappear from the discussion.

The African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development (Centre LSD) brings those people back into focus. Its work connects electoral participation with a wider concern: how citizens can help produce ethical leadership, credible institutions and development that responds to their needs.

An election, viewed through this lens, is part of a continuing relationship between citizens and those entrusted with public power.

Building Participation Before Polling Day

Centre LSD’s electoral engagement includes observation of Nigeria’s 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2023 general elections, alongside off-cycle polls. Its work has also included observer training and mobilisation for voter registration.

These activities address different parts of the same challenge. Citizens need opportunities to participate, reliable information to guide their choices and confidence that electoral institutions will treat those choices fairly.

Voter education therefore carries responsibilities beyond encouraging people to turn out. It should help citizens understand electoral procedures, assess candidates’ proposals, recognise misinformation and resist intimidation.

It should also make the connection between public office and everyday life clear. Decisions about education, healthcare, security, taxation and infrastructure emerge from the exercise of political power. Helping citizens understand that connection gives participation a practical purpose.

However, asking people to participate also requires listening to their disappointment. A citizen who doubts that voting makes a difference needs more than an appeal to civic duty. Institutions must demonstrate competence, explain their decisions and respond to legitimate concerns.

Participation and public trust must grow together.

Giving Electoral Credibility a Clearer Meaning

One of Centre LSD’s contributions to this conversation is its THRIVE framework. In its published electoral assessment, the framework comprises:

T – Transparency
H – Healthy Environment
R – Reforms
I – Inclusivity
V – Voter and Political Education
E – Equipment Functionality and Availability

Together, these dimensions provide a structure for examining the quality of an electoral process.

The value of such a framework lies in the questions it encourages.

Can citizens follow and verify the process? Can they participate safely? Do institutional improvements work in practice? Who encounters barriers to participation? Are voters adequately informed? Will the equipment and logistics support the exercise of their rights?

Each question brings an institutional responsibility into view.

A person who leaves a polling unit after waiting for hours experiences a logistical failure as a lost opportunity to participate. A voter unable to enter an inaccessible venue experiences exclusion directly. A community uncertain about how its votes were recorded faces a problem of trust.

Credibility must account for these experiences.

Learning from Observation

Election observation becomes more useful when its findings lead to specific improvements.

Centre LSD’s published assessment of the 2026 Osun governorship election illustrates this approach. It examined administration, security, inclusion, technology and results management, recognising strengths while identifying weaknesses requiring attention.

It also distinguished discrepancies requiring investigation from evidence sufficient to establish that an outcome had changed.

That distinction matters. Public scrutiny requires both vigilance and accuracy. Observers must document problems carefully, explain the limits of their findings, and make recommendations that institutions can act upon.

The broader lesson is that observation should support a learning process. Where delays occur, their causes should be examined. Where voters face exclusion, practical remedies should follow. Where records raise questions, institutions should provide clear explanations.

Repeated shortcomings should generate stronger corrective action.

Making Inclusion Practical

Centre LSD’s wider work on women’s rights, youth leadership and disability inclusion gives its electoral engagement an important perspective: participation depends on the conditions people face.

Women’s participation involves questions of safety, access to resources, influence within political parties and opportunities to contest. Young people need pathways to shape public decisions and develop leadership skills. Persons with disabilities need accessible information, venues and appropriate assistance.

These concerns should influence planning from the beginning.

The same principle applies to voter education. Information is useful when people can access it, understand it and act upon it. Community organisations, professional bodies, faith institutions and traditional leaders can help extend that reach, provided their engagement respects freedom of choice.

An inclusive process allows people to participate with dignity and independence.

Connecting Elections with Leadership

Centre LSD’s leadership development work adds another dimension to its electoral approach. A credible process and capable public leadership serve connected purposes.

Citizens need the freedom to choose. They also need a political culture that encourages competence, integrity and service.

Leadership education can help deepen the questions asked of those seeking office. What have they demonstrated in previous responsibilities? How do they respond to scrutiny? Can they explain how their promises will be implemented? Whose interests do their proposals serve?

These questions can move public debate towards the responsibilities attached to power.

They also apply to citizens. Democratic participation includes examining claims carefully, respecting the rights of others and refusing to excuse misconduct simply because it benefits a preferred candidate.

Keeping Citizens Engaged After the Result

The relationship between citizens and government continues after a winner is declared.

Campaign promises need to be tracked. Budgets need public scrutiny. Communities need opportunities to ask why projects are delayed, services remain inadequate, or public commitments have been abandoned.

Centre LSD’s broader governance and accountability work provides a connection between electoral choice and this continuing engagement. The citizen who votes should also have opportunities to follow decisions, raise concerns and demand explanations throughout a government’s tenure.

For the mother seeking medicines, the graduate searching for work and the community waiting for a usable road, that continuing accountability gives participation lasting value.

Rethinking elections in Nigeria means keeping their expectations in view, from the first campaign promise to the final account of a government’s performance.