Youth, Violence and Elections in Nigeria: Who Pays the Price for Political Power?

By Monday Osasah

Young Nigerians bring energy, ideas and ambition to democratic life. Protecting their right to shape elections requires opening political opportunities and confronting those who recruit, finance and benefit from violence.

When Political Ambition Meets Fear

An election should give a young person something to look forward to: the chance to choose a leader, question a promise, support a candidate or stand for office. It should be a moment when hopes for education, employment, security and dignity enter the public conversation.

But when political competition turns violent, those possibilities narrow. The question becomes whether it is safe to attend a rally, wear a party’s colours, speak openly online or leave home to vote. For a young woman considering a political career, the calculation may also include threats against her body, reputation and family.

This tension lies at the heart of the relationship between youth, violence and elections in Nigeria. Young people help organise campaigns, educate voters, observe elections and demand accountability. Yet they can also become targets of intimidation or recruits for those seeking to impose political outcomes through fear.

The challenge is to expand their influence while reducing their exposure to violence. That requires examining both the opportunities available to young citizens and the interests served when their aspirations are turned into instruments of political conflict.

Beyond the Image of the Violent Youth

Discussion of electoral violence can place young people in a narrow frame: the crowd at a rally, the group at a roadblock or the faces associated with a disrupted polling unit. Such images leave much of the story untold.

Young Nigerians have different experiences, resources and political interests. A student seeking affordable education, a trader concerned about insecurity and a young professional demanding transparent government may share frustrations without sharing a party affiliation or a response to those frustrations.

Many invest their time in peaceful organising, community service and public debate. Treating youth as a security problem obscures these contributions and can justify restrictions on legitimate participation.

Where young people participate in violence, their actions require accountability. So do the decisions of the people who recruit them, supply resources, identify targets or promise protection. Any serious account must follow the chain of responsibility beyond the person carrying out an attack.

Violence Begins Before the Ballot

Electoral violence extends beyond physical clashes on election day. It includes threats that silence a prospective candidate, attacks that prevent campaigning, destruction of election materials and intimidation that keeps voters away. It can continue after results are announced through reprisals against opponents or communities accused of voting the wrong way.

Its power often lies in anticipation. A threat does not have to be carried out against every voter to influence a neighbourhood. Once people believe participation could expose them to harm, fear can shape who speaks, who campaigns and who votes.

Digital platforms add another dimension. Harassment, false accusations and inflammatory messages can make political engagement hostile and help create conditions for physical confrontation. A misleading photograph or fabricated claim can turn uncertainty into anger when it travels faster than verification.

Young women face additional forms of intimidation, including sexualised abuse and threats designed to punish their visibility. These attacks can discourage participation long before a nomination form is obtained or a campaign begins.

The Recruitment Behind the Violence

Economic insecurity can make financial inducements attractive. For someone struggling to meet immediate needs, an offer of money, transport or access to an influential patron may carry considerable weight.

But poverty alone does not explain electoral violence. Most people experiencing hardship do not attack their neighbours or disrupt elections. Attention must also turn to the organisation that converts vulnerability into recruitment.

Who makes the offer? Who provides transport or weapons? Who tells recruits which community to target? Who benefits if voting is disrupted? These questions bring the political interests behind violence into view.

Exclusion can deepen vulnerability. When young people are welcomed as campaign mobilisers but denied influence over party decisions, nominations and policy priorities, participation becomes unequal. They are asked to deliver political victories without a fair opportunity to shape what follows.

Ethnic and religious appeals can further sharpen divisions, presenting political disagreement as a threat to communal survival. Distrust in institutions and grievance-resolution processes can make such messages more persuasive.

These conditions help explain recruitment. They do not excuse violence. They show why prevention must combine meaningful opportunities with credible consequences for those who organise harm.

The Price Communities Continue to Pay

The costs of electoral violence outlast the contest that produced it. Death and injury can leave families grieving, dependent relatives without support and survivors facing prolonged recovery. Trauma may persist after campaign posters have disappeared.

Disrupted trading, damaged property and lost working days place further pressure on livelihoods. Relationships between neighbours can deteriorate when party loyalty becomes entangled with ethnic or religious suspicion.

There is also a democratic cost. A capable young person may abandon plans to contest an election. A volunteer may withdraw from observation. A voter may remain at home because the journey to a polling unit feels unsafe.

Women, persons with disabilities and others already facing barriers to participation can encounter additional obstacles when threats, inaccessible information and insecurity reinforce one another.

When fear determines who participates, the public loses more than votes. It loses voices, scrutiny and the possibility of leadership drawn from a wider range of experiences.

Young People Can Organise a Different Politics

Young people’s capacity to mobilise can strengthen peaceful elections. Voter education, community dialogue and issue-based campaigns can help citizens connect their choices to public needs and responsibilities.

This work requires practical skills. Young organisers need to recognise misleading information, verify claims before sharing them and challenge language that encourages hostility. They also need credible channels for reporting threats without being expected to confront armed actors or place themselves in danger.

Dialogue across political, ethnic and religious differences can preserve relationships under pressure. Such engagement should allow disagreement while establishing a shared commitment to everyone’s safety and freedom of choice.

Political participation must also continue after polling. Tracking campaign commitments, attending public consultations and questioning expenditure can turn election-time enthusiasm into sustained civic influence. Leadership development becomes more valuable when it connects young people to these continuing opportunities.

Institutions Must Make Peaceful Participation Possible

Calls for young people to embrace peace must be matched by institutional action. Political parties should give them meaningful roles in decisions, fair opportunities to seek nominations and clear protection against intimidation within party structures. Members who incite or organise violence should face consequences regardless of their influence.

Electoral institutions should provide accessible information, explain procedures clearly and communicate promptly when problems arise. Transparency helps citizens assess events without depending on rumours.

Security agencies have a responsibility to protect citizens impartially, respond to threats and support credible investigations. Public confidence depends on whether protection is available across political affiliations.

Civil society and educational institutions can strengthen civic learning, mediation and youth leadership. Traditional and religious leaders can challenge attempts to turn communal identity into a recruitment tool. Media organisations can verify allegations and report tensions with enough context to inform the public responsibly.

These responsibilities are connected. Peace appeals will have limited effect if threats go unanswered, perpetrators enjoy protection or political opportunities remain closed.

Measure Success by Safety, Voice and Accountability

Progress should be assessed through people’s experience of participation. Can a young woman campaign without harassment? Can a voter support a different party from local powerholders without fear? Can a person with a disability obtain information and participate safely? Does a reported threat receive a timely response?

Prevention should connect community warnings to institutions able to act. Accountability should examine recruitment networks and financing, alongside the conduct of direct perpetrators. Investigations and prosecutions must be credible enough to challenge the expectation that political connections guarantee protection.

Meaningful inclusion also requires asking whether young people influence decisions. Attendance at rallies and training sessions tells only part of the story. Their ability to shape party priorities, seek office, scrutinise government and remain engaged between elections matters just as much.

A Future Young Nigerians Can Help Choose

Every young person pushed out of politics by fear represents a voice the country may never hear. Every young person recruited into violence is exposed to consequences that can endure long after those who sought power have moved on.

Nigeria’s young people deserve political opportunities that respect their ambitions and protect their lives. They should be able to organise, disagree, campaign, vote and seek leadership with confidence that institutions will defend those rights.

Making that possible requires opening political decisions to their influence and holding accountable those who turn competition into violence. The measure of an election’s promise is whether young Nigerians can safely help determine the future they will inherit.

Monday Osasah is the Executive Director of Centre LSD.