By Nonyerem Ibiam, Esq.
A city was tasked with choosing its future home.
Two buildings stood before them.
One, a steel structure, had been designed by seasoned engineers, its foundation tested, its beams inspected, its safety certified.
The other, a palace, was breathtaking. Marble floors. Glass balconies. Golden chandeliers.
The engineers begged the people.
“The other building’s foundation is cracked,” they warned. “Our research shows it will not stand.”
A charismatic, smiling salesman laughed.
“Have you seen their boring building?” he shouted. “Na research we go chop?” he mocked. “Look at this palace! Why trust complicated calculations when your own eyes tell you it’s magnificent?”
The crowd cheered, the palace won by a landslide, and for a brief period, they celebrated their choice. Then came the storm. The foundation surrendered, the concrete folded, and the palace became a tomb.
Amid the chaos, one injured child asked, “If none of us knew anything about buildings, why did we vote the way we did?”
This allegory is not fiction, but our lived reality in Nigeria.
As John F. Kennedy warned:
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”
The Nigerian general elections of 2015 and 2023 serve as the ultimate “cracked foundation.” Driven by a cult-like following among the poor and uneducated, the “Sai Baba” and “It is my turn” chants drowned out skeptics who questioned the candidates’ qualifications, expertise, and capacity. While informed citizens recognized the risks involved in electing incompetent people, many chose based on emotion and primordial survival instincts.
The results of those elections are catastrophic: Nigeria has been branded the global poverty headquarters and one of the kidnapping capitals of the world. Nigeria’s national security, economic stability, and public finance are in a “sorry state” because the electorate prioritized immediate survival over abstract questions of governance, and personality over competence. This demonstrates that the “essence and value of democracy” is not merely participation, but the ability of that participation to produce good governance. Some are now asking the difficult question: “Is it not high time we banned the poor and the uneducated from voting in Nigeria?”
Critics of restricting citizens’ voting rights contend that democracy represents the most equitable form of governance, providing every adult citizen with an equal opportunity to influence the selection of their leaders. The principle of “one person, one vote” is considered the cornerstone of modern democratic societies. But all democracies are not the same. The quality of a country’s democracy is commensurate with the socio-economic and educational level of its citizenry.
Opponents have also raised the question of who decides what qualifies as “educated” or “informed.” According to them, history provides many examples of literacy tests and educational requirements being used to exclude racial minorities, ethnic groups, immigrants, and political opponents from voting. What begins as an attempt to improve democratic quality can easily become a tool for discrimination and political domination.
Another argument by those opposed to limiting voting rights is that education does not guarantee wisdom, honesty, or sound judgment. They argue that many highly educated individuals support harmful policies, while countless citizens with limited formal education possess practical knowledge, common sense, and valuable life experience. According to them, intelligence and wisdom are not always measured by academic credentials.
Some people have also pointed out that poverty frequently mirrors the outcomes of political decisions and that excluding poor citizens from voting would deny representation to those most affected by government policies. Taxation, healthcare, housing, employment, and welfare programs directly impact economically disadvantaged populations. They argue that removing their voice would make the government less accountable and less representative.
There is also a moral argument that democracy is a form of universal suffrage, founded on political equality and the belief that every citizen possesses equal dignity and deserves an equal say in collective decisions. Therefore, restricting voting rights based on education or income may undermine this principle by creating classes of citizens with unequal political power.
While the above criticisms are valid, the fact remains that one of the primary purposes of elections is to select leaders who will make policies that will shape the future of an entire nation. And because these decisions affect everyone, voters should possess at least a basic understanding of government, economics, constitutional principles, and public policy.
We routinely accept that high-stakes responsibilities require minimum qualifications. Society does not allow unlicensed individuals to practice medicine, drive a vehicle, fly airplanes, or argue in court because their mistakes harm others. Voting should not be any different. It is a powerful public responsibility with massive externalities. As the 2015 and 2023 general elections in Nigeria have revealed, uninformed voters do not merely harm themselves; their choices affect the taxation, inflation, security, and quality of life of every citizen, including future generations.
To protect the public interest, the right to vote should be treated like other “fundamental” rights, none of which are absolute. Just as freedom of speech does not protect incitement, the right to vote should not protect the “incitement” of national ruin through collective incompetence. We must move toward a model of “Professional Citizenship,” where a basic understanding of constitutional limits, economics, and public policy becomes the standard for exercising voting rights.
To prevent “political domination” and mitigate discrimination associated with excluding racial minorities, ethnic groups, and political opponents from voting, the standards for “Civic Competence” must be set by independent, nonpartisan bodies that prioritize objective knowledge of government functions over identity.
While academic credentials do not guarantee honesty, research shows education is the most reliable proxy for higher rates of the ability to evaluate competing policy claims. In a complex modern world, “practical knowledge” is insufficient for managing international relations or monetary policy.
Critics claim that the poor must vote because they are most affected by government policy. In reality, extreme poverty makes these citizens the most vulnerable to manipulation and vote-buying. A 2018 study by the Chatham House Africa Programme’s Social Norms and Accountable Governance project indicates that the primary factor influencing vote-selling is an individual’s personal economic condition. When a voter’s choice is driven by “immediate survival,” such as a loaf of bread or a bag of salt, their vote becomes a tool for the very politicians who perpetuate their poverty.
The goal of limiting the voting rights of the poor and uneducated is not to permanently exclude, but to incentivize competence. Universal suffrage can only strengthen a nation when voters are independent, informed, and educated. Unrestricted elections will continue to reward the most effective manipulators rather than the most competent leaders. It is time for Nigeria to treat the ballot with the same professional rigor we demand of commercial drivers, plumbers, and other skilled professionals.
The widespread political ignorance among a large proportion of Nigeria’s poor electorate will continue to undermine the nation’s security, stability, and democratic progress unless there is measurable improvement in economic opportunity, access to quality education, and the availability of accurate, unbiased public information.
Until then, let us ban the poor and the uneducated from voting in Nigeria before the next “palace” they vote for collapses entirely on all of us.
The post It’s Time To Ban The Poor And The Uneducated From Voting In Nigeria appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
