Opinion
When Democracy Becomes Too Expensive
Quote: “When elections become investments to be recovered, governance turns transactional and the moral foundation of democracy begins to erode.”
The high cost of participating in politics in Nigeria remains a serious and growing concern. The trend is rising so sharply that democratic competition increasingly risks becoming the preserve of a wealthy few. From exorbitant party nomination fees to campaign logistics, media exposure, litigation expenses, and regulatory charges such as the proposed ?150 million campaign advertising permit reportedly introduced in Enugu under Governor Peter Mbah, the financial barriers to public office are steadily hardening. If not addressed, this trajectory could erode inclusion, weaken electoral credibility, and deepen corruption within the political system.
Money has always played a role in politics. Elections require funding for mobilisation, communication and administration, while political parties need resources to organise primaries and reach voters across the nation’s diverse terrain. However, when financial demands become excessive, they cease to be necessities and instead become structural barriers that exclude capable citizens from participation.
The Enugu situation provides a troubling case study. Reports indicate that the Enugu State Structures for Signage and Advertisement Agency (ENSSAA) announced a mandatory ?150 million advertising permit fee for parties and candidates participating in the 2026 local government and 2027 general elections. According to the agency’s General Manager, Francis Aninwike, the fee would permit deployment of campaign materials — banners, branded vehicles, T-shirts and handbills — and street rallies, with sanctions for non-compliance.
One is compelled to ask: how can someone vying for office be required to pay ?150 million merely as an advertising permit, separate from nomination forms and other logistics? Where would a civil servant, a teacher earning N70,000 minimum wage, or a young graduate eager to serve find such a sum? How can ordinary citizens compete in a system demanding such staggering outlays?
An opposition party has described the steep fee as a ploy by the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Enugu State to stifle opposition participation. Whether sustained or not, the perception is damaging. Aside from incumbents or those backed by powerful interests, how many candidates can realistically afford ?150 million solely for advertising clearance?
There is no dispute that state agencies have legitimate responsibilities. Regulating outdoor advertising and preventing visual pollution are valid objectives. However, such regulation should not come at a heavy cost to Nigeria’s fragile democracy. The Aninwike-led ENSSAA and similar bodies must recognise that while regulation is necessary, affordability is essential for democratic participation.
The constitutional framework recognises the central role of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in ensuring free and fair elections. Yet formal administration is only part of the democratic equation. Informal financial pressures — delegate inducements, media monetisation, security logistics and post-election litigation — already multiply the cost of contesting beyond official limits. Massive campaign-related fees further compound an expensive process.
Recent findings presented at a policy engagement organised by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Abuja underscored the gravity of the situation. House of Representatives Minority Leader Kingsley Chinda warned that Nigerian politics is becoming an elite preserve in which only those with deep pockets can compete. Access to vast financial resources, he argued, has become a near precondition for political viability, transforming what should be a civic right into an expensive venture.
He noted that politics in Nigeria has been thoroughly monetised, systematically pricing out women, youth and persons with disabilities — the very groups policy frameworks claim to uplift.
The implications are disturbing. In a context where elections are viewed as investments, public office becomes a site of capital recovery. Contracts are inflated, appointments monetised, and governance turns transactional. What emerges is a vicious cycle: only the wealthy can contest, and once in office, they seek to recoup their investment, deepening public cynicism and eroding the moral basis of governance.
Although some parties waived nomination fees for women in 2017 and 2023, and parties such as the Young Progressive Party were formed to promote youth participation, exorbitant campaign expenditures continue to sideline many aspirants. Women accounted for only about 8.4 per cent of candidates in the 2023 general elections, with similarly low youth representation.
The cumulative effect is dangerous. When political entry is determined primarily by financial capacity rather than competence or vision, the recruitment pool narrows drastically. Talented professionals and grassroots organisers may never appear on ballots simply because they cannot afford the price of entry. A system that filters out merit while rewarding wealth weakens governance outcomes.
Nigeria must therefore treat rising electoral costs not as routine complaints but as democratic stability concerns. Political parties should drastically reduce nomination fees, especially for women, youth and persons with disabilities. Transparent fundraising and spending disclosures should replace opaque financing structures.
Regulatory agencies must balance administrative control with democratic openness. Campaign advertising fees should be proportionate and structured in ways that do not create artificial barriers. INEC and other enforcement institutions must strengthen monitoring of spending ceilings and apply meaningful sanctions for violations.
Civil society, the media and professional bodies also have critical roles to play. Public discourse should prioritise issue-based campaigns rather than money-driven spectacle.
Ultimately, democracy thrives not merely when elections are conducted, but when they are genuinely accessible. Political participation must remain a civic right, not a luxury commodity. Nigeria’s democratic journey cannot afford to drift into a system where leadership selection depends primarily on financial muscle rather than merit and service.
By: Calista Ezeaku