Is the nation’s democratic whistle still trusted?, by Stephanie Shaakaa

Is INEC actually independent? In Nigeria today, this is not a question of law,it is a question of life or death for democracy. Because when citizens begin to doubt the hands that blow the nation’s democratic whistle, every vote, every promise, every election is already suspect before it begins. Trust is the true ballot. Without it, even the cleanest election is hollow.

In every democracy, the whistle is more than an instrument of order. It is the sound of fairness itself. The moment citizens begin to suspect that it no longer blows by the rulebook, the game changes long before the final score is announced. Every controversial call, every silence, is filtered through suspicion rather than principle. Trust does not collapse in one instant. It leaks away, decision by decision.

Every democracy eventually faces a terrifying question. Who guards the referee when the players no longer trust the game? In Nigeria, that question hangs heavily over the Independent National Electoral Commission. It is no longer enough to ask if the commission is independent in constitutional language. The deeper and more urgent concern is whether citizens still believe in that independence when the highest stakes are on the line.

On paper, INEC is constitutionally protected. It is tasked with conducting elections, regulating parties, and safeguarding the ballot’s integrity. Officials routinely reaffirm their commitment to transparency and public confidence. Yet democracies are not sustained by paper guarantees. They survive because citizens believe that the institutions standing between power and the ballot are both morally and operationally trustworthy.

The real crisis begins when that belief falters. An electoral body loses legitimacy not only when it acts with provable bias. It also loses it when citizens cannot distinguish constitutional independence from political convenience. That is the fault line on which democratic trust either stands or collapses.

The law may declare INEC insulated. But the lived reality of politics introduces complexities no constitution alone can resolve. Leadership emerges through presidential appointments and legislative confirmations. Lawful though the process may be, it inevitably fuels suspicion in a deeply polarized climate. Credibility is inseparable from the transparency of leadership selection.

A referee may know the rules perfectly, yet once both teams begin to suspect the whistle is selective, the match itself changes. Every call becomes controversial. Every silence feels political. Every difficult decision is interpreted through the lens of fear already lodged in the minds of players and spectators.

This is precisely the danger facing Nigeria. Controversial decisions that align with entrenched power, fairly or not, erode public confidence. The problem is no longer legality. The problem is the meaning citizens attach to each action in a system fatigued by elite capture, opposition fragmentation, and institutional distrust.

In democracy, meaning is everything. An election is legitimized not just by casting votes, but by collective belief that the umpire belongs to the republic not to the most powerful team. Once that belief cracks, even the cleanest electoral process arrives in public consciousness already wounded.

Nigeria’s current political climate makes this particularly perilous. Opposition parties fear narrowing institutional space. Ruling party dominance appears expansive. Every procedural adjustment or delayed recognition of party factions is instantly filtered through suspicion that the playing field is no longer level.

The solution is not reckless condemnation. It is the building of an electoral culture where independence is demonstrated, not merely asserted. Radical transparency, consistency of action, visible fairness, and decisions that survive the harshest scrutiny from winners and losers alike are what create enduring credibility. Institutions do not become credible by claiming it. They become credible when even critics can trace the logic of their actions to principle rather than convenience.

A republic can endure flawed politicians far longer than it can survive a distrusted referee. Bad leaders rise and fall. Parties fracture. Coalitions form and collapse. But once the umpire loses moral authority, every future election inherits suspicion before it inherits voters.

The danger is not that the whistle may be blown. It is that millions of citizens are beginning to wonder whether it is blown only when it suits the most powerful. That is how democracies suffocate without a single tank on the street, not through the loud theft of ballots, but through the quiet death of belief.

Once the democratic whistle is perceived as selective, every silence sounds political, every call feels prearranged, and trust leaks away, decision by decision. Nations do not lose democracy solely when votes are stolen. Sometimes they lose it when trust in the hands counting those votes quietly dies. A nation survives contested players more easily than it survives a contested whistle, because when the whistle itself is distrusted, even the cleanest result arrives stained by suspicion.

What does independence mean if the public no longer believes in it? Nigeria must confront this question with honesty. It is not enough for INEC to be independent in law. It must remain independent in the mind of the citizen, because trust is the real ballot paper on which every democracy is ultimately counted.

The post Is the nation’s democratic whistle still trusted?, by Stephanie Shaakaa appeared first on Vanguard News.