Normally, Osun State should be among the states that have governorship elections every four years, in keeping with the general election cycle. The Alliance for Democracy, which was voted in 1999, was defeated by the People’s Democratic Party in 2003. Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, the winner, ruled the state from 2003 to 2007. The incumbent (Governor Oyinlola) and Engineer Rauf Aregbesola of the Action Congress fought hard during 2007 election.

During the pre-election period, there were widespread verbal and physical attacks across the state, particularly in cities and towns where candidates believed they could garner the most votes. The incumbent eventually won the election, and the opposition party (AC) threatened to dispute the victory all the way to the Supreme Court. Engineer Rauf Aregbesola was pronounced the election winner by the Court of Appeal in November 2010. This event shifted the year in which Osun people go to the polls to elect a new governor.

Actors and supporters worked hard and used various techniques to advertise their candidates to the electorate in all of the state’s elections. Our analyst observes that, similar to what is observed at the national level, actors and their supporters rarely engaged the public during campaign periods by highlighting essential concerns and demands. Political parties, politicians, and their followers believe in participating in extremely intensive personality disparagement rather than discussing socioeconomic and political concerns that require holistic solutions through evidence-driven policies and initiatives.

Part of the damage to Nigeria’s long-term democracy, according to our analyst, is participating in personality shaming and failing to comprehensively explore important concerns or requirements of the people. This is based on the fact that voters are not given the opportunity to make the best decision during the voting process. In developed democracies, parties and candidates are expected to focus on systemic concerns and needs rather than performance issues, as has been the case in Nigeria’s election campaign ecosystem since the country’s restoration to democracy in 1999.

While the parties and candidates who have ruled and are still in power emphasize performance issues (what they have done previously) over systemic issues and people’s needs, opposition parties and candidates often take solace in disparaging the personality traits, competence, and leadership style of those in power. Over time, it has also become clear that the ruling party prefers to court workers and retirees by approving welfare packages prior to primary and general elections, providing free monthly meals to selected people, and using established performance indicators, as well as possible involvement in vote buying and collusion with electoral bodies and security agencies.

Meanwhile, this piece focuses on the upcoming governorship election in Osun state, with an emphasis on how political parties have created and owned issues in the last four weeks of campaigning in physical settings (cities and towns), on virtual platforms (social media), and in newspapers. It also looks at how the public has taken ownership of issues and gained a better understanding of politicians and political parties by using the Internet to gather information.

Political Parties and Public Issues Owned: Divergence and Convergence

Exhibit 1: Osun Public Searches of Political Parties and Candidates

Our analyst and other researchers at the Positive Agenda Nigeria observed campaign activity of the actors (parties and candidates) between April 6 and June 1, 2022, and discovered that reputational issues dominated the period rather than systemic challenges in the state. The dominating owned issues of political parties in week one were agricultural and social programmes. Before they could own the health issue, they switched to security and the economy in week two, then to personality assaults, vote buying, and threats to life in week three. They owned the issues of social programs, workers’ salaries, welfare, and employment in week four (see Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Campaign and/or Policy Issues by week

Our analyst and his colleagues noticed a glaring mismatch between what interested the public and what the political parties owned and disseminated to them (Osun public) during the monitoring period. In week one, people were interested in learning about road conditions, which falls under the infrastructure category, and the economy, according to the analysis, but political parties primarily highlighted agriculture and social programmes. People were concerned about work and security in the second week. During the week’s assessment of this, as well as the parties’ personal difficulties, a mismatch was noticed (see Exhibit 3) and in week four. When discussing and seeking information regarding salary and health, the parties and the public only aligned during week three of the campaign activities.

Exhibit 3: Issues and/or needs searched by Osun Public based on weeks

According to the findings, issues are owned differently by different parties. Throughout the four weeks, the ruling party (APC) concentrated on performance issues, with particular attention paid to the health sector, worker salaries, welfare and employment, social programs, and infrastructure. The PDP, the main opposition party, addressed concerns of reputation (personality assaults, party attacks), security, and agriculture. After the PDP, Accord was determined to be equally responsible for addressing reputational issues. The party (Accord) also engaged the public by discussing concerns and/or needs related to education and security. Like the PDP, Labour party was also discovered to owned economy, reputational issues of the members and candidate of the ruling party as well as agriculture and found them worthy of discussing.

Exhibit 4: Campaign and/or Policy Issues by Political Parties

Strategic Options

Political parties should modify their campaign communication approach in the future, according to our analyst. For example, media handlers could monitor citizens’ Internet searches on a daily basis in order to produce and disseminate targeted messaging. Parties must also focus on addressing systemic issues or needs in the state rather than on reputational issues that are important to governance competencies and democratic leadership style expectations. The ruling party’s emphasis on performance issues without specifying what it plans to do in each area or industry over the next four years if elected is insufficient to make it the best candidate for the job. On the other side, the main opposition party’s continual debate of non-critical reputational concerns does not portray it as the best alternative for the electorate.