2027 ELECTION: BEFORE ANOTHER BLUEPRINT, ACCOUNT FOR THE FIRST

2027 ELECTION: BEFORE ANOTHER BLUEPRINT, ACCOUNT FOR THE FIRST

Governance Is Measured Not by Promises Made, but by Promises Kept and Lives Transformed

By Dr. Sagir S. Buhari, FCIA

As the 2027 election approaches, political activities will naturally gather momentum. Consultations will intensify, alliances will be explored, campaign committees will emerge, and political leaders will begin presenting new ideas and programmes to the electorate.

In the midst of all these activities, however, one important question should not be overlooked: what happened to the promises and commitments made under the existing mandate?

It is particularly interesting when political leaders declare that they have successfully implemented the blueprint upon which they sought the mandate of the people, while at the same time preparing another blueprint for a second term. Such declarations raise a fundamental question: who has determined that the first blueprint has actually been implemented?

Is it the government itself, or should the people who gave the mandate have the opportunity to make that determination?

Before proceeding, it is important to understand what a blueprint means in the context of governance. A blueprint is a detailed plan or framework that sets out what is intended to be achieved and how it will be achieved. In government, it is a strategic development plan that outlines an administration’s policies, programmes, priorities, targets and actions during its tenure.

In simple terms, a blueprint tells the people what a government intends to do, how it intends to do it and what it expects to achieve. It therefore provides a basis upon which government performance can be assessed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with preparing a blueprint for a second term. Continuity, long-term planning and the improvement of public policies are important elements of governance. What deserves greater attention is the need to account properly for the first mandate before asking citizens to consider another.

A government blueprint should not be treated merely as a document unveiled at the beginning of an administration, accompanied by speeches and ceremonies, only to reappear when another election approaches. It should be a public roadmap against which performance can be measured throughout the life of the administration.

It should contain clear objectives, realistic targets, measurable indicators, implementation timelines and, most importantly, a mechanism through which citizens can determine whether those commitments have translated into tangible results.

*From Political Promises to Public Evidence*

If an administration says it has implemented its blueprint, the evidence should be placed before the public.

The original document should be accessible to citizens, accompanied by a transparent implementation report showing what has been completed, what remains ongoing, what has been partially implemented, what has been modified and what has not been achieved.

Where public funds have been committed, citizens should also be able to understand what was budgeted, what was spent and what results were achieved.

This is not an unreasonable demand. Public office carries a responsibility to account for public resources and to demonstrate how policies and programmes have affected the lives of the people.

Government announcements, commissioning ceremonies, photographs, speeches and statistics may provide information about activities, but they do not, by themselves, establish the full impact of governance.

The more important question is whether those activities are functional, sustainable and producing the benefits for which they were intended.

*Outputs Are Not the Same as Outcomes*

This distinction is particularly important.

Constructing a school is an output; providing quality education is an outcome. Building a hospital is an output; improving access to effective healthcare is an outcome. Distributing agricultural inputs is an output; increasing agricultural productivity and improving farmers’ livelihoods are outcomes.

Similarly, constructing a road is an output. The broader outcomes should include improved mobility, reduced travel time and transportation costs, and greater economic activity.

This is why the number of projects completed should not be the only measure of performance. The quality, functionality, sustainability and impact of those projects matter just as much.

If education is a priority, for example, the assessment should go beyond the number of schools constructed or renovated. Are there qualified teachers? Are there adequate learning materials? Are laboratories and other facilities functional? Most importantly, are children receiving a better quality of education?

The same principle applies to healthcare. How many hospitals or primary healthcare centres were built or renovated is important, but so too are staffing, equipment, medicines, accessibility, affordability and the quality of care received by patients.

In agriculture, the public should be able to see what has been invested in irrigation, mechanisation, improved seeds, fertiliser, extension services, storage, processing and market access. More importantly, are farmers producing more? Are their incomes improving? Is agricultural investment contributing to food security and economic development?

The same questions should be asked about roads, water supply, electricity, employment, commerce, industry, housing, youth development, security and social welfare.

*The People Are Part of the Evidence*

The ordinary citizen is not merely a recipient of government policy; the citizen is also an important source of evidence about its impact.

The farmer knows whether agricultural support has reached his farm. The trader knows whether the business environment has become more conducive to enterprise. The parent knows whether the quality of education available to his or her children has improved. The patient knows whether healthcare has become more accessible and affordable. The commuter knows whether roads and transportation have improved. The young person knows whether meaningful economic opportunities have been created.

These everyday experiences should complement official reports and statistics.

This does not mean that personal experiences should replace professional evaluation or official data. Rather, both should form part of a broader and more transparent assessment of governance.

Citizens, independent professionals, civil society organisations, journalists, researchers and communities should all have the opportunity to examine government claims and compare them with what is happening on the ground.

*Before Another Blueprint, Publish the First-Term Scorecard*

Before an administration asks citizens to consider another mandate, it should present a comprehensive scorecard of the mandate it has already received.

Every major commitment in the original blueprint should be examined against clearly defined indicators.

Where a promise has been fulfilled, the evidence should be available. Where a project is ongoing, its status and expected completion should be explained. Where a commitment has been modified, the reasons should be stated. Where a promise could not be implemented, the public deserves to know why.

There is no shame in acknowledging that some commitments were not fulfilled.

Governments operate in complex and changing circumstances. Economic difficulties, emergencies, changes in priorities and unforeseen events can affect even carefully prepared plans. What matters is that such changes are acknowledged openly and explained honestly.

Indeed, the willingness to acknowledge shortcomings can strengthen public confidence because accountability is not about claiming perfection; it is about being transparent about performance.

*The Second Blueprint Should Learn From the First*

A second-term blueprint should not simply be another collection of attractive promises introduced for a new campaign season.

It should emerge from the experience of the first term.

Programmes that have produced measurable results can be strengthened. Projects that remain incomplete should be properly assessed and, where appropriate, completed. Policies that have not produced their intended results should be reviewed. New priorities should be supported by evidence and accompanied by clear objectives and measurable targets.

This transforms governance from a cycle of making promises and announcing achievements into a continuous process of planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement.

A new plan should therefore answer an obvious question: what have we learned from the first plan, and how will that experience improve the next one?

*Leadership and the Question of Legacy*

Political office is temporary, but the consequences of leadership can last for generations.

A governor may serve for four or eight years. A president may serve one or two terms. Ministers, legislators and other public officials may come and go. But the schools they establish, the hospitals they strengthen, the roads they construct, the agricultural systems they develop, the institutions they reform and the opportunities they create can continue to affect citizens long after they have left office.

That is why the legacy of leadership should not be measured solely by speeches, political gatherings, billboards, media campaigns or lists of achievements.

*History will ask more enduring questions.*

What happened to education? What was done to improve healthcare? What was done to strengthen agriculture and security? What opportunities were created for young people? What was done to promote commerce, industry and investment? What infrastructure was provided? What institutions were strengthened?

Above all, did ordinary citizens experience a meaningful and sustainable improvement in their lives?

These are the questions that should accompany every discussion about political legacy.

*Let Accountability Come Before Another Mandate*

As the 2027 election approaches, Nigerians will once again be presented with visions of what the future can become.

Those visions deserve to be examined alongside the record of what has already been promised and delivered.

This is not about supporting or opposing any political party, candidate or individual. It is about strengthening democratic accountability and ensuring that public office remains what it should be: a public trust.

A blueprint should therefore be open, transparent, measurable and accessible to the people. It should not be treated as the private property of an administration because its commitments involve public resources and the welfare of citizens.

*Before another blueprint is unveiled, the previous one should be opened for public examination.*

Government should present its evidence. Citizens should ask questions. Independent professionals should scrutinise the figures. Civil society organisations and journalists should examine the claims. Researchers should assess the outcomes. Communities should be able to speak about their experiences.

And ultimately, the people should be allowed to make their own judgment.

A government can prepare its own performance report, but it cannot determine the lived experience of every citizen. It can announce achievements, but citizens experience the consequences of those achievements in their homes, businesses, farms, schools, hospitals and communities.

The people gave the mandate, and public resources were entrusted to government. They therefore have every right to ask:

What was promised?

What was delivered?

What did it cost?

What difference did it make?

Before asking the people for another mandate, give them the opportunity to examine the first one.

Let the evidence speak. Let transparency prevail. Let accountability guide governance. And let the people make their own judgment.

God bless Nigeria.

*Dr. Sagir S. Buhari, FCIA*

Former Director General, Research and Documentation Directorate, Government House, Kano State

(Studied Political Science and International Relations)

buharisageer@gmail.com

18th September, 2026