Should Opposition Parties Boycott Elections?

Let’s think about the upcoming elections next year. What will happen if opposition parties decide to boycott? How will this affect Nigeria and our democracy? Is boycotting the right choice?

Cameroun and Tanzania recently saw their opposition parties boycott elections, but this did not change the overall election results.

In 2000, Cote D’Ivoire had a huge boycott by the opposition, leading to just 37.4% voter turnout. The same happened in Gambia’s Parliamentary election in 2002 and in Guinea in 2003. The Ivorian Presidential election in 2020 also faced a boycott.

Boycotting elections has become a common strategy for opposition parties, especially since the Cold War ended. As new democracies emerged in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa, more elections became contested, leading to more boycotts. Only four percent of elections worldwide were boycotted in 1989. By 2002, this number rose to 15 percent. From 1995 to 2004, nearly 10 elections a year were boycotted on average.

In 2005, the opposition to Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, split over whether to boycott. That year, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) lost 16 seats in parliament partly because of delays in deciding to boycott. After that, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangarai decided to boycott elections for the new Senate, saying it would just support Mugabe. This choice created division in the MDC, as many believed not participating was a bad idea. The party broke apart, and Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party won 49 of 66 Senate seats against the divided opposition. Tsvangarai later chose to join the 2008 elections, which brought more balance in seats between ZANU-PF and MDC. But in the presidential election, he lost his advantage. The government claimed he didn’t meet the 50 percent needed to win outright. In protest, he boycotted the runoff, which allowed Mugabe to win easily. Although a power-sharing deal later gave MDC a role in government, Tsvangarai’s boycott let Mugabe keep control.

For elections to happen smoothly, opposition parties need to commit early to avoid missing registration deadlines. Many times, they decide to participate too late to have any real impact. While the threat of a boycott can be useful, parties still need to join in to reap the benefits. Sitting out often leads to defeat.

If elections attract a lot of international attention, a boycott can work. When the opposition threatens to boycott and it catches the world’s eye, it can pressure the current leaders. This happened in South Africa in 1994 when Mangosuthu Buthelezi of the Freedom Party boycotted the election, calling it unfair. His actions increased international pressure on Nelson Mandela, leading to changes in the voting system and local government laws.

Also, if a boycott is part of a larger protest movement, it can bring results. If the opposition has strong support from the people, a boycott combined with protests can work. For instance, in Bangladesh in 1996, the Awami League led significant protests along with a boycott just two days before the election. This pressure led the government to hold new elections, which the opposition won.

The phrase "Boycott the boycottables" was first said by Chief Ojike Mazi Mbonu from 1912 to 1956. He used it as a rallying call for nationalism. He encouraged people to wear traditional clothes instead of English-style clothes through his boycott methods.

Chief Ojike didn’t mean for people to boycott elections.

The word boycott was first seriously used in Nigeria during the 1964 general election. Since then, there has been debate about whether boycotts really make a difference.

The boycott of the 1964 election was avoided thanks to Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe, the then President, and because politicians saw that boycotting would not work.

My advice to opposition parties is to avoid boycotting. Choosing not to participate is often a losing choice. Threaten to boycott, but still take part.