The 2027 general elections will not be just another democratic ritual. It will be a defining test of whether Nigerians still believe the ballot can change power, renew leadership and hold government accountable. For the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the election will be more than an administrative assignment; it will be a historic burden. If INEC fails again, the consequence will not be limited to disputed results. It may deepen a national crisis of legitimacy from which Nigerian democracy may struggle to recover.

The shadow of 2023 still hangs heavily over the Commission. Nigerians were promised a transparent election strengthened by technology: the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and the INEC Result Viewing Portal. Those promises raised public expectations, especially among young voters who believed technology would reduce manipulation and make the process more credible. But when presidential results were not uploaded as expected, and INEC’s explanations failed to convince many citizens, the damage went beyond technical failure. It became a rupture of trust. That broken trust is the real danger before 2027. Democracies do not collapse only when soldiers seize power. They also decay when citizens quietly stop believing elections matter. When people conclude that votes are counted only after power has already been negotiated elsewhere, participation becomes meaningless. Voter apathy then becomes not ignorance, but protest. It becomes a silent referendum against a system citizens feel has betrayed them.

If INEC fails in 2027, voter turnout may decline even further. Millions of Nigerians, especially young people who entered the 2023 cycle with unusual enthusiasm, may finally retreat into permanent cynicism. That would be a tragedy. A democracy without active citizens becomes an empty shell, controlled by political machines, patronage networks and ethnic mobilisation. When decent citizens withdraw, the worst actors become stronger. The second implication is legitimacy. In a deeply divided country, elections are supposed to provide a peaceful closure. They may not satisfy everyone, but they must be credible enough for winners to govern and losers to accept defeat without feeling robbed. If INEC conducts an election widely perceived as compromised, the next president may enter office with a damaged mandate. Every policy, every appointment, every reform and every painful economic decision may be resisted through the lens of illegitimacy. A government that begins under suspicion spends its first years defending its right to govern rather than governing boldly.

The third danger is litigation and political instability. Nigeria has already normalised the movement of electoral disputes from polling units to courtrooms. But courts cannot become the permanent substitute for credible elections. When every major result is contested, democracy loses its simplicity. Citizens no longer see elections as the moment of decision; they see them as the beginning of legal warfare. This weakens public confidence not only in INEC but also in the judiciary, especially when court outcomes are interpreted through partisan lenses.

A failed 2027 election could also inflame national divisions. Nigeria is already strained by insecurity, economic hardship, regional suspicion and declining faith in public institutions. A controversial election would pour fuel on existing grievances. Political actors may exploit ethnic, religious and regional anxieties to delegitimise results. In such an environment, electoral failure is not merely a procedural problem; it becomes a security risk. The economic implications would also be serious. Investors watch political stability closely. A disputed election, mass protests, prolonged uncertainty or a weak mandate would damage confidence in Nigeria’s ability to manage peaceful transitions. At a time when the country needs investment, jobs, currency stability and policy consistency, another credibility crisis could deepen economic anxiety and make recovery harder.

INEC’s failure would also damage the broader reform agenda. Technology, electronic transmission, IReV and legal amendments mean little if citizens believe the institution managing them lacks independence and courage. Machines cannot manufacture integrity. Systems are only as trustworthy as the people and institutions behind them. If INEC makes promises in 2027 and fails to honour them, future reforms will be greeted not with hope but with mockery. Yet the situation is not hopeless. INEC can still rebuild confidence, but only through conduct, not slogans. It must recruit electoral officials transparently, treat political parties evenly, obey court judgments without arrogance, communicate clearly, test technology publicly and explain failures honestly. It must be understood that neutrality is not simply something to claim; it is something citizens must be able to see.

The burden is enormous because the stakes are enormous. If INEC succeeds in 2027, it can begin to restore faith in the democratic process. If it fails, Nigeria may not merely witness another disputed election; it may witness a deeper withdrawal of citizens from the very idea of democracy. The question, therefore, is no longer whether Nigerians should trust INEC. The real question is whether INEC understands what Nigeria could lose if it fails again. 

•Dr Peterside is the author of “Leading in a Storm” and “Beneath the Surface”.