When Political Support Becomes Compulsory: The Dangerous Implications For Democracy In Enugu State
By
Nze David N. Ugwu
Democracy is founded on the freedom of citizens to make political choices without intimidation, coercion or fear of punishment. It gives every individual the right to support a candidate, reject another, remain politically neutral or decide not to participate in a campaign. The moment political support becomes a condition for keeping one’s job, democracy begins to lose its meaning. This is the troubling question raised by reports that the Enugu State Government, under Governor Peter Mbah, has given teachers 48 hours to explain their absence from the launch of the Governor’s re-election campaign.
If the reported directive is accurately represented, it raises serious questions about the relationship between public service, political participation and the fundamental rights of citizens in a democratic society. Why should teachers, whose primary responsibility is to educate the next generation, be required to explain why they did not attend a political campaign? What has happened to the distinction between the government of the state and the political organisation seeking to retain power?
A government has a responsibility to provide public services, maintain law and order, improve the welfare of its citizens and create an environment in which everyone can live and work without fear. It does not own the people it governs. It does not own the teachers it employs. And it certainly does not own the votes of public servants.
The public service exists to serve the state and its citizens, not to become an extension of the ruling party’s campaign machinery. Teachers are employed to teach children, prepare them for examinations, develop their intellectual capacities and contribute to the future of society. Their professional responsibilities should not be subordinated to the political ambitions of any individual or party.
There is an important distinction between inviting public servants to a political event and compelling them to attend under the threat of disciplinary consequences. An invitation allows a person to make a choice. A threat transforms that choice into an obligation. If absence from a campaign rally can attract an official query, what message does this send to teachers and other public servants who may hold different political views or simply prefer to remain politically neutral?
The danger is not limited to the teachers concerned. It extends to every civil servant, local government employee, health worker and other public employee who might begin to wonder whether professional security now depends on demonstrating political loyalty.
The most disturbing implication of this development is the precedent it could establish ahead of the 2027 general elections. If public school teachers can be queried for failing to attend a political endorsement rally, what prevents similar demands from being extended to other categories of state employees? Could civil servants be expected to demonstrate their political loyalty through attendance at campaign events? Could employees who decline to participate begin to fear that their careers, promotions or appointments might be jeopardized?
These are not allegations that such consequences have already occurred. They are legitimate questions about the safeguards required to prevent political power from being used to influence the private political choices of public employees.
The reported incident concerns the Igbo-Etiti Local Government Education Authority, which reportedly directed affected teachers to explain their absence from the October 10 endorsement rally within 48 hours. The state government had publicly celebrated the endorsement of Governor Mbah and President Bola Tinubu by teachers at that event.
There is nothing inherently wrong with teachers, civil servants or other citizens supporting a candidate. They are entitled to their political preferences, subject to applicable laws and public service rules. The problem arises when voluntary political support appears to become an administrative obligation, enforced through the machinery of government.
Indeed, the difference between voluntary endorsement and compulsory participation is fundamental. A rally attended by enthusiastic supporters communicates political confidence. A rally attended by people who fear the consequences of staying away communicates something entirely different. The size of a crowd cannot, by itself, establish the depth of public support when questions exist about whether attendance was genuinely voluntary.
Governor Mbah and the Enugu State Government must therefore recognize that public confidence in democratic institutions depends not only on development projects and policy achievements but also on respect for individual freedom. Whatever the administration believes it has accomplished, those achievements should be presented to voters for independent assessment, not used as a justification for demanding political allegiance from public employees.
The government has also publicly affirmed its commitment to citizens’ freedom to campaign and vote for candidates of their choice.
That commitment should be reflected consistently in the treatment of teachers and every other public servant. The appropriate response to the present controversy is clarification, transparency and an assurance that no employee will be punished merely for declining to participate in partisan political activities.
Ultimately, the credibility of the 2027 elections in Enugu State will depend on more than the conduct of voting on election day. It will depend on whether voters can make their choices freely, whether public servants can discharge their duties without political intimidation, whether opposition supporters can express their views without fear, and whether electoral institutions can operate independently.
It would be premature to declare that free and fair elections in Enugu State have already become impossible. However, any credible allegation of compulsory political mobilization within the public service deserves serious scrutiny because intimidation, where established, undermines the conditions necessary for a credible election.
The question is simple: if a government is confident that its performance will persuade voters, why should public employees have to demonstrate their support before they enter the voting booth?
Democracy is not a loyalty test. Public employment is not a political contract requiring workers to endorse the party in power. And a governor’s mandate does not confer ownership of the citizens he governs.
The ultimate test of democratic leadership is not how many people can be assembled to endorse a governor, but how freely those same people can reject him if they choose to do so.
That is the Principle Enugu State must protect as the 2027 elections approach.
NZE DAVID N. UGWU IS THE MANAGING CONSULTANT OF KNOWLEDGE RESEARCH CONSULT. HE COULD BE REACHED AT [email protected] OR +2348037269333
