.png)
As Anambra State conclude their last poll, I can’t help but reflect (again) on a pattern that has become as predictable as the harmattan season: Nigeria’s peculiar four-year governance rhythm. It’s the same song, the same dance, and sadly, the same result.
From where I sit as the Communications Officer at AdvoKC Foundation, tracking political promises under the Promise Tracker NG initiative, I’ve seen enough data, press statements, and performance reports to spot the trend from a mile away. And with the latest snapshot of the Soludometer (our governance tracker for Anambra) it’s clear that the melody hasn’t changed much.
Despite the buzz that usually accompanies the final months before an election, the Soludometer still sings the same tune as it did in our 3-year report: not much has changed.
This isn’t just an Anambra thing, it’s a Nigerian thing. We appear to have institutionalised what I like to call the “1–2–1 Governance Cycle.”
Let me break it down for the uninitiated.
Year One: The Settling Year.
This is the year of “new beginnings”, or, more accurately, the year of excuses. Newly sworn-in governors often spend this period fighting off electoral petitions or “settling down.” Cabinet lists are delayed for months, appointments trickle in like NEPA power supply, and the mantra is always the same: “We’re still studying the system.” By the time they’re done studying, the year is gone, and the budget implementation report reads like a pamphlet.
Years Two and Three: The Governance Window.
Now this is where the real action (or something close to it) happens. Projects are announced, foundations are laid (and sometimes re-laid), and you can finally find government officials at their desks. It’s also when journalists, civil society groups, and trackers like us start seeing some movement in promises. But blink too long, and this window closes. Because…
Year Four: Campaign Season.
Ah, the “Season of Performance.” Suddenly, everything works (at least on TV). Ribbon cuttings, road commissions, “empowerment” programs, and colourful billboards bloom like wildflowers. Even potholes get filled (temporarily). The government shifts its energy from governance to glossy storytelling. Every project, even the ones started in 2002, becomes part of the administration’s "achievements."
And just like that, the cycle resets.
Under Promise Tracker NG, the promise rating criteria is straightforward. Every promise starts at “Not Yet Rated” and remains there until there’s clear, verifiable evidence that work has begun. From that point, it moves to “In the Works.” From there, things can go in any direction: “Compromised” if the promise is delivered but not to the promised scale or within the promised timeline; “Stalled” if progress lingers endlessly at one stage; “Broken” if there’s no substantial effort at all; and “Kept” if the promise has been fully delivered according to set parameters.
But for communications like this to influence and educate, we simplify our ratings into three clear categories: Kept, Compromised, and Broken. The idea is to give a picture of how he has performed if the tenure ends today because that should be what would inform if he deserves another term or not.
In the Soludometer three-year report, we tracked 51 promises: 20 Kept, 12 Compromised, and 19 Broken. The latest snapshot (just days to the Anambra election) shows 52 promises: still 20 Kept, still 12 Compromised, but now 20 Broken.
Over 8 months later, and not a single new promise has moved forward. That flatline tells its own story.
Now, don’t get me wrong; tracking governance is not an exercise in cynicism. At AdvoKC Foundation, our goal with Promise Tracker NG is to help citizens cut through political rhetoric and see, in measurable terms, what has actually been delivered. But when the data starts looking like a replay of the last season, it’s hard not to notice that our politics has a timing problem.
Governance, as it should be, is a marathon, not a sprint between election seasons. Yet, in Nigeria, the stopwatch seems permanently set for four short laps: one for settling, two for governing, and one for campaigning. And if you ask some of our leaders, even that middle stretch can be negotiated.
With the Anambra polls now behind us, the real issue isn’t the outcome, it’s whether governance will finally begin in earnest.
Because if we continue this 1–2–1 cycle, we’ll keep mistaking movement for progress and campaign promises for government action.
And when you look closely at the Soludometer, the data tells a simple story: until we break this cycle, our leaders will keep using four years to do what should be done in one.