TDThe article; “Between Political Boasts and Data Truths: Why Tajudeen Abbass Must Meet Nentawe Yilwatda on the Field of Evidence Before 2027.”
Is generating reactions as expected.
One of such was shared with me by the Vice Presidential Candidate of one of the political parties in the 2023 election, whose identity I will conceal since the reaction bore no identity. And it isn’t my style to embarrass friends who may just be helping me to have access to feedback.
However, I will advise that my readers read the article his reaction focuses on, so you aren’t left out of the crux of the matter.
Here, you have what he penned:
“While this piece is an eloquent plea for “statistical truth,” it fundamentally misses a massive shift in how the APC is currently operating. The author treats Tajudeen Abbas’s “100% acceptance” claim as a traditional political “vibe” or “poetry” that needs to be tested by external polling.
However, looking at the APC’s recent aggressive drive into digital membership registration, one could argue that the party is no longer guessing, it is counting!
The disagreement here isn’t about whether data is needed; it’s about the fact that the APC has already moved past “polling” and into “census-level” data collection.
Here is why the author’s call for “scientific measurement” might actually be trailing behind a reality already on the ground!
1. Polling is a Sample; Registration is a Census.
The author suggests the APC needs “scientific public opinion polls.” In the world of data, a poll is just a representative sample (usually 1,000–5,000 people).
• The Reality: By digitally registering members in every ward and requiring a GSM number for validation, the APC is building a database of actual names, faces, and locations. The Strategic Shift: When you give a citizen a phone or a monetary incentive to register, you aren’t just “buying a vote”—you are acquiring a biometric and digital footprint. This is much more powerful than a poll. It allows the party to map exactly who their supporters are, down to the specific polling unit.
2. The “Digital Membership List” as a Shield Against Rigging Claims
The author mentions that the 2023 elections left a trail of “contested perceptions.” The user’s point about INEC’s new requirement is the “smoking gun” here.
• If INEC requires digital membership lists, and the APC submits a list of, say, 1.5 million verified members in Kaduna (each with a unique phone number), they have pre-validated their victory.
• If the election results then show 1.5 million votes for the APC, the “rigging” narrative becomes much harder to sustain. You cannot easily claim “ghost votes” when the party can point to a digital directory of 1.5 million living, breathing, registered members.
3. Incentivization as “Data Mining,” Not Just Charity.
The author views the political landscape through the lens of “poetry” vs “science.” But the use of monetary incentives and phone distribution is, in itself, a data-gathering tactic!
• By providing phones to those without them, the APC is closing the “digital gap” that usually prevents political parties from reaching the grassroots.
• This ensures that “every nook and cranny” is not just a metaphor—it is a connected node in a digital network. When you own the channel of communication (the phone), you control the messaging and the verification process.
4. Nentawe Yilwatda: The Architect, Not the Seeker.
The author suggests Nentawe Yilwatda must start looking for data. The counter-argument is that he is likely the one building the machine that is already harvesting it.
“He must build systems that measure reality, not mood.”
The current digital registration drive is that system. It moves the party away from “political guesswork” and toward a Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) political model. They aren’t waiting for a pollster to tell them how Kaduna feels; they are looking at their dashboard to see how many people in Kaduna successfully uploaded their data today.
The Bottom Line:
The author’s critique is based on the “Old School” of Nigerian politics where leaders shouted at crowds and hoped for the best. The current APC strategy described—using tech, GSM verification, and incentives—is “New School” Data Hegemony. If you have a registered member in every house, you don’t need a poll to tell you that you’ve “arrived”…, you have the receipts.
The question now is, “does this shift toward “data-backed politics” make you feel more confident in the electoral process, or does it raise new concerns for you regarding privacy and “digital godfatherism”?”
Below is my Rebuttal:
When Data Becomes a Weapon: A Rebuttal to the Illusion of Digital Electoral Certainty
Citizen Bolaji O. Akinyemi
In response to my earlier piece—“Between Political Boasts and Data Truths”—a compelling counter-argument has emerged. It celebrates what it calls a “New School” political strategy: a transition from polling to what is described as “census-level” data collection through digital party registration.
At first glance, it sounds like progress. It feels scientific. It appears precise.
But beneath that polished surface lies a dangerous proposition:
That a political party’s database can become the new arbiter of democratic truth.
This must be challenged—firmly, clearly, and without apology.
*THE DECEPTION OF “COUNTING” OVER “MEASURING”*
The argument insists that the ruling party is no longer guessing—it is counting.
But counting what, exactly?
A party’s digital membership register is not a reflection of the electorate. It is a reflection of:
Those who registered
Those who were mobilized
Those who were incentivized
It is not a neutral mirror of society.
To equate party registration with electoral certainty is to confuse:
Participation with consent
Enrollment with conviction
Access with allegiance
A scientific poll may be a sample—but it is designed to correct bias.
A party database, on the other hand, is bias institutionalized.
*WHEN DATA LOSES ITS SOUL*
Data, in its purest form, is meant to illuminate truth.
But when data is:
Privately owned
Politically curated
Economically induced
It loses its moral authority.
Let us be clear:
When phones are distributed and money changes hands to drive registration, what is being built is not a democratic dataset—it is a compliance register.
This is not innovation.
It is digitized patronage.
*THE MYTH OF “PRE-VALIDATED VICTORY”*
One of the most troubling claims in the reaction is this: that a large digital membership list can serve as a “shield” against allegations of electoral malpractice.
That if a party has 1.5 million registered members and wins 1.5 million votes, then the outcome is beyond dispute.
This is not just flawed reasoning—it is a dangerous doctrine.
Because it suggests that:
Election results can be justified by party data rather than verified by independent processes.
That is the beginning of electoral authoritarianism.
In every credible democracy, legitimacy does not come from:
What a party claims to have.
It comes from what an independent body—like the Independent National Electoral Commission—can transparently verify!
Anything outside that framework is not evidence.
It is narrative engineering.
*THE RISE OF DIGITAL GODFATHERISM*
What we are witnessing is not merely a technological shift—it is a structural one.
When a political party:
Builds the largest database.
Controls the communication channels.
Defines the verification process.
It begins to assume a new kind of power:
The power to shape political reality itself.
This is what I describe as Digital Godfatherism.
It is more subtle than ballot box snatching.
More sophisticated than result sheet manipulation.
And far more dangerous.
Because it operates under the guise of innovation.
*DATA IS A PUBLIC TRUST—NOT A PARTY ASSET*
Democracy cannot survive if the architecture of truth is privatized.
Electoral data must:
Be publicly accountable.
Be independently audited.
Be accessible for multi-party scrutiny.
No political party—no matter how advanced its technology—can be allowed to become the sole custodian of electoral legitimacy!
Not now. Not ever.
Because the moment that happens, elections cease to be:
A contest of ideas.
And become:
A contest of databases!
*A WORD TO Nentawe Yilwatda*
This moment calls for more than technical brilliance.
It demands ethical courage.
Yes, build systems.
Yes, deploy innovations.
But ensure that those systems:
Serve the people, not the party.
Strengthen institutions, not political empires.
Protect truth, not manufacture it.
Because history will not ask how sophisticated your database was.
It will ask:
Did your systems deepen democracy—or quietly undermined it?
*THE FINAL TRUTH*
The future of Nigerian politics cannot be built on:
Proprietary data.
Incentivized registration.
Algorithmic influence.
It must be built on:
Credible institutions.
Transparent processes.
Free and fearless citizens.
So let us not be dazzled by dashboards.
Let us not mistake digital footprints for democratic mandates.
Because in the end:
Data does not vote. People do.
And the sanctity of their votes must never be outsourced to any party’s server!
