The 2015 general elections in Nigeria: new media, party politics and the political economy of voting

Abstract

SUMMARY This Briefing argues that social media evidently did not provide the platforms for democratic struggles and the transformation of the political economy of voting during the 2015 general elections in Nigeria. Arguably, only the trade union movements such as the Nigerian Labour Congress formed a vibrant vanguard for democratic struggles challenging neoliberal policy and state hegemony.

Voting decision‐making of low‐income consumers: Literature review and research agenda

“…Clientelism Exchange of targeted benefits to the individual or group of voters to mobilize political support (Aspinall, 2014;Frey, 2019;Szwarcberg, 2013) Clientelism influences low-income voters' voting decision-making (Anderson et al, 2015;Aspinall, 2014;Brusco et al, 2004;Cruz et al, 2018;Frey, 2019;Gonzalez-Ocantos et al, 2020;von Borzyskowski & Kuhn, 2020;Yildirim, 2020;Szwarcberg, 2013) Local development Instead of national issues mentioned in the election manifesto of the parties, the poor voters are more interested in their local issues (Chipkin, 2016;Hill, 2017) Strong dependence on local politicians for social issues (Larson & Lewis, 2017;Mustapha, 2017;Tenhunen, 2018) Sense lineage of party/politician loyalty and loyalty (Rollier, 2020) The local development perspectives can wane the importance of nationalist sentiments on voting decision-making in the low-income context (Hill, 2017;Ramutsindela, 2001) Even the sense of lineage of party/politician and loyalty toward their issue positioning wanes in the poverty-ridden economies with the immediate need for localized benefits offered by the local politicians (Hill, 2017). Political parties of liberation from colonization (e.g., India…”

“…Conceptual discussion, discourse analysis, literature review 25 (Anderson et al, 2010;Berenschot & Aspinall, 2020;Brosché et al, 2020;Chipkin, 2016;Downs, 1957;Hamilton et al, 2014;Jost, 2017;Keefer & Khemani, 2005;Krishna & Sokolova, 2017;Lappeman et al, 2019;Lazar, 2004;Mustapha, 2017;O'Cass & Voola, 2011;Penh, 2009;Ramutsindela, 2001;Rai, 2019;Reeves et al, 2006;Rollier, 2020;Roniger, 2004;Singh, 1995;Smith & French, 2009;Srivastava et al, 2020;Still & Dusi, 2020;Venugopal & Viswanathan, 2017;Vishnoi et al, 2022;Winchester et al, 2016;Ziegfeld, 2021) Mixed Method 3 (Ahmad, 2020;Brusco et al, 2004;Durante et al, 2017;Gonzalez-Ocantos et al, 2020;Nakanishi et al, 1974;Seiders et al, 2022;Szwarcberg, 2013) Qualitative 20 (Anderson et al, 2010;Banerjee, 2020;Jaffrelot, 2019;Karamat et al, 2019;Lodha, 2009;Martin & Picherit, 2020;Moral & Zhirnov, 2018;Mukherje...…”

Digital politics: internet and democracy in Africa

“…The scope and span of the debate is impressive, largely due to the historic implications of the information age and the complexity of democratic governance (Weare, 2002). The study of the relationship between internet and democracy has engaged many researchers using different approaches from conceptual and theoretical (Weare, 2002; Margetts, 2013; Grofman et al , 2014; Adibe et al , 2017; Mustapha, 2017; Ruijgrok, 2017) to empirical (Best and Wade, 2009; Nisbet et al , 2012; Salgado, 2012; Lee, 2017; Nam, 2017; Pirannejad, 2017; Shen, 2017; Evans, 2018a).…”

“…Indeed, the majority of studies in the literature are case studies and theoretical analyses (e.g. Adibe et al , 2017; Mustapha, 2017; Ruijgrok, 2017) and the few empirical studies on internet and democracy are from developed countries (e.g. Best and Wade, 2009; Grofman et al , 2014; Nam, 2017; Pirannejad, 2017; Ruijgrok, 2017; Shen, 2017).…”

“…Indeed, the majority of studies in the literature are case studies and theoretical analyses (e.g. Adibe et al , 2017; Mustapha, 2017; Ruijgrok, 2017). Many of the few previous studies that approached the issue of internet and democracy with empirical analysis are from developed countries (e.g.…”