In October 2024, at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, Elon Musk — arguably the most successful technologist of our era — made a statement that should provoke serious reflection across emerging democracies. Musk, a man whose empire is built on artificial intelligence, space technology, software engineering, and advanced computing systems, declared that computers should never be used in voting tabulations.
His reason was simple but profound: computers are too easy to hack.
When a technologist of that magnitude expresses skepticism about the security of digital voting infrastructure, it would be intellectually irresponsible to dismiss such concerns — particularly in fragile democracies like Nigeria, where electoral trust remains a contested terrain.
The Technologist’s Paradox: If Musk Is Afraid, Why Are We Not?
Elon Musk’s argument aligns with a long-standing scholarly debate in political science and cybersecurity studies. Scholars like Professor Andrew Appel of Princeton University and cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier have consistently argued that electronic voting systems increase the attack surface of elections. Digital systems, no matter how sophisticated, are vulnerable to intrusion, manipulation, malware insertion, insider compromise, and network interception.
The paradox is striking:
If Silicon Valley’s finest minds admit that no software system is invulnerable, why are some Nigerian politicians and self-appointed “democracy activists” insisting that our electoral sovereignty must depend solely on cyberspace?
Nigeria is not Estonia. We are not Finland. We are not operating within a fully digitized, cyber-secure ecosystem with robust digital identity frameworks and resilient broadband infrastructure. Our telecommunications backbone is uneven. Our rural connectivity is fragile. Our cybersecurity architecture is still evolving. Yet, some crisis entrepreneurs are demanding an electoral model that even advanced democracies approach with caution.
This is not progressivism. It is recklessness disguised as reform.
The 2023 Experience: Attempted Cyber Intrusions and Network Instability
During the 2023 general elections, Nigeria witnessed significant technical disruptions. INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV) faced operational challenges. There were reported attempts to compromise cyberspace infrastructure. Even without conclusive proof of large-scale hacking, the mere perception of vulnerability damaged public trust.
Political science teaches us that legitimacy is not only about accuracy; it is about perception. As Max Weber argued, authority survives on legitimacy — the belief that processes are fair and credible. When citizens begin to suspect digital manipulation, democracy itself becomes destabilized.
Furthermore, Nigeria’s network operators struggle with bandwidth inconsistency, power instability, and infrastructure sabotage. In many rural communities, internet connectivity remains intermittent or entirely absent. To anchor national elections primarily on electronic transmission in such an environment is to build democracy on unstable infrastructure.
Democratic Theory: Transparency Over Technological Sophistication
Renowned democratic theorist Robert Dahl emphasized that democracy requires transparency, participation, and accountability. Transparency is best achieved when citizens can physically observe processes.
Paper ballots provide:
A tangible audit trail
Physical evidence that can be recounted
Immediate verification by party agents
Signed result sheets witnessed by security agencies and observers
Electronic systems, by contrast, operate within invisible codes and encrypted environments understood only by technical experts. When disputes arise, ordinary citizens cannot audit algorithms. They must trust specialists.
Democracy cannot depend solely on blind technical trust.
Hybrid Model: The Sensible Middle Ground
The recent legislative position adopted by the Nigerian Senate — affirming manual collation as the foundational legal document while allowing transmission where network conditions permit — represents pragmatic institutional wisdom.
This hybrid model acknowledges:
1. Nigeria’s infrastructural realities
2. The need for technological innovation
3. The supremacy of signed physical results as the legal anchor
Where internet access is reliable, transmission can enhance speed and transparency. Where it is not, the manually signed result sheets — endorsed by party agents, electoral officials, and security personnel — remain the binding record.
This approach aligns with comparative electoral governance models used in several democracies that maintain paper-based verification even when digital tools are introduced.
Cybersecurity Reality: Government Systems Are Prime Targets
Musk’s warning that government software is “the easiest to hack” is not hyperbole. Government systems are prime targets for:
State-sponsored cyber actors
Political insiders
Criminal networks
Hacktivist groups
Nigeria’s geopolitical environment makes our electoral infrastructure especially attractive to hostile interference — both domestic and foreign.
Election outcomes should never be determined by those with the most advanced hacking skills.
Beware the Manufactured Outrage
It is also important to interrogate the motivations of those aggressively demanding exclusive electronic transmission. Some of these actors frame themselves as defenders of democracy. Yet, democratic integrity is not strengthened by technological absolutism.
There is a difference between reform advocacy and destabilization rhetoric.
When digital transmission becomes a political weapon rather than a technical tool, we must question whether the objective is transparency — or post-election contestation leverage.
Democracy Must Be Observable
The strength of an election lies not merely in speed, but in verifiability.
Ballot papers. In-person accreditation. Signed result sheets. Party agents witnessing collation. Security officers observing procedures.
These are not archaic rituals. They are democratic safeguards.
Technology should assist democracy — not replace its foundational safeguards.
Conclusion: Prudence Is Not Anti-Progress
Supporting manual collation as the legally binding process does not make one anti-technology. It makes one security-conscious.
Even the world’s most celebrated technologist warns against digital overconfidence in elections. Nigeria must learn from that caution.
Our democracy is too fragile to gamble on untested digital absolutism.
Reforms must be incremental, context-sensitive, and infrastructure-aligned — not driven by political theatrics.
Election outcomes must be determined by voters, not hackers.
And Nigeria must never allow its democratic sovereignty to be outsourced to cyberspace vulnerabilities.
