ELECTIONS have been confirmed for January 2011. We expected that politicians would have deemed it important to start engaging the people in discussions about their future, about the competence they are providing as leaders and their expectations from those they lead.

For a people who have gone through the trauma of 11 years of civil rule, under the guises of democratic cleaving, the importance of the 2011 elections rests on the opportunities they provide for people to reject those politicians who have failed to make contributions that improved the Nigerian condition.

There are too many disappointments. The politicians have prospered, the people have been pulverised by policies that have resulted in more poverty, more illnesses, less education and a dying trust in any belief that politicians -- this set of politicians -- have any interest in the welfare of other Nigerians.

All their moves, whether it is resources committed to their well-being and all the intrigues to ensure that they retained power, have confirmed that the Nigeria of their dreams is one where they are in charge of dispensing privileges, pillaging resources without a tinge of conscience about the implications of their actions for the common good.

Have they heard about social contract? Do they realise that they are meant to hold power for the people and use it for the common good? How would they know what the people expect when they talk only to themselves?

Some groups want candidates in the 2011 elections to commit to a social contract. It would be a contract between candidates and the electorates. Since the needs of the electorates vary in their constituencies, it is expected that the social contract would reflect the need of the area the politician wants to represent.

Why are aspirants not committing themselves to campaigns on free, fair, violence-free elections and good governance when elected? Is this an indication that they are planning differently from the general expectation of free and fair elections?

So much time has been wasted on issues like zoning, a political convenience that some have thrown to the public to distract it. Zoning apart, what are those who want public office promising? How would the public be able to hold them responsible after the elections? What could be done to elevate the debates, make the campaigns more meaningful, eschew violence and ensure that these elections are different -- ones where the votes would count?

Stakes are higher each year. Politicians are aware of the poverty they are creating. They want to retain power in other to ensure that their future gives poverty a great distance. Discussions on how politicians have performed in office would expose their failures, issues they are unwilling to discuss and they think could cost them the elections.

Elections are too important to politicians, not in the way that the electorate think. Politicians are looking at elections as vehicles for retaining access to power and ultimately national resources. Victories at elections are pursued at all costs because they are central to the politicians continued relevance to the power structure and place him in a position to influence the future.

With just months to the elections, candidates should be speaking in more specific terms about their intentions when elected. The common practice is to speak in general terms, often without deep knowledge of the issues. Those who promise to provide electricity make no efforts to research the issue to decide the best solutions.

Such candidates see their manifestoes as campaign speeches without any inclinations to fulfil them once they get into office.

The proposed social contract will be in the form of an affidavit sworn to at the High Court of a State and reproduced by candidates in a portion of all campaign publicity materials as token of the relationship with the electorates.

A document in this manner would be enforceable, the politician can be sued for breaching his promises -- the sort of checks that are required to make politicians more accountable.