Governments Should Reorient Citizens, Not Sponsor Mass Marriages for Cheap Political Gains

By Umar Usman Duguri

Governments have a responsibility that goes far beyond distributing material benefits or organising highly publicised social events. Their fundamental duty is to build a society in which citizens are empowered with knowledge, skills, values and opportunities to live dignified and productive lives.

It is against this background that governments at all levels should reconsider the growing practice of spending substantial public resources on mass marriage programmes, particularly when such initiatives appear designed more to generate political goodwill than to address the underlying social and economic challenges confronting citizens.

Marriage is an important institution in society, and governments can legitimately support vulnerable families where there is a clear social justification. However, public policy should not stop at bringing couples together in ceremonial arrangements. The more important question is what happens to those families after the ceremony.

Can they feed themselves? Can they educate their children? Do they have access to healthcare? Are they economically independent? Do they understand responsible parenthood, financial management, family planning and peaceful coexistence?

These are the questions that should shape government intervention.

Rather than repeatedly spending public funds on mass marriages that may offer temporary political visibility, governments should invest more aggressively in reorientation, education, vocational training, entrepreneurship, civic responsibility and economic empowerment.

A society cannot marry its way out of poverty.

Neither can political patronage substitute for sustainable development.

The real measure of a responsible government should be its ability to equip citizens to become less dependent on government assistance. A young person who receives quality education and vocational training, acquires a sustainable livelihood and understands his or her responsibilities as a citizen represents a far greater investment in the future than one who receives a ceremonial benefit that does not fundamentally alter the family’s economic circumstances.

There is also a danger when social interventions become political spectacles. When public resources are used primarily to create favourable political impressions, the distinction between governance and political marketing becomes blurred.

Taxpayers deserve policies that produce measurable and lasting outcomes.

If governments genuinely want to support marriage and family stability, they should consider comprehensive programmes that combine marriage support with economic empowerment, skills acquisition, reproductive-health education, responsible parenthood, financial literacy and access to affordable housing and healthcare.

Such an approach would address the causes of family vulnerability rather than merely managing its symptoms.

Governments should also invest in reorienting citizens about the responsibilities that accompany marriage. Marriage should not be presented merely as a social achievement or a route to receiving government benefits. It carries profound responsibilities involving mutual respect, responsible parenting, economic planning, conflict resolution and the welfare of children.

Public enlightenment can therefore be just as important as financial intervention.

Citizens need to understand that government cannot—and should not—be expected to finance every aspect of their personal lives. Government’s role is to create an enabling environment in which individuals and families can thrive through their own efforts.

This is why investments in education, employment, skills development, small businesses, agriculture, healthcare and social protection should generally receive greater attention than programmes whose principal attraction is their political visibility.

There is nothing inherently wrong with helping vulnerable couples get married. The concern arises when such programmes become a recurring avenue for political publicity while deeper structural problems remain unresolved.

A government that spends millions sponsoring weddings but fails to create opportunities for the newly married couples to earn sustainable incomes may simply be postponing the same problems it claims to solve.

The ultimate objective of governance should therefore be empowerment, not dependency; transformation, not spectacle; and sustainable development, not short-term political applause.

Nigeria needs citizens who are informed, productive and economically empowered. It needs families capable of standing on their own feet. And it needs governments courageous enough to invest public resources in programmes whose benefits may not produce immediate political headlines but will transform lives over generations.

Mass marriages may generate photographs, speeches and political goodwill.

But reoriented, educated and economically empowered citizens create the future of a nation.

That is where public investment should increasingly be directed.