There is a remarkable new scientific discovery in modern governance: the more money labeled for security disappears into confidential envelopes, the more insecurity appears in public places. It is called the Phenomenon of Insecurity Votes, a mysterious fiscal condition where funds travel at the speed of light, but safety travels by bicycle with a flat tire. Experts are still studying how billions meant for protection develop a rare allergy to results, but early findings suggest the money feels safest when it never leaves the comfort of private ledgers.
Welcome to the age of Advanced Budgetary Magic, where security votes are approved in millions, released in billions, and measured in press statements. Citizens are advised not to ask questions for security reasons. Criminals, however, seem to receive regular briefings.
Security votes were originally conceived as rapid response funds, flexible, immediate, decisive. The idea was simple: when danger moves fast, money should not move slowly. Somewhere along the way, the concept evolved. The speed remained, but only on the spending side. The results department appears to have been outsourced to hope and prayer.
In theory, these funds should produce intelligence networks, modern equipment, trained personnel, surveillance systems, community coordination, and swift tactical action. In practice, they often produce convoys, tinted glass, louder sirens, heavier gates, longer motorcades, and thicker curtains of secrecy. Protection has been successfully achieved, but mainly for the officials approving the funds.
Citizens have noticed a troubling performance pattern. Each spike in insecurity is followed by a spike in security votes. Each spike in security votes is followed by an even more creative spike in insecurity. It is the only known government program where failure increases funding eligibility.
One might forgive the public for asking whether insecurity has discovered how to file grant applications.
Transparency, we are told, would compromise operations. Details cannot be revealed. Line items cannot be disclosed. Outcomes cannot be discussed. Metrics cannot be measured. Audits cannot be performed. Questions cannot be tolerated. Confidence must be mandatory.
It is a beautiful system. The less you see, the more you must believe.
Meanwhile, in many communities, local volunteers armed with flashlights, whistles, and stubborn courage provide more visible deterrence than heavily funded structures. Their operational budget is pure patriotism. Their accountability is immediate. Their audit is survival.
The communications strategy around insecurity votes is also impressive. After every incident comes the Ritual of Strong Condemnation. Then the Emergency Meeting. Then the Assurance of Action. Then the Approval of More Funds. Then the Next Incident. This cycle has achieved sustainability and repeatability, which are important features in any successful program.
If insecurity were a contractor, it would qualify for repeat business based on consistent performance.
Satire aside, emergency security funding is not the villain. Every government needs flexible crisis resources. The real problem begins when emergency funding becomes permanent, opaque, and outcome free. When secrecy protects spending but not citizens, language itself starts to file complaints.
Perhaps reform is simple. Tie security votes to measurable outcomes. Fewer speeches, more arrests. Fewer convoys, more convictions. Fewer sealed envelopes, more open scorecards. Let results become classified for once, because they are too good to reveal, not too absent to display.
Until then, the Phenomenon of Insecurity Votes will remain one of the great wonders of political physics: where protection budgets require protection, and the only thing fully secured is the allocation itself.
By Hon. Chimazuru Nnadi-Oforgu
Duruebube Ndukaku III of Ihiagwa ófó asato
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment