Maurice Iwu
6 July 2009
opinion
Lagos — Our country's electoral process and indeed all of its political system have been characterized for long by crisis of values and methods. As many times as our country has tried in all of its forty nine years to organize what should be normal civic duties of democratically choosing its leaders and representatives, the exercise almost always snowballed into acrimonious interest group disputations. In many cases, election-related disputes do not end at polarizing the society and promoting discontent - which is bad enough. More often than not, disputations over elections in Nigeria are deliberately externalized by certain elements whose intents cannot be anything but mindless and self-serving; as if the solution to any society's problems has ever come from abroad.
Of course, contention for power has always been keen in all societies and in all systems. In civilized settings however, there are always rules to the game of politics and all participants comply with such rules and also know the limit beyond which pursuit of individual or group ambition cannot be stretched. That is the only way to side step anarchy. But not exactly so with politics in Nigeria. Here, there may be rules quite alright, but the predominant belief in our society is that politics and its allied engagements, especially elections, are games without rules. This disposition has lingered for long and has indeed become a threat to the healthy growth of democracy in the country.
Even where it is reluctantly accepted by some within our system that there are rules guiding participation in politics and elections, the common tendency is to see such rules as being binding only on those who do not have adequate financial or political weight to muscle their way through. Ironically, many of the ordinary citizens and even professional who complain persistently today about the shortcomings of democracy in our system are at the very foot soldiers of some big men or god fathers whose words they accept as gospel in political reckoning and whose decisions cannot be challenged within the parties even when they are wrong.
The problem with this situation is profoundly captured by Niccolo Machiavelli who reminded us long time ago in one of his discussions that " we can never hope to live in freedom under the rule of a prince" as "he is particularly interested in how those who fall into servitude may be capable of regaining their liberty." The disruptive influence of the many princes or godfathers of present day political process in Nigeria has become rather too costly to be ignored.
We shall return to how much this matter constitutes a problem for the electoral process as well as other impediments to the development of our electoral process, but first let us turn to the potentials and relative bright side of democracy in the country in recent times, for in truth Nigeria's democracy has posted remarkable strides as well.
Penultimate month, May 2009, marked ten consecutive years of democratic governance in Nigeria. Against the backdrop of the political history of the country, especially the volatile and capricious changes of governments and regimes in the not too distant past, and also considering the ever steaming conspiracy of the political elite against its members and against the system, attaining ten years of uninterrupted democracy is, by every standard, a landmark for Nigeria. It speaks of progression, of increasing maturity, an acceptance that a system can only improve and grow with time and consistent mastery of its values and nuances.
Democracy as it has been rightly noted is not always a very elegant system. The operationalisation or practical expression of the lofty aspirations of a democratic order is not without its shortcomings and discontents. Indeed a famous statement of Winston Churchill, the former British Prime about democracy has it that it '(democracy) is the worst of all systems of governance, except for the others'. While it is true therefore, that democratic governance in Nigeria in the last ten years could be better in all ramifications, the persistent loud complains about what our society has not accomplished since democracy was re-established in 1999 tend often to forget where we were coming from. There is also the tendency to underrate the impact of the society's long existence under autocratic regimes, even as the hangover of that experience constantly dogs our national life.
The flourishing individual and group liberty in our society today; the freedom that the judiciary enjoys which in turn offers the citizenry opportunity for redress when wronged; the representative nature of governments as well as the provision for accountability in leadership count weightily as some of the benefits of democracy which should not be written off at every moment of individual dissatisfaction with what democracy offers at a point in time. We may have some distance to go, but we sure have started out on the journey.
For Nigeria's democracy, the expectation is not out of place that having for the first time thrived for ten uninterrupted years, the next phase in the evolutionary process will be marked by greater deepening of the fundamentals of the system. The new phase in the scheme of development of democracy in the land will expectedly be that in which various inelegant thrusts of the system during the past decade will steadily be fine-tuned, such that actions and steps that are not in consonance with the culture of democracy will cease to be explained away as manifestations of a nascent system.
It is important to state here without wasting time that there is nothing automatic in this evolutionary process and expectation. The commitment of the various stakeholders to the development of the culture and structure of representative democracy must remain consistent and uncompromised. That is the only way to achieve a realistic symmetry between the ideals we aspire to and what we have before us on the practical realm.
The common recourse today by some of the regular critics of Nigeria's electoral process to comparisons with processes and outcome of elections in other countries and systems without first establishing similarity in the systems being compared reflect a lack of rigour and penchant for playing to the gallery. As Mathew Hassan Kukah had cause to observe once, "The only thing we seem committed to is unrelenting cynicism which we parade as a landmark of honour". This tendency does not begin in any way to address our problems.
Except for India and Australia which are federal states in the same mold with Nigeria, most other countries which traducers of Nigeria's electoral process easily compare their elections with Nigeria's are entirely on different structural orbits. There is indeed no central election management body in either United States of America or United Kingdom. Elections in these countries are conducted at state levels and the outcome pulled together nationally. And these are countries with far more developed logistics management systems and general infrastructure.
Beyond this fundamental difference in structure, the rules guiding elections and politics in the societies we love to refer to are stringently adhered to by the participants. The regulation on campaign finances (donations and expenditure) in United States of America for instance, is so strictly adhered to that it will be a grave risk for a candidate to try to circumvent the law.
Before the 2007 elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission produced a campaign finance manual based on the provisions of the law. The Commission sought thereafter to ensure compliance by the political parties and candidates to the expenditure limits the law established. Unlike what obtains in the systems and countries we love to refer to, no other group, not even the media showed interest in following through this initiative to rein in campaign expenditure and the obscene deployment of money in our politics.
Thus it was that in the elections of 2007 in particular, some participants in the electoral process, including elected public servants had amassed such wealth and personal troops that placed them in enough strong position to challenge the government in any front necessary. And some of them did. The scenario of heavy deployment of money to determine the outcome of elections or better still to subvert the will of the majority reinforced the point the Commission had consistently harped on that the excessive use of money is among the most pernicious impacts on elections in Nigeria. In the systems and countries the critics of our system love to refer to, such is not the case.
The danger inherent in the excessive use of money in politics manifests in several corrosive dimensions. For one, with such money, there is no level playing field in an electoral contest anymore. It is also a fact in most instances that those who deploy such excessive wealth for elections always lack restraint and so seek to buy off everything including the electorate and the election personnel. A greater threat to democracy and the voice it offers the majority can hardly be found.
Apart from the danger of excessive use of money in politics, the Commission had identified three other broad issues that continue to bog down the environment of elections in Nigeria. The other factors are the threat and actual unleashing of violence as a strategy to gain upper hands during elections; the inequity in gender participation in politics and finally, the mindset of Nigerians about elections. The last refers to the set disposition in Nigerians on what can be done to win elections, how to behave in politics and elections and the perception of officials of the election management authority.
The problems confronting the electoral process in Nigeria stretch from the provisions of the law to human elements. While the former is crucial in establishing a solid framework for the operation of the system, the latter is no les crucial.Indeed,it could be more important in the overall interpretation and practical delivery of successful outcomes of the system.
In the period after the 2007 elections - which were conducted in very trying circumstances both for the election management body - and especially with the initiative taken by President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua on electoral reform, so much political issue has been made of electoral reforms, most of the emphasis being on the provisions of the law guiding the electoral process. The law is important, but the attitude and conduct of the stakeholders and operators of the system count for much of the success that can ever be expected out of the system, reformed or not.
Without doubts the 2007 elections were confronted with sundry loopholes and rather confusing legal interpretations of the laws guiding the conduct of the elections. One of the outstanding cases over which critics of the Commission have been most uncharitable concerned the initial exclusion of some aspirants, including the then Vice President Atiku Abubakar from contesting in the election. The Commission does not, of course, operate outside the laws of the country. The extant law as of the time of preparation for the 2007 election was that any person indicted by an administrative inquiry by the government automatically did not qualify to contest for election. The Federal Government had come out with a White Paper containing those that its administrative panels indicted for sundry offences which disqualified them for contesting in the elections. Subsequently, the Attorney General of the Federation communicated the Commission on the provisions of the law on the matter. It remains a puzzle that some still argue that the Commission should have ignored the provisions of the law and the information from the attorney general on the matter.
As if this was not enough, when some of those who were excluded at that material time went to the court to seek relief, the court up to the Appeal Court reaffirmed the law as was communicated to the Commission. The reversal of the ruling of the Appeal Court by the Supreme Court on June 16, 2007, barely five days to the presidential election could not have made the Commission lawless in actions that had had the full backing of the law till then.
The lack of financial autonomy by the election management body presented another critical challenge in the preparation for the 2007 elections. The delay, seemingly willful by relevant arms organs of the government to release funds already appropriated for the elections meant that the Commission wasted so much time and energy in chasing after the funds to execute vital aspects of programmes for the elections.
Perhaps nothing reflects the poor planning of the state for elections than the practice of releasing the bulk of the money for the preparation for elections few months to the polls. This practice which still persists denies the election management body the opportunity of planning ahead and procuring needed materials for elections in measured pace. During the preparation for the 2007 election, the costly import of this practice was poignantly driven home when the order for the Direct Data Capture equipment for registration of voters could not be fully secured as of the date the registration exercise was billed to commence. It took the intervention of a patriot to rescue the nation and the Commission in that instane.But the emergency could not have arisen if the fund for the equipment had been available much earlier and the order made much earlier.
But by far the greatest threat to the preparations for the 2007 elections and indeed the political stability of the nation about the time was the crisis in the ruling party which escalated into the unprecedented split in the Presidency. The crisis did not only increase the political temperature of the nation, it rendered the work of the electoral commission more difficult as every decision the Commission took was challenged and suspected by the warring parties in the ruling party. As it turned out, there was ample reason to believe that many within the political class both from the government and the so-called opposition did not want the election to hold for different reasons. The Commission found itself swimming against the tide. Worse still, the tide came from more than one direction.A situation could not be worse for preparation for a general election.
Many of those who today criticize the conduct of the 2007 election and wished that it had been as smooth as that in some of the countries they point to conveniently forget the very circumstances in which the 2007 elections were conducted. For all the challenges and impediments, the Commission was resolute that the election must be held. And it was held. Had that not been done, the country would have once more succumbed to the jinx of not managing to transit from one government that had completed its full term to another. Thank God that jinx was broken. Today we can talk of the shortcomings of the 2007 elections, but there is can never be an issue again of the country struggling to overcome a transition election.
For obvious reasons the crisis in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party presented a bigger problem for the country and preparations for the 2007 elections. But many of the other political parties were not in any better condition. Propelled by a desire to broaden the political space and reduce tension inherent in the struggle for tickets and foothold in few parties, the Commission had granted registration to more parties preparatory to the elections. As at the commencement of the 2007 elections therefore, there were fifty political parties. Unfortunately, many of the parties had factions and splinters within them.There were no way most of the parties could meaningfully contest for electoral success.Indeed, there were some of them with no known foothold anywhere.
Caught in internal wrangling as many of the parties were, they could hardly carry out such duties as voter education and public enlightenment which political parties are expected to do. The situation left the electorate worse off, with the Commission now saddled also with voter education and enlightenment programmes including basic information dissemination on the names and logos of the political parties.
At the same as they were mired in internal struggles or perhaps because of that, virtually all the political parties showed no respect for internal democracy. In many of the parties there was no democratic selection of candidates. In some others , the primaries were conducted but the results were thrown overboard as the party leaders whimsically picked those they liked as candidates whether they won the primaries or not. The law had excluded the omission from having any control over such affairs of the political parties. They were termed internal party affairs. In the fullness of time, the internal party affairs led to no little grief from some of its products. Strangely enough, the Commission found itself been criticized by some for some of the decisions and actions of the parties which derived from their exclusive internal affairs.
Any reform of the electoral system which does not find a way to strengthen the political parties and also ensure strict compliance by their executives and members to the rules guiding them will have missed a very critical aspect of the problem of Nigeria's political process.
Indeed there are three key stakeholders in the electoral process; the political parties/political class, the election management body and the electorate. These exist under the overarching laws that guide conduct within the system. Any reform that does not extend to all of these stakeholders will be incomplete.
The Commission, mindful of its own lapses and needs has indeed been reforming itself and its operations in the last four years. In the wake of the 2007 elections and its experiences, the Commission moved swiftly to make some fundamental changes. It promptly dropped the use of ad hoc staff drawn from the open society for the conduct of elections. Since the Commission cannot raise enough personnel to conduct general election across the country from its staff strength, the use of support personnel from outside specially drawn for the conduct of elections has always been there. With a number of the ad hoc staff proving to be agents of politicians, the Commission has abolished their use and their place taken in National Youth Service Corp members. Encouragingly; these have shown great promise in the by-elections that have been part of since after the 2007 elections.
I am here to present to you a proposal for you to participate actively in the strengthening of electoral democracy in Nigeria. Because of the large number of staff required for general elections, in addition to the NYSC members, I propose that members of the NSCU should partner with INEC to provide the additional staff needed from members of the Union. This means that the elections will be manned by INEC staff, youth corps personnel and members of the NSCU. In the proposed partnership, the Commission could begin from the 3rd quarter of 2009 to train and retrain the needed additional personnel for the 2011 elections. The Electoral Institute, which was established in 2005 as our main capacity building organ will undertake the training of both the NYSC personnel and members of your Union in electoral studies. If this proposal is acceptable to you, the Commission will work out the modalities of the arrangement with your leadership as soon as possible.
The Commission has recommended and is pursuing the idea of staggering the elections. The immediate benefit of this arrangement is that it will afford the Commission better logistics management and more efficient deployment of manpower for the conduct of elections.
The 2007 general elections were a great challenge to the Commission and the nation. There were lapses, no doubt, as is often the case with human endeavours, but the accomplishment of the elections outweighs the shortcomings by far.As was noted in the Official Report on the 2007 General Elections, "Elections the world over are not mere events; they are processes planned over a period of time.Planning,as experience has shown yields positive results". The Commission has learnt its lesions and the quality of re-run elections it has conducted after the 2007 elections testify to continued enhancement of the electoral process in the country.
But the Independent National Electoral commission is not the owner of Nigeria's democracy. It is only the facilitating institution of the electoral process. Such resort by a tribe of uncritical critics to outright denial of the incremental progress of the country in its quest for political development either because of a temporary failure of one or few individuals to attain their political ambition at the moment or as a result of a personal disappointment that the system has not yet delivered on a desired expectation is neither helpful to the system nor to the individual.
Even as we hold firmly and candidly that attaining ten years of uninterrupted democracy is a milestone for Nigeria or that the success of transiting from one elected government that completed its full terms to another is historic or that representative governance at its worse is still better than a dictatorship, the truth also remains that the political system in the country could do better both in structural efficiency and in delivery of the dividends of democracy.
By organizing such a forum as this to gain insight into the real problems of the electoral process and then proceed there from to seek an enduring solutions to the problems that drag back the system, the Nigerian Civil Service Union is boldly making a claim that all well meaning Nigerians should make; that indeed this is our democracy and setting it on the path to sustainability is the duty of all of us.
Thank you and God bless Nigeria.
Excerpts of a lecture presented by Professor Iwu, Chairman, Independent National Electoral Commission at the Pre-conference seminar of the Quadrennial Delegates Conference of the Nigeria Civil Society Union in Enugu, July 1,2009
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
