Periodic elections are a vital ingredient of the practice of Democracy all over the civilized world. One of the acclaimed benefits of the practice of Democracy is peaceful change of leadership via free and fair elections. Thus it is indisputable that sound electoral rules and practice are an indispensable element of democratic governance.

In a heterogeneous society like Nigeria having a Federal Constitution sound electoral rules that guarantee free and fair elections are vital to confidence of the peoples and components in the entire Federal polity and even the stability thereof. The Independence and impartiality of the operators of the electoral system is also of the greatest importance since the success or otherwise of any process, rules or game especially on the commitment of its operators to principles of independence transparency and fairness.   

1. The people must be active participants in effecting change of  government by exercise of choice in elections.
2. Elections must be due at stated periodic intervals i.e. Tenure of government must be fixed.
3. Provision should be made for contingent changes that may arise before elections are due e.g. bye-election and re-call.
4. Electoral body must be independent, have security of tenure and be non- partisan.
5. The process must be transparent (and observable).
6. It must be free and fair i.e. Universal Adult Suffrage for voting and clear rules of candidature.
7. There must be machinery for resolution of pre and post election disputes.
8. Fundamental and difficult issues of governance should be decided by referendum.
    
   Free Elections constitutes and remains a major challenge to stability and democratic practice in almost all developing countries especially Nigeria. It is in the setting of developing countries that the imperfections of elections as a method of attaining power/ ruler ship and of changing governments are most vivid. In the case of governments like the present Nigerian Government which emerged from a change or transition from Military dictatorship, it was always made clear that compliance with the electoral norms adumbrated above was secondary to the imperative of the change.
    
   In fact a renowned Military Dictator- Nigeria’s Ibrahim Babangida openly declared that “we know those we will not hand over power but we do not know those we will” but all, in and outside Nigeria appreciated the compelling imperative of military disengagement from governance. Thus a cursory examination of the program and governing statutes applied by any typical military dictator forced to yield place to civilians through democratic election shows flagrant violation of some of the above tenets of democratic electoral practice.
    
   Hence there is some justification for the declaration by some Nigerian Politicians that the military are incompetent to midwife democracy and that they should yield place to an Interim Civilian government that will be in power to superintend elections and other processes of transition from military to civilian rule. But the reality of life is that those in power are always sensitive to avoid handing over political power to their avowed political enemies. Hence the deliberate subtle manipulation of both the process and the personnel to ensure victory for their favored candidates at elections. The frequent claim to neutrality remains mere propaganda aimed at securing integrity for the process at least in the eagle eyes of the International Community.
    
   It has therefore been observed that in Nigeria the 1999 General Elections merely signifies the commencement of transition to democratic Rule and is not the transition itself but was only condoned by democrats and all in order to avert further excuse of the Military to hang on to power. This is all the more obvious to any objective observer when the following considerations are noted:
   1.        The polite given birth to by the transition has been largely unstable.

   2.        Numerous Issues of vital importance were swept under the carpet by the vacating military junta e.g. census.

   3.        The majorities of elected officials are military apologists or even retired military officers with anti-democratic corrupt or even criminal antecedents.

   4.        Deliberate efforts was made to conceal the antecedents (including educational qualifications) of those elected resulting in the emergency of mediocres, treasury looters and anti-democracy / military apologists into vital national offices.

   5.        Free choices which is inherited in democratic practice is a mirage in any poverty ravaged disease ridden and largely illiterate populations like Nigeria hence the richest candidates (with few exceptions) won exemplifying the manipulative role of money in the electoral process.

   6.        There was subtle and patent dictation to the electoral body from the ruling junta and the word “Independent” was deliberately added in the name as a smoke screen to confuse unsuspecting International Observers.

   7.        The grievance resolution process established before and after the elections were deliberately rendered ineffective e.g. by publication of statute governing elections AFTER limitations and hearing periods for election disputes.

   8.        There was mandatory registration of political parties and no provision for independent candidatures. There is evidence in the case of Nigeria’s Abubakar 1999 elections that a party which fell short of registration guidelines was registered at the intervention of the incumbent government.

    

   These remain blots on the practice of democracy in Nigeria but although some journalists have unwittingly introduced their wrong description of the Nigerian democracy as NASCENT it must be admitted that the preferred term of usage should be “fledging” because democratic practice in Nigeria is as old (if not older) than the Nigerian State itself.

    

   In our quest for a sound electoral process and in order to guarantee the integrity of future transition to a more stable polity the observed blot must be addressed. This is the crux of the challenge before the minority Nigerian elite today.

    

   The blots were considered during the 1999 elections because of the almost unanimous burning desire of Nigerians and the International Community to rid the military from governance but they would certainly be a ready tool of attack by a loser on the integrity of any future elections. Hence the much published proposed review of the Electoral Law by Independent Electoral Commission is a timely and welcome effort.

    

   It could be observed in retrospect that it was not so much the love of Nigerians and the Military for democracy but the total disenchantment of the entire Nigeria Society with Military rule and the brazen face of oppression of individuals and entities especially state-sponsored assassinations, manipulation of electoral processes brazen corruption, tribal and religious discrimination and most importantly the Abacha agenda of self – succession that impelled the temporary alliance of the Nigerian Political elite to get rid of the military not particularly caring about the details of the process and the resulting imposition of military apologists (and retired military officers) and treasury looters as successors and beneficiaries of the new democratic order.

    

   Little wonder the almost immediate violent expression of disenchantment with the polity and the very great disparity between the expectations of the masses and the actuality on the ground. Apart from freedom of expression (wrongly interpreted to encompass freedom to declare and propagate secession and disintegration) the Nigerian Masses are yet to point to any socio-economic gains brought about by the new civilian administration. Grinding poverty has remained endemic and unabated while the gap between the rich and the poor widens daily. The easiest index is the exchange rate of the Naira which has remained unaffected by the democratic changes but no more can be said here on this.

    

   There cannot be any reasonable expectation for sustenance of democracy in Nigeria in the short run unless certain fundamental matters are expressly agreed rather than assumed. The vocal Nigerian Political Elite has refused to attribute permanence to the 1999 military-imposed constitution. Some are spoiling for a peaceful disintegration drawing strength and inspiration from analogy with the disintegration of the Soviet and Yugoslavia Republics.

    

   Others prefer excision of the so-called core (desert) North as proposed by Gideon Orkar while others have declared secession although unable to actualize same. It has become obvious that the failure of Abubakar  Administration to effect genuine forgiveness and reconciliation particularly the arrogance of the Northern-dominated Military who failed to pay reparations and otherwise assuage the hurt inflicted by them on the Southern peoples and institutions is s booby- trap our fragile polity.

    

   Obasanjo Regime’s rejection of the South African model of truth and Reconciliation and his set up of a deliberated Oputa Human Rights Violations Panel evidences the lack of remorse of the Military for their Human Rights atrocities and gross mis-rule. But there can be no restoration of confidence and genuine peace without forgiveness, reconciliation and restitution.

    

   The concession of presidency to a Southern-Christian doesn’t seem to constitute a total answer to the problem of power domination and stability. The deletion of the Rotational Presidency Clause from the Constitutional by Abdulsalam Abubakar has further compounded the situation by fueling suspicion that the concession of power to the South is only temporary. Viewed along with the prospect that the populous Ibos of Southern Nigeria would continue to be excluded from Presidency the fragility of the entire Nigerian Polity becomes more vivid.

   The fact is that Babangida, Abacha and Abubakar (all caliphate irredentists) frittered away Nigeria’s opportunity to pursue effect and sustain true Nationhood which notwithstanding democratic governance remains the real challenge of the Nigerian Polity and hence the National Question today. It is impracticable to expect Obasanjo (himself a retired Army General) in so short a time to correct what his predecessors have broken up or heal the wounds inflicted in the hearts of Southerners.

    

   But neither Confederation nor disintegration seems to offer an attractive alternative and this constitutes the question before the Sovereign National Conference protagonists today. The urgent review of the 1999 Constitution by the National Assembly appears to offer a ray of hope for the sustenance of democracy and the commencement of the thorny road to Nationhood. This will (as usual) take the heat off the case of those agitating for Sovereign National Conference but whose real motive is disintegration of the Nigerian State.

    

   It is unfortunate that the leadership of the civil society especially among the vocal Yorubas of the South allowed themselves to be lured by Abubakar into unconditional participation in his Transition program while reneging on the earlier insistence on Sovereign National Conference. One would have thought that those who contested elections especially the Presidential Election had read and understood the 1999 Constitution and would have declined have declined participation if its terms were so flagrantly disadvantageous.

    

   Rather, the entire Northern and Southern Minorities as well as the populous Ibo enthusiastically participated in the Elections through the Peoples Democratic Party- a Party founded mainly by Southerners but now hijacked by Northerners. That Party had nothing like Sovereign National Conference in its manifesto and the President never promised it in his campaigns. The Yorubas were compelled to go it solo by forming at the last minute their own party and voting en-mass for it in spite of the obvious slight chance it had in the national scheme of things.

    

   The Ibos gunned for the “Winning” Party at the Center- the P.D.P. (“Beautiful Bride” Again?) My own conclusion from this is that only the Yoruba demonstrated courage to “stand alone” electorally in demonstration of their quest for self- determination and their readiness to opt out of the Federation. There is no guarantee that the voting pattern will not repeat itself at the much- vaunted Sovereign National Conference.         

    

   The sustenance of Democracy arid by implication the Nigerian Nation in the nearest future can therefore be hinged in certain crucial factors/imperatives achievable through urgent Constitutional Amendment as well as Legislative and Administrative efforts.

    

   1. The retention of the Centri- petal concept of the Constitution in contrast to Federalism as practiced in U.S.A and Australia which is centri-fugal.
   2. The immediate review of the revenge allocation formula to increase the factor of derivation to 50%.
   3. The re-constitution of Oputa Human Rights Panel  and its re-orientation as a reconciliatory rather than an accusatory forum in the mold of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
   4. Constitutional Amendment to reflect the following:
                                  (a)      Emphasis on the secular nature of the Nigerian Polity.

                                  (b)      Inclusion of Rotational Presidency.

                                  (c)       Constitutional Court.

                                  (d)      Abolition of Land Use Decree and NYSC.

                                  (e)       Review of Legislative lists.

                                  (f)        State Police.

       

      5. Niger Delta Problem.  
      6. Re-organization and Re-structuring of the Nigerian Military and the police.
      7. Sanction of Treasury Looters and Constitution /Human Rights Violators by disqualification from Public Office and recovery of loot.
          
         The proposed electoral reforms must take account of the earlier stated criticisms of Akpata INEC although we must resist the temptation to treat in isolation the issue of periodic free and fair elections as a panacea to Nigeria’s problems. Nevertheless any future election in Nigeria must guarantee the following:
         1.  Free and Fair election based on Universal Adult Suffrage but in the peculiar Nigerian environment excluding treasury looters and Constitutional Violators from contesting but permitting Independent Candidature.

         2.  Vibrant Political Party System responsible for training, equipping, selecting / screening candidates for government offices while monitoring their performance and conduct after election.

         3.  Anti-Election rigging devices like the requirement of citizen Registration Cards for eligibility to vote as well as the open ballot system. The perennial malaise of massive election rigging in the North especially under cover of Islamic purdah must be urgently addressed being inimical to goal of restoration of confidence of the entire South in the electoral system.

         4.  Adequate screening and monitoring of candidates to eliminate laundering of drug and treasury loot for party and individual campaign funds exclude treasury looters as well as ensure qualification of candidates under the relevant statues.

         5.  Use of unorthodox electoral safeguards e.g. Computers and deployment of judicial officers and University Dons as electoral officers.

          

         Bearing in mind that the Federal Election Crisis of 1964-65 as well as the Western Regional Election Crisis of1965 provided favorable environment for military intervention in January 15, 1966, the importance of free and fair election to the sustenance of Nigeria’s fragile polity and fledging democracy cannot be over-emphasized but the influence of the prevailing matrix cannot be discounted.

          

         Any factor in the system that may promote the Centri-fugal forces and opinions thereby making separatism attractive must be addressed while factors and forces that emphasis patriotism unity co-operation the Rule of Law, democratic rules as well as a healthy national orientation must actively engage the attention of leaders in and out of governance. 
         

         (First published August 2001)

Robot  # 1 | 17.05.2007 11:45

var sbtitle4052=encodeURIComponent(THE IMPERAT...Read the full article.