01 Aug 2009 |
|
A case for a meaningful electoral reform. The level of turnout in general elections in Nigeria over the years, which is encouraging, points to one fact: That Nigerians prefer the democratic system of electing their leaders over any other form practised in recent years. This explains why they always head to the polls with great expectations, but it must be acknowledged that this expectation has never been met even once, at least in my life time. These disappointment does not call for a change of system, but a commitment by the players to building a more durable and transparent system that meets these expectations of Nigerians. Bearing in mind that not even the great democracies around the world started out great, they evolved over the years through their commitment to reforms. The disappointment may have been of lack of progress in governance, but the greater one is the lack of any visible commitment to improvement and transparency. Thus it is fair to say that most, if not all, the problems that were dominant in our political system at the start of the present experiment in 1999 are still there, if not increased. It is thus very important that as the legislature considers a reform of the electoral system that they aim at creating a system with more level playing field that will enable a fair electoral outcome. The inbalance in our electoral system is the most contributor to the wide gap between elected office holder in the more advanced democracies and ours, for while office holders in these countries know that they drive their power from the voters, it is not quite same in our system. Thus, it is most urgent that we move towards a more transparent system, for until there is a fair system that makes office holders pay more difference to their electorate while carrying out their duties by being result oriented ( not slogans), there will hardly be any meaningful human and infrastructural development. It is hard to point to any blissful end to the current system; it’s only prolonging disillusion and disorder. The lawmakers may well consider some changes in these, which played significant roles in our political system: nomination of party standard bearers at all levels, voter registration, campaign spending and contributions and legal fees in electoral disputes. Let’s start with the current method of electing party candidates, it will be delusional to think that a system that when simplified amounts to a few kingmakers distributing party nomination to their cronies/loyalists will ever lead to progress now or in the future. One may ask, why should an elected office holder be concerned with carrying out his/her duties in a way that has maximum positive impact on his/her constituents if it’s in direct opposition to what the kingmaker wants (i can assure you it’s always so), when the party nomination and in large party the general election proper does not depend on these voters/constituents? I will be interested to get a reasonable answer! The truth is that until party candidates are nominated by all voters in the constituency, who belong to the party , in a election conducted by an independent electoral body, INEC in this case (yes that same one), it will be hard to see why any politician should focus on working for the people and not self interest and his/her kingmaker. After all we say that ‘he who pay the piper, dictate the tone’, let’s make the voters the pay masters, and thus dictate the tone. Then there is the problem of voter registration. The practise has been to rush to register voters just few months before the election, which breeds a lot of problems that includes voter’s inability to get their registration/voter card before election, mistakes in voter identity, multiple registration, cost and lots more. While this was good for a starting point, one sees no reason we have not moved on to a more continuous process, that provides an opportunity to people to register through the years before election at the INEC offices in each local government, with a deadline before the election. In these offices a database of voters for all voting stations within the local government are maintained. This system allows a voter to register at his/her convince and have his/her voter card in time for the election, while also allowing INEC officials to do a better job of registration and distribution of voter cards and also eliminate the need for registration if one have not changed location. The problem of taking care of people who are not able or willing to travel the distance to register , will be taken care of by having a more limited registration centres within towns within the local government months before the election or by rotating INEC registration staff for say a two weeks exercise for town through the years before election. This method surely reduces the huge cost that is needed to organise the crash registration exercise as we do have now and at the same time produces a better result. Then during the party nomination/primary elections, we could go with having voters indicate their party preference in a separate database and thus only allowed to vote for their party nomination or voters indicating the party to part-take in during nomination. In either case a voter has the chance of part taking in only one party nomination. This of course, could vary from state to state to better serve each state depending on its geography and make up, since we have a federal system. If well designed and applied, this kind of method will reduce, if not eliminate, the influence of kingmakers and enhance the influence of voters in deciding their leaders. There is also the issue of whether elections should be for the highest bidder. This will not have being much problem if not the question of how the funds for this bid are generated. Currently, our system as it operates today, when simply put is just a case where a candidate with personal wealth and wealthy friends out bids every other person in the field. This is exactly the major problem in our system. Upon reflection, one wonders how a rational person, no matter how honest and morally upright, can invest ( yes that’s what it is) say 50 million Naira (think of Mr Okorocha with all this investments in past elections, Mr Andy Uba distributing over 200 vehicles to party members in Anambra), to win say a governorship , presidency or to be a senator that pays less than 16 million Naira over four years, and not recouping his/her investment? The number doesn’t add up and I see no one who can do it in any country, not just in Nigeria. Another look at the system as it is now, will pop out this question: Do we believe that somebody who contributed say 100,000 Naira to a benefactor’s election without expecting anything in return? Again, how can one campaign and defeat a setting governor or president with access to state fund for his/her re-election, no matter how poorly he/she has performed and how unpopular he/she is? A serious answer to these is a reform of the electoral laws that fixes these flaws that drag the whole system down. A reform should look at ways for capping the highest total amount an individual can spend in his/her election campaign, the highest amount of contribution to an individual candidate and party and also separate the personal ambitions of elected office holders and the tax payers fund. It is an aberration, immoral and nonsensical that a politician will pursue their ambition with fax payer’s fund, especially and in spite of the fact that these tax payers disapproves of the job performance of these politicians. Any system without a level playing field through which non performing office holders are voted out, will never work and will in the long run lead to violence and disruption. Another very disturbing practice within our system that needs fixing is the issue of legal fees due to election disputes and other associated election fees. What obtains today is a case where one rigs an election, got sworn in and then use tax payers fund to sustain his/herself in office. It is not surprising then that most elections, which have great rigging imprints, are never overturned. While one will not make the claim that this is the only reason (loopholes in out law that makes it hard to prove malpractices plays a large part and should also be fixed), using an unlimited fund, meant for service provision to the people, to prolong trails such that an opponent without access to such unlimited fund usually withdraws. This has proved a good strategy (remember Mr Ngige) that just few with enormous personal wealth can overcome- Mr Obi comes to mind. The law should look at requiring such legal fees due to election disputes and even ethics be funded by those who believe in the candidate, with a cap on the maximum total. This allows only candidates with large following, thus could raise larger fund, to win elections and also to be able to sustain their case in court. A requirement such as this levels the playing field and thus encouraging a fair election. Meanwhile, a reformed electoral system should better equip INEC and the general public to bring fairness to the system to political process. The general public by not unknowingly sustaining a non performing government and also having access to all information about any contributor to any candidate, should they wish to inquire. INEC by requiring all candidates to update all their financial record (with names of contributors, detailed record on how and where it was used). It makes more sense if a reform produces a system that treats campaign contributions are not treated as a private property, but a public property that should never be used for private purposes. This makes it important that at the end of a political career, a candidate returns all remaining fund to the public (INEC in this regard)- the idea of treating campaign contributions as private property creates a moral hazard , such as Mr Yar’adua enlisting campaign contributions as his personal property in his asset declaration. If such continues, it will then not be surprising if soon we start having people pretend to be running for office, raise lots of money, only to drop out with millions in the bank! For us to get to an electoral system that is fair to all parties and players, that meets the expectations of our people and best serve them will not be easy, but not impossible. It will only be hard, if not impossible, should we refuse to continually innovate and reform. Over the years we Nigerians has been very indifferent to the political process, neglecting how it affects our daily lives directly and the direct threat it posed to our individual future and probably wishing that one day the heavens will open and those charged with captaining our ship to posterity will become sensible and sensitive to our need, but we fail to notice that buried in the history of these democracies around the world that are admirable, was a struggle to create it. A fight fought by their forefathers, should will then choose to emulate what we admire, we should also be ready to fight for it. At least one does not expect a sitting president, governor or legislator to sign a bill that removes his in-built advantages without a huge public pressure and mass mobilization. We can choose to hand over to the coming generations an improved political system from what we inherited from a former generation, a generation Mr Soyinka called a wasted generation, if we are ready to fight for it or we can choose to sit and complain and then pass an inefficient system , with window dressing to the coming generation-i can assure you they will not be grateful for it. Obimma Ambrose.
|
|||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.