The candidates
By Reuben Abati

OUR fixation with the politics of the Presidency, likely 2007 candidates, and the destination of power at the centre would seem to have robbed us of an opportunity to assess the community of candidates that are emerging at the other levels: from state to National Assembly, House of Assembly and local councils. In earnest, the scrambling for power and attention has started. The poster war is picking up, public relations agencies and consultants are beginning to position their candidates, the power-seekers themselves are already negotiating with political parties in search of possible nomination and eventual victory. It is a process that is worth examining both for its character and import.

I regret to report that the view from this observatory again, seven years into democracy, two major elections later, is that nothing has changed. The professional political class does not appear to have learnt any lessons; there is no deliberate attempt at individual and party levels to protect the integrity of the electoral process. What is on display is raw ambition. What is going on in political quarters in the name of home-work by candidates is neither driven by ideas nor issues. I have tried to take a look at some of the so-called aspirants. They seem to be more interested in the excitement of politics for its own sake; many of the candidates are interested in posing for photographs and appearing in the media; they have no idea about what exactly they intend to do with power should they be elected.

I have read at least more than five interviews in which the would-be candidate, asked why he is seeking elective office declared that he is interested because his people have asked him to run for a position. Are we in 2007 going to have reluctant candidates who are seeking office for the fun of it, who are not sure that they really want the position? One other candidate revealed that he is getting involved in politics because his wife has asked him to do so! The wife obviously would like to be a First Lady somewhere, even at a local council. The truth of our circumstances in terms of the quality of emerging candidates at the lower levels is sad. Leadership recruitment and succession remains a sore point in Nigeria's governance process. What has not changed?

The Godfather syndrome: One of the major revelations of the past seven years has been the negative impact of self-appointed Godfathers who in parts of the country seized the reins of power and turned themselves into mini-gods that should be worshipped. These Godfathers are kept at state expense; they dictate the direction of governance, they use state resources for political patronage. In the states where the elected persons failed to dance to their tunes, the Godfathers organised mayhem and made it impossible for such Governors to make progress. Principled Council Chairmen and political appointees suffered a similar fate. As we move towards the next elections, the Godfathers are back in business. If you listen well enough, you would hear frustrating stories about how only the candidates that are anointed by the Godfathers either of the party or the community are the ones that can win any elections. The Godfather is a generic label covering all sorts of persons who exercise veto power over Nigerian politics at either individual or group levels. They include traditional rulers; local thugs, transport owners, and even sitting Governors who have managed to impose themselves on their parties as overlords.

Preaching to a Nigerian politician not to have a Godfather is pointless. You are likely to be reminded that the major challenge is to know how to manage your Godfather; only those who mismanage their Godfathers, who fail to play the right kind of politics get into trouble. The Godfathers know that they wield this power over the mind of office-seekers and they help to promote the myth. In 1999, political aspirants took money to Godfathers who collected the "facilitation fee" and did nothing! The continued influence of Godfathers represents a kind of victory for the Adedibu/Ubah factor in Nigerian politics. It is by general proclamation, at the root of the underdeveloped nature of Nigerian politics.

The father-son-daughter syndrome and Kabiyesi effect: Between 1999 and 2006, we have witnessed how influential persons and families organised political positions and opportunities for their sons and daughters. It did not matter whether such sons and daughters had the ability or not. Merit was routinely sacrificed, nepotism was turned into a state policy as Godfathers insisted that their own children should enjoy the spoils of democracy. Unfortunately at the centre, President Obasanjo encouraged this strange policy. He gave positions to scions of dynasties, the children of friends or prominent families, and even where some of these boys and girls gave good account of themselves, there was widespread concern that they were beneficiaries of a culture of in-breeding in Nigerian politics. In the states, Governors and local council Chairmen also bent backwards to offer carrots to supposedly influential families. Many of these families have since lost touch with the people, and do not represent any popular aspiration, but they continue to exploit old myths for present advantages. Seeing that it helps to parade a popular family name, there are many aspirants now on the field who are tracing their genealogical roots even to the seventh degree. This idol-worshipping of the dead as a tool of political negotiation reduces the attention that is paid to the living!

Closely related to this is the Kabiyesi effect which is based on the assumption that any sign of association with a traditional power base is a sign of popularity in the community. And so., there is a big scramble for chieftaincy titles. Every other aspirant is an Olori or Chief (Mrs) or High Chief, or Otunba,, Double Chief,, Triple Chief, Ogbuefi, Asiwaju or Eze. Not too many aspirants are using the title Mr or Mrs. That is too ordinary. To win an election in Nigeria, it pays to have a chain of chieftaincy titles. There are even contractors who help to arrange these titles, for a fee of course, and in virtually all palaces, there is a special programme during election time for politicians. In some of the notorious palaces, the titles that are conferred on these politicians are actually meaningless, and of no relevance whatsoever to the community, just some loud-sounding nonsense. But considering the pomp that often accompanies the installation of these titles, it is clear that the politicians do not really mind. One fellow was given a title which when translated into English means the "messenger of the palace" and yet he organised parties for three days non-stop to celebrate this. In times past, palace messengers were eunuchs who had been deliberately castrated in order to prevent them from doing any harm to the king's numerous wives!. I hope the particular palace messenger would soon realise the full import of his title!

Rigging: Despite INEC's repeated assurances that elections in 2007 would be free and fair, even the blind can see that Nigerian politicians are not talking about electoral integrity. The song on their lips is that it is better to start rigging the process even from within the party. No Nigerian politician would want to be the complainant in an election petition if he or she can help it. INEC alone cannot ensure free and fair elections. It needs the co-operation of the political parties as well. Is there any political party in this country at the moment that is talking about free and fair elections? Certainly, not the PDP. Since 1999, every election in this country has brought newer and more sophisticated methods of rigging. In 1999, election monitors identified about 33 methods of election rigging in Nigeria. By 2003, the number had grown to about 55. Is anyone in doubt that by 2007, Nigerian politicians and their agents would again have found ways of increased their glossary of rigging methods? .

Violence: That there would be an outbreak of violence before, during and after the 2007 elections is as certain as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. By violence, I do not necessarily mean large-scale anarchy, but incidents of assassination, physical combat, theft of election materials, intimidation of voters, abduction of election officials, these are all forms of violence which on the long run could translate into yet another discounting of the electorate. The elections in 2007 are particularly critical because they would represent the true transition from one civilian government to the other. There would be a change of baton and personnel at the centre; without any over-arching influence of the powers of incumbency; the competition for power on 2007 would be about the past and the future.

The kind of prominence that thugs and henchmen are currently enjoying on the political landscape under the banner of different organisations points to the level of desperation in political circles. Nigerians have a winner-takes-it-all mentality. They would kill to win a political post because government is still the biggest business in the country. With unemployment running into double-digits alongside inflation, many would-be aspirants are not looking for an opportunity to serve the fatherland, but access to the public treasury so that they too can eat their share of the proverbial national cake. Whoever tries to stand in their way, runs the risk of a violent attack, blackmail or intimidation. We can look forward to a surfeit of dirty tactics in the days ahead.

Exclusion: Nigerian politics is hampered by a widespread, cynical resort to the game of exclusion. It happens all the time. Godfathers exclude the people and hijack their constitutional rights. Political party processes exclude women who are unable to provide thugs or hold meetings at odd hours. The monetisation of politics is perhaps the biggest threat to participatory democracy. The Electoral Act 2006 addresses this mischief by providing regulations on campaign funding and stipulating limits, but can INEC monitor, and can the police enforce this regulation? The bulk of the money that is spent by politicians seeking to compromise the process is undocumented. Money exchanges hands under the table and the principal recipients are the same persons whose duty is to ensure integrity and due process. The people are further alienated by the ever-present fear of uncertainty and the perennial problem of logistics on the part of INEC: voters' materials never arrive on time and every election, voting does not take part in many places, and yet election results are provided for such places.

The failure of institutions: the foregoing leads naturally to the problem of institutions. We still do not have a functional governance system. Political transformations are a function of the quality of public institutions. In seven years of democracy, Nigeria's systemic framework is sadly at a Third World level; what this means is that we are merely experimenting with everything else; we live in a society where the only thing that is certain is uncertainty itself.

It is for all these reasons that the strongest safeguard against the subsisting limitations in the political process is the vigilance of the institutions of civil society. Nine months to the elections, civil society is still in a quandary. We are still busy expressing fears and articulating our expectations. The time has come for civil society to begin to take the initiative. Political aspirants at all levels must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The people must become the gatekeepers of the transition programme and the architects of their future. And finally, President Obasanjo must find the will to ensure that his government, in the matter of the 2007 elections, does that which is right in the eyes of God and man.

Robot  # 1 | 30.06.2006 23:37

The failure of institutions: the foregoing leads naturally to the problem ...Read the full article.

UNREGISTER  # 2 | 01.07.2006 08:56

"The professional political class does not appear to have learnt any lessons; there is no deliberate attempt at individual and party levels to protect the integrity of the electoral process" Reading the above statement, I had to check the authorship of the article again. It was the favorite statement of our erstwhile Military dictators. The only clause Abati omitted is: "Nigerians are still in a learning process in democratic matters ..." Had this been added, I would have concluded that the authorship is only a pseudonym to Ibrahim Babangida or Adbulsalam Abubakar. Such statements were the excuse for military intervention especially the annulment of 1993 Election. What a misleading conclusion to draw. Recent Events, including the "annulment" of the third term hoax, clearly show that Nigerians are prepared to die in defence of their democracy or to protect it at individual and party levels. Our efforts may not amount to much in the jaundiced eyes of our Western Racist Detractors who still possit that the black man (one out of every five of whom is a Nigerian) cannot neither conduct free and fair election nor govern themselves. Having just read also the US State Dept observation 2005 on the Nigerian Judicial system I was almost constrained to observe that Abati was probably quoting another State Dept Publication. Abati's prejudicial and misleading observations on Elections are just as wrong as the US State Dept Observations on the Judiciary i.e. "Although the law provides for an independent judiciary the judicial branch remained susceptible to executive and legislative branch pressure... Corruption continued to prevent the judiciary from functioning adequately. Citizens encountered long delays and frequent requests from judicial officers for small bribes to expedite cases" (Abdulsalam Case) I have participated in ALL elections in Nigeria since 1976 (except the 2003 "hurricane Katrina" Elections and my conclusions differ widely from Abati's. I have nothing but hope and optimism that we have learnt lessons and would improve on the past in subsequent elections. Even in the past the record is not as woeful as Abati and some so-called pro-democracy Nigerians try to paint. My experience is as follows: 1976: Nation-wide Local Govt Reform Elections. Great success! Inua Wada and a few orthers were disqualified for malpractices. (I served as an Electoral Presiding Officer) 1979: Successful Election Nation-Wide. (Shehu Sagari failed to ganner the 2/3 States required under the Constitution but was cnfirmed by the Supreme Court and the Military Rulers acting in fear of ELECTORAL COLLEGE) 1993: Free and fair Election but annulled by Babagida and cohorts. 1999: Free and fair election. Obasanjo won landslide all over while Falae won the entire Yoruba Votes. (PDP had 62% of National Assembly consistent with the Presidential Election results unlike Shehu Sagari whose party won a mere 30% National Assembly. 2003: Obasanjo's PDP won but Muhammadu Buhari alleges that the margin was exerggerated (but not that he defeated Obasanjo) There were 36 other candidates including Dim Ojukwu, Gani Fawehinmi etc. Only one out of 36 Gubernatorial Election was reversed at the Election Tribunal i.e. Chris Ngige of Anambra errorneously declared in place of Peter Obi the rightful winner. It is indisputable that there have been irregularities in Nigerian elections (as in every other system) but Abati characteristic Disdain for everything Nigerian especially Public Officers is irritating. Go to India and you will witness real VIOLENCE in Elections and nobody has said that it is not a democracy. As advanced as the US democracy is, control of electoral funding is still a problem. Talk of Godfatherism, it need not always be negative. In 1979, the greatest Godfathers were Awolowo, Zik, Aminu Kano and Waziri and you couldn't win anywhere without their endorsement. (the last is yet to be heard on the Ubah/Adedibu Godfatherism) We seek perfect candidates and perfect elections come 2007 but don't condemn us as "never do well'. Leave that to US State Dept etc. There is nothing amiss about a candidate not knowing answers to interview questions at this stage. Why not contest and show them how to do things! We have good candidates and an INEC that is bent on improving upon the past. Don't dampen our spirit by this sort of gloomy prognosis. Civil Society's Challenge is not to standby and watch to criticise but to hop in, stand elections and form parties in order to right the wrongs in the system and confront erring individuals and Godfathers.

Willy  # 3 | 03.07.2006 22:44

I rue the fact that Reuben has become Rueben, maybe that underlines the man's writing and possibly persona.