Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai.
The legitimacy of any government can only be derived from the will of
the people as expressed in credible, free and fair elections held at
regular intervals on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage;
which explains why the critical importance of free and fair elections
along with credible electoral process in any modern nation cannot be
overemphasised.
This is underscored in one of the most important books I have read in
recent times: Why Nations Fail – The origins of power, prosperity and
poverty by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson; where the authors quoted
Mohammed ElBaradei, the former director of the International Atomic
Energy Agency as having written that: “In Tunisia, repression + absence
of social justice + denial of channels for peaceful change = a ticking
time bomb”. Clearly, Nigeria can be substituted for Tunisia and the
truism of the equation would remain just as valid!
Elections in Nigeria began from the colonial era with the Legislative
Council elections in Lagos and Calabar in 1923. Other elections also
took place between 1951 and 1959. During the military interregnums,
three elections took place; 1979 with the Murtala-Obasanjo regime, the
1992-1993 elections under Gen. Ibrahim Babangida and the 1999 elections
conducted by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar.
According to an analysis of these elections by the EU Election
Monitoring Group in its 2003 Report, the elections of 1959, 1979, 1993
and 1999 were the most free and fair while those of 1964 and 1983 were
adjudged to be the most violent and chaotic. The reasons are obvious and
not farfetched: the former were ‘transition’ elections to hand over
power to civilian governments by the military with minimal vested
interests while the latter were ‘succession’ elections laden with
enormous political interests.
It is trite to state that all elections conducted in Nigeria have been
characterised by malpractices to various degrees. Since the current
republic began in 1999, every election seems to be worse than the one
before it. In 2003, the elections led to a loss of about 100 lives with
many more injured. The 2007 elections were characterised by massive
rigging and violence with results being declared in many states before
the arrival of ballot papers.
They were bad enough for the main beneficiary – late President Umaru
Musa Yar’Adua to publicly acknowledge as such in his inaugural speech
shortly after being sworn into office; along with a solemn promise to
the nation that rigorous electoral reforms would be embarked upon to
address the patent malpractices. To this effect and credit of Yar’Adua,
an electoral reform committee with respected former chief justice
Muhammed Uwais as chair was charged with the task.
That the Uwais committee did a commendable job is self-evident in the
319 pages long main report that was submitted to the Federal Government
in December 2008. The introduction section of the report, inter alia
states that: “Nigeria’s experience with democratic elections since
independence has been rather mixed. Although the country has managed to
transit from one administration to another, hardly any election
conducted in the country has been completely free of charges of
irregularities, electoral malpractices, violence and various degrees of
disruptions.
The factors responsible for this state of affairs include, among
others, the character of the Nigerian State as the arena for electoral
contests; the existence of weak democratic institutions and processes;
negative political culture; weak legal/constitutional framework; and
lack of independence and capacity of the Election Management Bodies.”
The report’s main recommendations include:
*The constitution should be amended to guarantee the independence and autonomy of INEC
*In filling the position of INEC Chairman, the National Judicial
Council (NJC) should advertise to the public, spelling out the required
qualifications, receive the applications, shortlist three persons and
send the nominations to the National Council of State to select one
person and then forward to the Senate for confirmation
*INEC should be unbundled into four units;
-Political Parties Registration and Regulatory Commission whose duties
are to register political parties and monitor their activities.
-Electoral Offences Commission which is to investigate electoral frauds
and other related acts. It is also to co-ordinate, enforce and
prosecute all electoral offenders.
-Constituency Delimitation Commission
-Centre for Democratic Studies.
• Funding
*INEC should be removed from the list of Federal Executive Bodies
*The Chairman and Board members of INEC may be removed by the Senate on
the recommendation of the NJC by two-thirds majority of the Senate
which shall include at least 10 members of the minority parties in the
Senate.
*Associations seeking registration as political parties must have
functioning offices in at least two-thirds of the states of the
Federation. These associations must also have 20% women membership in
their governing bodies.
*Political parties should not be allowed to receive funds from abroad
*Number of voters per polling station as well as layout of the stations
should be specified. Each polling station should not have more than 500
voters.
*Disqualification period of candidates engaged in corrupt practices should be increased to 10 years.
*Post-election petition periods should take a total of six months.
*No elected person shall assume office until their case in the tribunal is disposed of.
*The police should be trained specially for elections.
*INEC should be composed of a board which formulates electoral policy
and a professional/technical election management team to manage
elections.
*State Independent Electoral Commissions should be organised in the same way as INEC.
*Elections for President and Governors should be held at least six months before the expiration of their terms.
It is regrettable that almost four years after the submission of the
foregoing excellent recommendations, not much has changed in our polity.
But please do not take my words for this. The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s Democracy Index measures the state of democracy in 167 countries
throughout the world.
The Index was first produced in 2006 and it ranked countries on a scale
between zero and 10, based on 60 indicators that were grouped in five
categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government,
political participation, political culture and civil liberties.
According to the latest issue of the Index for 2011, whereas in 1945
the world only boasted of 12 democracies, it now boasts of 115 in three
different classes of 25 full democracies, 53 flawed democracies and 37
hybrid regimes; with the remaining 52 countries being in the bottom of
the pit class of authoritarian regimes as to be expected.
In the class of full democracies, it ranks Norway first with a total
score of 9.80, keeping its position from 2010, when it replaced Sweden
as the highest ranked country; whilst North Korea scored the lowest with
1.08, remaining at the bottom in 167th place, as in 2010.
Back home, in spite of the self-acclaimed “free and fair elections”
that the Jonathan administration conducted in 2011, it did not come as a
surprise that Nigeria is in the authoritarian regime class with a score
of 3.83 and a ranking of 119; just behind Russia with 3.92 and 117
respectively. Meanwhile, Ghana is justifiably ranked way ahead of us at
78, in the class of flawed democracy with a score of 6.02!
What constitutes a free and fair election? According to
Commonboarders.org, a 'free' electoral process is one where fundamental
human rights and freedoms are respected, including:
* freedom of speech and expression by electors, parties, candidates and the media;
* freedom of association; that is, freedom to form organisations such as political parties and NGOs;
* freedom of assembly, to hold political rallies and to campaign;
* freedom of access to and by electors to transmit and receive political and electoral information messages;
* freedom to register as an elector, a party or a candidate;
* freedom from violence, intimidation or coercion;
* freedom of access to the polls by electors, party agents and accredited observers;
* freedom to exercise the franchise in secret, and
* freedom to question, challenge and register complaints or objections without negative repercussions.
And a ‘fair’ electoral process is one where the 'playing field' is
reasonably level and accessible to all electorate, parties and
candidates, and includes:
* an independent, non-partisan electoral organisation to administer the process;
* guaranteed rights and protection through the constitution and electoral legislation and regulations;
* equitable representation of electors provided through the legislation;
* clearly defined universal suffrage and secrecy of the vote;
* equitable and balanced reporting by the media;
* equitable access to financial and material resources for party and candidate campaigning;
* equitable opportunities for the electorate to receive political and voter information;
* accessible polling places;
* equitable treatment of electors, candidates and parties by elections
officials, the government, the police, the military and the judiciary;
* an open and transparent ballot counting process, and
* election process not disrupted by violence, intimidation or coercion.
The flaws in the electoral system are known to almost every politically
conscious Nigerian. Massive bribing and rigging, thuggery, insecurity
during elections and the incompetence of the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) in delivering its mandate are some of these
problems.
If there is going to be any change in our nation for the better, it has
to begin now! The first step will be a re-orientation of the populace.
People have to believe that they have the power to decide who their
leaders are irrespective of the flaws of the electoral system. They need
to get more involved in the electoral process instead of sitting back
and complaining.
