Election narratives: The road to 2015

Some foreign misfortune-tellers say that Nigeria will cease to exist by 2015—a few months away! They say that we may have elected ourselves out of existence!! Many optimist and genuine patriots are  extremely pissed off by such nihilistic propositions, believing that nothing can and should make anyone harbour such  cynical feelings about Nigeria, a nation […]

Some foreign misfortune-tellers say that Nigeria will cease to exist by 2015—a few months away! They say that we may have elected ourselves out of existence!! Many optimist and genuine patriots are  extremely pissed off by such nihilistic propositions, believing that nothing can and should make anyone harbour such  cynical feelings about Nigeria, a nation which is set to set the pace for Africa in its drive to lead the world as the continent of the twenty-first century.  Whichever side of the divide you choose to belong, there is no question that a looming reality, with regard to our electoral process, conduct and (mis) behaviour, especially since 2003, 2007 and to a lesser extent 2011, is that violence stemming from electoral impropriety, fraud and incredulous outcome, is one of threat to our collective existence.
The basic identified characterising features of our democratic culture as manifest in elections are as follows: Political parties, in spite the centrality and foundational position in representative/liberal democracy are week, lacking in internal democracy, poverty of ideology and inarticulate Manifestoes and constitutions—all of which undermine and diminish the quality of our democracy and the value that the electorate places on them. Added to this is the prevailing situation in which the electoral process itself is adjudged as not sufficiently, if at all, credible, thus rendering  the outcome of elections unacceptable, oftentimes unaccepted, generating violent responses from individual contesters, groups and large proportions of the electorate. Thirdly, the administration of election before, during and post elections, has been adjudged to have fallen short of required standards, even given the much improved leadership of the key umpire, the INEC, in the last half-a-decade, the slight improvement of the justice system in electioneering and the slightly upped quality of security. There is still a pervasive sense of inadequacy in the administration and management of elections and their aftermath.
For these reasons, there is wide apprehension that the nation may be heading down a precipitous slope on its democratic landscape if serious mediation does not happen through the agencies of the stakeholders (the political parties, government, and civil society) and the generality of the nation’s electorate. The National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, in collaboration with national and international supporters, such as the UNDP and its functionary, Democracy, Governance for Development (DGDII), held a two-day international conference to provide a comprehensive policy strategy for preventing, stemming and terminating violent elections so as to engender durable peace and sustainable democracy in Nigeria. Recently, the Ministry of Police Affairs, concerned with the level of policy and public safety generally, held workshops to draft a national public safety and security policy for the country. All of these efforts, and those made around the same subject, including the Forum convened for stakeholders in the security project by the Office of the National Security Adviser to draft the nation’s national Security Strategy, attest to the fact that the scale of concern with the state of security in Nigeria, the overall political violence in the country, with the specifically grave nature of election-derived violence in the country, is all-time high
It is germane to begin with the political parties themselves as the dominant force in the electoral process. Issues of election campaigns, voting and the very process of citizen participation through plebiscite in the choice of leaders of government at all levels, rest solely on political parties. The way in which these parties conduct themselves presently does not adequately prepare them for the task of deepening the democratic culture in the nation. It has been established that these parties presently lack internal democracy with the individual parties and exercise near-zero inter-party relationships, dialogue and exchange. It is like the communication between the deaf and the dumb. Today, apart from the IPAC which brings the parties together, especially the smaller parties, the dominant political party, the People’s Democratic Party and the mounting key opposition party, the All Progressives Congress, are in a state of virtual war, with each seeing nothing good and worthwhile in the other, even though it is easy to sift the corn from the chaff in the political actions and behaviours of the two parties. There is mortal animosity between the parties, lowering, in a pitiful and pitiable manner, the quality of governance praxis and perception and heating the polity in a very dismal manner. The result is that the quality of governing by the ruling party and the quality of opposition by the opposition party are unedifying and leaves a great deal to be desired. It is like a preparation for the proverbial do- or- die by these two parties which should have operated in an atmosphere of healthy competition and mature electioneering. The PDP cannot contemplate being challenged, given its growing insensitivity to the possibility of genuine rivalry and vibrant rivalry in the forth-coming election. Similarly, the APC is carrying on as if it is only through electoral fraud and impropriety that the ruling party can defeat it at the polls. Such mutually unhealthy ill-preparedness to accept the result of the polls, even if adjudged credible, free and fair, create genuine fear of the way that the nation will emerge or fare after the 2015 elections. Is this not why there is a lot of domestic and international nudging and admonition that the political parties play the game (not the war) according to the rule of the game? John Kufuor, former President of Ghana, among numerous other voices, has canvassed for peaceful conduct of the 2015 Elections to ensure peace and security in the nation.
Does the nation really have a choice in the matter if she must survive the elections as an entity?   The INEC, no doubt, has been facing the onerous challenge and responsibility of making the elections in Nigeria credible and believable, where the votes will count and where the sovereign will of the electorate reflects in the electoral process and the election of leaders. For INEC to be able to manage the conduct of parties and their agents with a greater degree of effectiveness, the freedom of the body must remain non-negotiable. They must be able to regulate the ethical dimensions of the parties in the choice of their candidates, the value and integrity of elections themselves to make them credible and acceptable, thus rendering pre and post election violence needless, unnecessary and irrelevant.
There are in existence the electoral reforms and the electoral act but these need to be further, radically reviewed such that they can bring reprisals to bear on fraudulent contesting politicians and their parties. No politician who has rigged election or provoked violence should be able to enjoy the benefits of fake victory even for a minute. Again, professional carpet- crossers, defectors and political nomads, to borrow Abubakar Momoh’s political lexicon, should not be allowed to enjoy the power they hold while quitting the platforms from which they derived power. Both the managing bodies and the judiciary need to ensure that parties adhere to the nation’s constitution, their parties’ constitutions and codes of conduct.
(To be continued)