Exorbitant party nomination forms and systemic corruption

For the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), presidential forms were priced at N22m each; Governorship forms were priced at N11million; Senatorial seats, House of Representatives and state Houses of Assembly forms cost N4.5m, N2.5m and N1.2m respectively. For APC, aspirants for the office of the President were asked to cough out N27.5m; those for House of […]

For the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), presidential forms were priced at N22m each; Governorship forms were priced at N11million; Senatorial seats, House of Representatives and state Houses of Assembly forms cost N4.5m, N2.5m and N1.2m respectively. For APC, aspirants for the office of the President were asked to cough out N27.5m; those for House of Assembly would be required to pay N500, 000;   those aspiring for the House of Representatives must be ready to pay N2m, for the Senate the price tag for the forms is N3m while for the Governorship it is N5m.  
In addition to the cost of the nomination forms, APC also charges separately for expression of interest forms – ranging from N50, 000 for State Houses of Assembly to N500, 000 for those aspiring to be Governors while for those hoping to fly the party’s flag in the presidential election it is N2.5m.  Interestingly APC also sets prices for those aspiring to be party officials: under the guidelines for the conduct of the congresses released by the national secretariat of the party, aspirants for the office of the state chairman are expected to pay N100, 000 while aspirants for state exco will be required to pay N30, 000. Similarly those hoping to become local government chairmen must pay N25, 000 for the forms while those who want to be on local government exco will have to find N10, 000. If you want to be a ward chairman of APC, then you must be ready to part with N10, 000 while you must pay N2000 if you want to be on a ward’s exco.  The party offers its female aspirants a 50 per cent discount for all positions.
Even the fringe Unity Party of Nigeria whose electoral chances remain debatable is not left out in the craze to monetize nomination forms. The party charges N5m and N2.5m respectively for aspirants who want to contest the presidential and governorship tickets of the party in the forthcoming general elections. Aspirants for the party’s  Senatorial ticket  will be charged N2m for the nomination forms  while those aspiring to go to the House of Representatives will pay the sum of N350,000, just as Council chairmanship aspirants will pay N200,000 while councillorship aspirants will pay N50,000.
At issue here is how to curtail the influence of money not just in deciding who stands for elections but also in influencing electoral outcomes. There are several reasons why excessive influence of money in campaigns is always a source of concern in many countries.
One, is that it abridges the political space as it means that only the wealthy or those who are supported by ‘money-bags’ will be able to present themselves as candidates for offices.
Two, it also encourages systemic corruption. For those who wrongly see corruption as a mere question of moral lapse, the high nomination fees is one of the conclusive evidences that corruption in the country is indeed systemic.  People who support candidates either in purchasing nomination forms or in other aspects of the campaign see themselves as investors who are hoping to recoup their investments with profit. In fact the Leadership newspaper of 4 November 2014 reported that with the exorbitant cost of the forms, buying forms for aspirants seem to have become the new name of the game as the country heads towards the 2015 general elections. But let no one be deceived. Those who buy the forms are merely impressing it on a candidate that they are investing in his or her candidacy – or as our pastors would put it ‘sowing seeds in the candidate’s vineyard’.
Three, too much money spent in running for office increases the anarchic character of politics. Because so much amount of money has been spent in running a campaign, it becomes truly a do-and-die affair as losing has serious economic consequences both for the loser and those that invested in his or her candidacy.
Four, it encourages the proliferation briefcase parties – all hoping to profit from the monetization of nomination forms. In our peculiar environment with its embedded ‘big man syndrome’, there will always be people willing to pay for their   egos to be massaged. If our people are willing to pay for bogus honours and awards, including chieftaincy titles, they are even more willing to pay to be introduced as ‘former presidential candidate’ or ‘former governorship candidate’ – even if no one can ever remember his or her name mentioned in the media during the elections.    
Despite the position of some people like lawyer Femi Falana that it is illegal for parties to charge candidates for nomination forms, I can understand why some parties are charging exorbitant fees for their nomination forms: Apart from the obvious fact of using those forms to raise money, our country is such an interesting case that if party nomination forms were to be made free, we may have more problems than we do now when they are clearly exorbitant. For instance is the forms were to be free of charge, chances are that half of a party members will pick nomination forms  for sundry reasons – some out of ‘me-tooism’, some because it presents an opportunity for ego massage as ‘an also ran’ while others will sense commercial and business opportunities in the mere fact of being a candidate. In essence, if the parties do not charge for the nomination forms or set their prices too low, there will be the danger of ceding the political space to charlatans and rabble rousers.  This, too, will discourage the proverbial ‘serious’ or ‘competent’ candidates as much as they do when the cost of the nomination forms are high.
What is required, in my opinion, is a ‘third way’ – a way of discouraging either money bags or charlatans and rabble-rousers from seizing the political space and defining the character of our politics. One way could be for parties to charge relatively high fees for their nomination forms but refund a portion of it to those who get a certain percentage of the votes during the primaries. Alternatively, parties can set relatively low fees for nomination forms but insist that candidates who want to run for offices must submit a certain number of signatures from bona fide members of the party endorsing their candidacy before they will be qualified to take part in the primaries.
I believe it is time we began to treat the high cost of nomination forms as part of the problems of campaign financing, the regulation of which is always problematic.
All over the world running campaigns cost money – loads of it. Money is crucial for democratic politics, and political parties need to be well funded to be able to play their roles in the political process.  Therefore while a general regulation of campaign funding is desirable as a way of controlling the adverse effect of too much money in campaigns, it must not be such as to stifle healthy competition among the parties.
Let me mention that few countries, if any, have been able to effectively regulate campaign financing. In the US for instance, although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation dates back to 1867, there are still several loopholes that are exploited by candidates and their supporters.  A good case in point is the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972. This Act was amended in in 1974 with the introduction of statutory limits on contributions. It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000. Despite this, it was quickly found that while this reform could control ‘hard money’, (those donated directly to the candidates) it proved ineffective in reigning unregulated contributions or ‘soft money’ (funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns such as those used in running a candidate’s support organisations).
In fact trying to regulate the campaign spending of support organisations (such as Transformation Ambassadors of Nigeria or the Atiku Campaign Organisation in Nigeria) could lead to some legal issues.  For instance, in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, a landmark case in the USA in 2010, the US Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent broadcasts supporting or opposing a candidate for an election could not be regulated as it would infringe on the rights of such entities to free speech.
In essence, while it may be a challenge to regulate general campaign financing as some are advocating, it will be much easier to regulate the exorbitant fees charged by political parties for their nomination forms.  I think the time to act is now before the situation gets out of control. We cannot all continue to condemn corruption while overlooking one of its very clear systemic causes. The case of the exorbitant costs of party nomination forms is in fact a good vindication of some of us who hold the position that corruption is only the symptom of a more fundamental social malaise.