|
Between 'Third Term' And Electoral Reforms By Benedict Okereke
Since May 1999, except the ‘Third Term’ imbroglio, perhaps, no other issue had generated a lot of soul-searching for Nigerians more than the on-going electoral reforms agenda.
The events unfolding in the Ekiti state’s rerun elections have once again thrown open the dangers Nigeria is facing as the 2011 general elections are just about 18 months from now. It has exposed a stark reality: if the proposals of the Federal Executive Council’s White Paper on Electoral Reforms (the main ingredients of which are not much different from those in the existing Electoral Laws) are what we are having for the 2011 elections, Nigerians have to prepare for uglier moments in the future.
The chaos, the scenario of alleged election touts getting beaten black and blue by the police and being ‘loaded’ in droves into police trucks, the blood spill, the number of arrests, the thuggery, all beamed by television to the rest of the world were like scenes from a war zone. No semblance of elections. With the presence of about 10,000 policemen and a deputy inspector general of police to police elections in 10 local government areas of Ekiti state we have seen what it all came down to. The number of election workers, peace enforcers, Non Governmental Organisations etc. all supervising or observing the election was overwhelmingly disproportionate to the number of voters. This is the product of distrust in the electoral system. What can Nigerians expect in 2011?
On the NTA Sunday morning broadcast of votes collation the day after the Ekiti elections, I watched one professor (I could not get his name but I believe he lectured in a university in Ekiti state) literally pleading with Nigeria’s political leaders to make a detour from their present stance on electoral reforms. He was specifically pleading with them to let Nigerians have in its original form the aspect of the Report of the Justice Uwais-led Committee on Electoral Reforms regarding the selection of the Electoral Commission’s chairman. I think I saw the professor as pleading for the soul of Nigeria. I saw him as pleading for the nation’s future and for the future of Nigeria’s generations yet unborn. But there is one curious aspect of the professor’s NTA pleas: with the unfolding ugly realities in Ekiti state and the unusual long time the NTA allowed the professor to elucidate the political correctness in not having the President getting directly involved in the selection of the National Electoral Commission’s chairman, you could be infested with euphoria that the Presidency would soon bow to pressure from the majority of Nigerians and make a U-turn, at least, to save them from an apparent gloomy future.
But then your euphoria dries up as you remember the recently reported statement by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Michael Andoaka, that those criticising the government’s position (on the FEC’s Electoral Reforms White Paper) with a view to moving it to shift position were only wasting their time. You would now want to remind the Man of Law that in a truly democratic environment nothing is as permanent as change itself; that at the end, the led tend to demand more of the account of stewardship from the ideologues of political leaders than from the leaders themselves.
However, euphoria returns to you on realising that the import of the word ‘change’ in a democracy is not lost on the President himself who at several cross-roads during his Presidency have had to make policy U-turns. That to some degree is a sign expected from a democrat.
The firm belief in the impartiality of the managers of an electoral system by the politicians and the electorate begets a pronounced guarantee of election without rigging and violence. I am writing as one who had acted as Presiding Officer in many elections in Nigeria during the 1980’s. I have operated on the election beat for long, perhaps, longer than many operators on the field today. The trick is: once the politicians and their political office contestants perceive any iota of doubt about the neutrality of the elections’ umpire, they automatically develop the triple urge: to rig the elections, to resort to violence in areas not considered their strongholds, to refuse to accept the results of the elections and to fight to finish even if it takes donkey years in the law courts to obtain victory. And for the average voter the feeling of ‘after-all- my-vote-does-not-count’ sets in. He would rather join the ever-growing league of election workers (mostly thugs) for fast monetary returns than joining the voters’ queue to cast his vote.
To have the politicians and the electorate have a deeper level of trust on the electoral system by having an INEC chairman who they see as a neutral umpire appointed by a body not directly connected to the election contest proper is what the Uwais Electoral Reforms Report regarding the appointment of the INEC chairman obviously wanted to achieve. A few days before the Federal Executive Council met and had the President retain the power to appoint the nation’s Electoral Commission chairman, I wrote in: ‘The FEC And The Electoral Reforms Report: The People’s Expectation.’ “The most important of the recommendations of the Electoral Reforms Commission is that which stipulated that the electoral commission’s chairman be nominated by a panel of the judicial arm of government. That singular recommendation is for the good of Nigeria. It is no use making any imputation of rivalry between the executive and the judicial arms of government regarding this recommendation. The commission’s men and women are altruistic and patriotic”
The rowdy, blood-stained election scenario in Ekiti state as dutifully presented by TV to the rest of the world must not translate to Nigerians being election criminals. Today, some of our politicians who are bent on retaining the electoral status quo have devised another method to argue in its favour. The new fad in town is their contention that it is not a matter of who leads the electoral umpires or who appoints them but it is the attitude of the average Nigerian toward elections that matters and which must change. Some even suggest a massive public enlightenment campaign to change the mindset of Nigerians on elections. This is diversionary. From WAI to MAMSER, and to the many other democratic institutions targeted at bringing positive social change to Nigerians the country is yet to get it right; why have these institutions not made the required inroads in polishing the mindset of Nigerians to eschew election violence? Provide good Electoral Laws that in turn churn out leaders who are accountable to the electorate, and provide effective policing of the law, Nigerians are bound to start seeing elections the same way their counterparts in Europe or North America see them.
If Nigeria puts its house in order nothing prevents it from having in the nearest future a situation similar to that of a Senator John McCain congratulating a Senator Barack Obama long before the last votes had been tallied.
Problem is that Nigerians for decades have been made to deal with leaders hoisted upon them through force or flawed electoral processes and political system. Such leaders could not have been accountable to the traumatised populace. A society with such leadership must obviously be characterised by wanton corruption, distrust among its constituent groups, the ensuing political instability, weak political institutions, and above all, a do-or-die attitude to get to the corridors of power. And of course, retarded development.
The President is a member of a political party, therefore, the most veritable ingredient for electoral chaos in contemporary Nigeria is having to have the election umpire selected by the President, and by extension, having the state governors select the chief umpires of their states’ electoral commissions. Yes, the President as well appoints the members of the Judicial Council Nigerians are rooting for to select the INEC chairman; and there is the doctrine of separation of powers that rests the powers to appoint the INEC chairman on the office of the President. But at last, all arguments must be taken from the perspective of: how do we bestow credibility to contemporary Nigeria’s electoral system? The mood of the nation today and the body language of the major population of Nigeria is that the President who is a member of a political party has to be disassociated from directly appointing the chief umpire of the elections. Nigerians from all tribes and tongues shall be the winners when credible elections thrust upon them visionary leaders that can take the country away from political and economic gloom. Therefore, the earlier the members of the National Assembly started the review of the 1999 constitution, more so, the areas regarding Electoral Laws, the better for all.
There are some similarities between ‘Third Term’ machinations and the on-going Electoral Reforms buzz. (i) To drum up support for their act the proponents of ‘Third Term’ were extending the carrot of tenure extension or automatic re-election to elected politicians in the ruling party, the same way the Executive’s White Paper On Electoral Reforms is seen to be projecting tenure security for today’s elected politicians in the ruling party.
(ii) The two phenomenon are rooted on idiosyncratic political power plays.
(iii) The last fight that floored ‘Third Term’ took place on the floors of the Senate, analysts therefore believe unless Nigerians have lost some democratic tenets since ‘Third Term’, the FEC’s proposals as contained in its White Paper on Electoral Reforms must like ‘Third Term’ not survive the political intrigues of the Senators. Optimists believe a Senate’s version of a hybrid of the views of the two opposing camps in the electoral reform debate or a masses-friendly Electoral Laws emanating from a Group or Private Member bill may emerge to save the situation.
Benedict Okereke, a Pharmacologist is the author of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) And Your Preventive Guide.
|