 |
|
|||||||
|
THE IMPERATIVES OF CONDUCTING CREDIBLE ELECTIONS IN 2011, BY EMMANUEL UDUAGHAN
Distinguished scholars, it is with a deep sense of joy that I at this point visit your esteemed institution—an institution of great repute, a citadel of ideas, of vision and of human thought. The University of Lagos or UNILAG your more popular abbreviation is one of the leading, first generation universities in this country. And, since this is the Faculty of Arts, your central concern is humanity, in particular human progress. The research into and study of the humanities are about advancing the frontiers of human knowledge in the field of arts. Without it, I am uncertain how modern human society in all its ramifications could have survived and prospered. So we owe you a debt of gratitude for constantly beaming the light on human conduct, probing at the deep recesses of our motivations and the consequences of our actions. From your deep philosophical probing, mankind is called to reflect on some unforeseen consequences of human activities. It is especially remarkable that this is the 45th anniversary of this Faculty. I congratulate you on your successes, it could not have been easy; good things are not always easy. And so on behalf of the people and government of Delta state—the finger of God, I propose this toast: ‘May your days be brighter and your work more fruitful.’ When I looked through your letter of invitation and saw the string of eminent persons who have graced this forum, I felt highly honoured. I am further told that the Faculty of Lagos lecture Series is “a forum that brings together policy makers, administrators scholars and foreign policy experts to generate ideas for national development.” It is obvious this is a serious forum to interrogate important ideas and demands some rigour from those invited to speak. The topic I have selected to speak on could not have come up at a better time. The next general election is only a few months away and there is justifiable reason for anxiety. Our broken electoral system has not given many people a lot of confidence. Most are unhappy with the outcome of the last one; scathing criticisms from international and domestic observers trailed the exercise and this has affected our standing in the comity of nations. In the outpouring of criticisms, politicians, political parties and the electoral commission have not been spared. For me therefore, this is a most appropriate time for action. Confronted by the challenge such as this, we can either do one of two of things: sit on hands and grumble and blame everyone, or take responsibility towards restoration of this broken system. One of the commonplace wisdom is that governance is too serious to be left in the hands of politicians. I agree and by the same token extend that logic to assert that election is too important to be left in the hands of politicians. Proceeding from this observation, the questions to ask are: What went wrong? What is to be done? How do we strengthen these institutions? How do we build credibility? I am going to strive to provide some answers, after all that is why you have asked me to come and speak with you. Is there a magic pill somewhere that can cure all our problems and end the national malaise about elections and how it is conducted? I do not know of one yet. However, to answer this question, there is a bit of everything, an interconnectedness of our attitude as the electorate, the system we run and the people who run this system. But I move far ahead. Elections in Nigeria The most important feature of a democracy is “holding credible periodic elections. There can be no government of the people by the people and for the people” A credible election, the type we all seek should be an election conducted following due process, accepted by the people as representing their free choice, respected by political contestants as valid representation of their true strength and resistant to obnoxious interferences. Meaning that the choice of the people is heard through credible elections, their voice through the ballots they cast. They are indeed the sovereign in the process. When their votes don’t count, the most important ingredient of a democracy is lost and what you have cannot in any way be described as government of the people. This comment should be music to all those who denounce our electoral system; at the same time it is a comment in principle. Without the people there can be no legitimate government so-called. The electoral principle had been introduced to Nigeria’s political setting since 1923 when the colonial lords were still fully in charge. As Professor Tekena Tamuno has eminently documented, elections were held then only in Lagos and Calabar. A lot was wrong with such a tentative step as could be imagined. The idea of political parties was still strange. The political parties that held sway between 1923 and 1943, contested elections under the Hugh Clifford Constitution included Herbert Macaulay’s Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP), the Dr. John Randle-led Peoples Union, the Union of Young Nigerians and Lagos Youth Movement. Until the arrival on the scene of the LYM, NNDP had a smooth ride in elections restricted mainly to Lagos, and marginally in Calabar. But, by 1936, the contest became stiffer as prominent members of the Lagos elite, including those who had tried unsuccessfully to test strength with the dominant party through the PU and UYN teamed up with the LYM to found the Nigerian Youth Movement, NYM. Two years after, the experiment worked as NYM won the 1938 election by returning all three elected members of the Legislative Council from Lagos. The NNDP did not survive that blow. My friends in academia, the point being made here, is that the parties then were very weak in accordance with the political setting and constitutional framework. It would have been the height of paradox if, within a colonial setting, there was unfettered freedom of choice on the political scene. For as long as the colonial masters were in charge, and able to organise political contests and mediate political conflicts, there wasn’t much disputation over the true nature of votes cast. This did not mean the political scene was dull and did not have its own fair share of heat and intrigues. Then the usual political brick-bat was about who was fraternizing with agents of imperialism and who were the true representatives of the people. Rigging was largely a strange and unfamiliar practice. However, real political duels at which the parties and politicians threw everything and considered all weapons and strategies as legitimate as long as the end justified the means did not become the norm until the 1959 General Election held to herald independence. Before this time the worst that had happened was the crisis in the Western Region’s House of Assembly in 1952. But, then, the dispute was not about the sanctity of the votes, but cross-carpeting that left the NCNC in the lurch while strengthening the hands of the Action Group. There are different versions of what happened on the day that the House opened for business, but the details need not detain us here. What we may need to note here, and my charge to researchers is the mediating role of the state at a time that the controlling authorities were not directly interested in the elections. It has been observed that elections conducted in 1959, 1979 , 1993 and 1999 were relatively less acrimonious than those conducted under civilian and politically charged atmosphere in 1964 at the federal level, 1965 in the Western Region, nationally in 1983, 2003 and 2007. Do not remind me there is a debate in the political scene whether this pattern should become the norm, where an incumbent government did not seek office in order to conduct credible elections for the country. My opinion will be available at the conclusion of this paper, so bear with me. Characteristics of the marred polls In some ways many of us here, academics and non-academics whether political or apolitical must have some knowledge about elections in Nigeria first hand—the usual tales of ballot box snatching, alteration of figures, the entire works including deployment of thugs to stimulate violence. If we however, have no direct experience of this, the media in Nigeria have documented some of these in considerable details. So I am not going to elaborate on this. Nevertheless, I think for the records some acknowledgement of this phenomenon should be placed before this audience. It is my opinion that this presentation would be incomplete if I glossed them over with silence. Moving forward, and taking account of the point of view of people who did not quite understand how these things began, I am going to draw from the wisdom of a panel report—the Justice Bola Babalakin panel, set up by the Ibrahim Babangida administration in 1985 on the 1983 general elections. What I shall read out are not my own, shall we say, personal, partisan opinions, as some people might want to charge. Recommendation 34 The Commission observed that many of the political parties as well as individual politicians did not have as much faith in FEDECO as was desirable. The Commission finds that this was partly because the mode of appointment prescribed was such that it could be argued that appointees were simply persons who enjoyed the President’s favour. The Commission considers that it is desirable to prescribe a procedure for appointment which would increase the confidence that both politicians and the electorate would have in FEDECO. Recommendation 47 The Electoral Act 1982 came into effect on 5th August, 1982, barely 12 months to the first election for 1983. This did not leave enough time for adequate preparations, which in fact partly accounts for some of the electoral mal-practices of 1983. The Commission recommends that the law to govern future elections must be enacted at least three years before elections are due, and that the Federal Electoral Commission must similarly be appointed three years before elections are due. (Para 8.09 (iii), pages 199-201). Recommendation 68 The Commission observes that political tensions were greatest in States where leading politicians changed parties before the elections. It is its view that this phenomenon should be discouraged in an election year. However, the Commission accepts that deciding which party to belong to touches on the individual’s right of association and other fundamental rights. The Commission therefore invites the attention of government to this problem and request it to examine it closely with a view to taking appropriate action. (Paragraph 8.53, page 285). Recommendation 72 The Commission notes the major shortcomings and abuses of the 1983 elections and wherever possible, recorded the views of or denials by persons allegedly involved. On the compilation of voters register, the following abuses were noted: Compilation of fictitious names, illegal compilation of separate voters’ list and multiple registrations of voters during the revision exercise. Other allegations noted are: Illegal printing of voters’ cards, registration of unqualified persons; illegal possession of ballot boxes, stuffing of ballot boxes with ballot papers; falsification of election results; printing of ballot papers; voting by under-aged children; printing of Forms EC and EC8A; deliberate refusal to supply election materials; results announced, where there were no elections; unauthorized announcement of results; harassment of candidates, agents or the electorates; change of list of electoral officials; tampering with figures and switching of votes; and box switching and inflation of figures. (Para. 901-9.23, pages 289-316). Spot any difference? Hardly, you might say. I have quoted copiously from the Babalakin Report that predated the recent Uwais Committee Report by 25 years to dramatise further the seriousness of the issues and to explode myths and superficial propositions about solving this problem, which are sometimes offered in the public. I make bold to say that it yields no dividend when we point fingers and trace the problem to the politicians only. Neither is it helpful when we pin the solution to the problem on the chairman of the electoral commission. It does not work. In delivering this paper, I have a responsibility to be frank with you because all of us must work together to cleanse and restore election integrity. Earlier on I alluded to our attitudes and to system breakdown; I hope the preceding paragraphs illuminated the issues I tried to raise. I am always reluctant to jump into comparisons, because no two situations are the same, but under the circumstances I find it a useful tool to spur us to action. Other African countries are moving. In Ghana, twice now, it has been demonstrated that the government in power truly derives from the people. In Sierra-Leone, too, the presidential election held in 2007 was deemed credible by all. Indeed, the incumbent lost. The incumbent does not have to lose to classify the poll as free and fair. Last year, in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) which is the ruling party retained its hold on the political structure, but no one raised a voice on the credibility of the process. India is the largest democracy in the world. Like Nigeria, there are challenges of ethnic and religious diversity. Poverty also bites hard. Yet, it has sustained its democracy over the years. Everybody knows his or her place and role in the process. It is about the system and how those who succeed work with it. The missing factors Where did we miss the mark? First, we are guilty of reductionism. For many people, once you appoint a credible national chairman for INEC, the problem is solved. I disagree. The ancient wisdom about a tree not making a forest is most appropriate here. There is much more to the making of the monster. Let’s take a look at the men who have graced the INEC chair. The first Nigerian chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr. Eyo Esua was well respected at the point of appointment. He was a first class trade unionist; he was a man all the parties had confidence in. But, check the results and comments that followed the 1964 and 1965 elections. The first election his commission conducted was chaotic even within the commission forcing two members to resign. The second man was the respected Chief Michael Ani, a retired federal permanent secretary. He conducted the 1979 election that ended with the twelve two-thirds controversy. Then there was Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey. A retired Chief Judge; he missed the mark in organizing the 1983 election. Then in quick succession, there were Professors Eme Awa, Humphrey Nwosu, and Okon Edet Uya. Then, Chief Sumner Dagogo-Jack was brought in by General Sani Abacha. He was succeeded by the late Justice Ephraim Akpata who had previously dazzled as a member of the Supreme Court bench. Dr. Abel Guobadia succeeded Akpata in 2000. He was a diplomat and seasoned academic. And then the immediate past INEC chair Professor Maurice Iwu. Each of these men had their integrity questioned. So, the point is what went wrong? In my considered opinion, it is lack of will to follow the due process. It is about leadership and the definition of the character of our politics. It is not about democracy and its practice. It is the promotion of the repugnant do or die politics, that makes capturing power and being in government the only means of livelihood for some people. If I dwell on this characterization of our problems, I will certainly need another lecture to conclude it. Having said that, I am pleased that the National Assembly is about concluding the constitutional amendment process, the state legislatures will ratify it and then we would have an amended Constitution. These steps are important in themselves and I commend the legislature. But, and this is a big but, I do not really think that the problem lies in the inadequacies of the legal structure. The laws in Nigeria today, are in no way weaker than the laws in India, Ghana or South Africa. The problem is in the attitude of all (that word again). Whether the law is on traffic control or crime or work place related most Nigerians, leaders and followers alike, must be committed to its resolute compliance. If we do not work together we cannot fix the problem. As the Justice Babalakin Commission pointed out, there is no discernible political culture. Lamentable as the situation is, there is some ray of light at the end of the tunnel. It may be a spark, but it should ginger us into some action. Edo, Ondo and Adamawa States, including of course, the election that gave me my mandate in Delta state, have been conducted to meet the minimum threshold of transparency and popular acceptance. The February 6th governorship election in Anambra was won by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and it was adjudged as free and fair. Although I fear that revelations coming from the tribunal might give some cause for worry, all the same it was a forward movement. Recently, in Delta state we conducted election into the local government election for Ughelli South Local Government. We insisted that all votes must count and the votes were counted and recorded. The margin of victory was still high, the numbers however were lower, but it was a credible effort and everybody felt satisfied that their votes counted. This is the model we shall insist on in the coming elections. No one would deny that obedience to court rulings has improved under the present dispensation. Even in instances when there had been reluctance in obeying a court order, ultimately the position of the law triumphed. This is a major step forward. Impunity can no longer reign in party affairs as a consequence of court verdicts on the situations in Rivers and Imo States. Everyone and political party now knows that when the members vote at a congress or convention, the votes must count. That is a building block. It is a step, a commendable step in the right direction. Happily, there is a strong push for a cleaner and acceptable election by our leaders. President Yar’adua, while alive made it a cornerstone of his government agenda and the Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais committee was born. President Goodluck Jonathan has been relentless in maintaining his resolve to conduct a credible election next year. My party the PDP has undertaken to reform its internal processes to ensure better internal democracy, which should reduce heat and tension by not imposing candidates and allowing a free and open competition. The party has pledged to ensure that the votes count and its non-involvement in rigging the ballot box. More than this, I am in favour of strengthening the process and practice of accrediting local and international observers and monitors. I am not bothered about the controversy this sometimes raises, especially over the benchmarking of our performances which some are not comfortable with. My overall view is that it serves useful purpose in the end. Yet as we welcome the assurance of hope and expectation of better electoral processes, I must charge the people to be vigilant. One major missing link is the failure of the people to rise and insist on compliance. I think perhaps because we lack effective voter education. Here I full endorse the resurgent campaign of one-man-one voter as a strong mobilsing tool to educate the people. I am happy that we the governors are at the frontline of this led by President Jonathan, who has committed himself to it. The voting public must hence be ready to monitor the process at every stage. Ultimately, the supreme will of the people must prevail, if we are to have a democracy we will all be proud of. Friends, the battle for change has only just begun. To be on the right side of history, everyone must play their part. The civil society, academia, the new-look INEC, party leaders, politicians, the youths, and the elite who prefer to siddon look, the media and the general public must be mobilized to the civilian equivalent of war footing against forces that have kept us down over the years. I make my pledge today. I hope you will join me. Thank you for the opportunity that you have given me. I hope this lecture helps the process. Office of the Governor Government House, Asaba, Delta state   
|
ASK THE GOVERNOR 
|
||||||||||||
Photo Gallery | Subscribe to News | News Room | FAQ | Contacts Copyright(c) Government House Asaba, 2007-2010. |