Nigeria can have credible elections, but must meet 7 criteria  

Nigeria has managed to put the world on tenterhooks. Since the ill-judged postponement of the scheduled general elections, the question on everyone’s lips is, how will Nigeria get itself out of the political pickle? Unfortunately, former President Obasanjo’s unhelpful comment that President Jonathan may have a “grand plan” to win the election “by hook or by crook” or “if that fails, to scuttle it and create chaos” will fuel rather than quell speculations about the fate of the elections. Many will wonder why Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa and the world’s most populous black nation, cannot conduct a general election without fuss.

Yet conducting democratic elections is not rocket science. Elections are based on rules, and will succeed if the practitioners adhere to the letter and the spirit of the rules. To be specific, a fully democratic electoral system must satisfy 7 conditions, call them the “7 free-election criteria”. In the current climate, it’s worth restating these common conditions. But first, let’s reflect on the management of the 2015 general elections. To put it bluntly, virtually everything has gone wrong with the electoral process so far. And without sounding smug about it, I saw it all coming!

In this column on January 12, I wrote an article, “The tale of two general elections”, comparing the 2015 general elections in Nigeria and the May 7 general election in the UK. I argued that while the institutions and processes for the elections in both countries are broadly similar, their actual management and conduct would be very dissimilar because of divergence in the way the electoral system works in practice in the two countries. As I pondered on the recent failings in the management of the 2015 general elections, I couldn’t help but feel that the intervention had been prescient. Most of my postulations have proven to be true.

For instance, I predicted that the campaigns would hardly be issue-based. And what have we seen? The electioneering has been very negative and bereft of ideas. Instead of debating the issues, the main parties, PDP and APC (although, to be fair, PDP is guiltier) have adopted a “kitchen-sink” strategy by throwing everything at their opponent to make him look horrible and unelectable. Those vicious attack ads on General Buhari questioning his school certificate and health are in this category. So far, there have been no presidential debates and it seems there would be none between Buhari and Jonathan given the former’s unwillingness to take part in any TV debate. Buhari is right, of course, to raise concerns about the partiality of the Nigeria Election Debate Group, which is filled with PDP supporters. But TV debates are part of any democratic electoral system, and no serious candidate should dodge them.

Read also: Of OBJ, comedy and statesmen

I also predicted that the security agencies would be obtrusively visible during the elections and that they would be accused by the opposition parties of being used by the ruling party. Of course, what I did not foresee was that their interference would be used as a reason to postpone the elections. But just as I foretold, the security agencies have been both a covert and overt influence in this year’s elections. The militarisation of the electoral process in Nigeria is, indeed, a serious cause for worry. Elections are about freedom, the right to exercise free choice. But Nigeria has made them look like a state of actual war, with the massive deployment of heavily armed soldiers in elections. Given that only the ruling party has control over the military, it is difficult to avoid the accusation that it’s using them to influence the vote. Of course, when the electoral institutions are controlled by one party, their impartiality would always be called into question!

Finally, I wrote in the January 12 article: “The UK Electoral Commission will barely be in the limelight during the election. For it, the election will be business as usual. But Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will be in the news throughout as it is buffeted by politicians with accusations and counter-accusations”. How true? INEC has been in the eye of the storm, pilloried by everyone for its perceived and real failings. Even before the election postponement, INEC was deeply distrusted by the politicians. For instance, one of the highest points of its trouble was when the leaders of the Southern Nigeria Peoples’ Assembly called for the “sack and arrest” of its chairman, Attahiru Jega, for “only achieving 50 percent PVC distribution” in the South. Of course, some of this is political posturing, but it’s difficult to absolve INEC from blame completely, despite its recent attempt to whitewash itself.

So, how can we ensure that the rescheduled elections are free, fair and credible? Well, let’s now look at our “7 free-election criteria”. In their book, ‘Political Systems of the World’, Denis and Ian Derbyshire state that to be truly free and democratic, election contests must satisfy 7 basic criteria. The 7 conditions are:

1. All adults should have the right to vote.
2. The ballot should be cast freely without intimidation.
3. Elections should be held within prescribed time limits and in accordance with constitutional rules.
4. All candidates should be free to openly campaign.
5. All parties and candidates should be able to get their messages across, and there should be equity in media access and coverage.
6. The campaign and vote counting should be supervised by an impartial electoral body.
7. All parties and candidates should accept the adjudged results, and power should be handed over to the successful party within a prescribed timetable.

Of course, all of these should be common knowledge. But the management and conduct of the 2015 general elections have so far fallen substantially short of meeting these basic conditions. For instance, on condition 1, several millions of Nigerians have yet to collect their PVCs, and it’s still uncertain how many would not have a voter card before the rescheduled elections on March 28. Furthermore, there have been allegations that the distribution of PVCs is being skewed to favour areas believed to be Buhari’s strongholds, which, if true, would also breach condition 1. The militarisation of the elections would clearly violate conditions 2 and 4, as it could restrict the free operation of opposition parties and their supporters, and deny them the right to vote or campaign freely without intimidation. What about condition 5 on media access? Of course, as I predicted, most of the media have been blatantly biased and partisan. In particular, NTA’s coverage has been slavishly in PDP’s favour. APC states-controlled media are probably as guilty. On condition 3, some have argued that INEC has the discretion to shift the timetable for the general elections, provided the rescheduled dates are still within constitutionally prescribed time limits. True, but discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. Postponing scheduled elections without cogent and incontrovertible reasons violates the principle of legitimate expectation, and condition 3. Finally, there are concerns about INEC’s partiality or about whether there would be a transfer of power on May 29, which, if true, would breach conditions 6 and 7, respectively.

So, Nigeria has so far not met the basic democratic election conditions. Yet I believe we can still have credible elections this year. While the election postponement is regrettable, it nevertheless now gives INEC and others involved in the electoral process a chance to get things right between now and the rescheduled elections. They must seize the opportunity!

Olu Fasan