Party nomination cost; tickets for sale?

In a true democracy, the struggle for power and the right to serve is not in the hands of the elite or the wealthy

The people are the bedrock of democracy. The supremacy of the people and the democratic institutions over and above individuals, no matter how well placed or wealthy, is at the core of democratic principles.

Behind this democratic collectivism lies the individual’s inalienable rights and privileges that assume equality of all before the law, equality of all votes (one man, one vote) and equality of opportunity for all to seek elective positions of power in the country.

In a true democracy, the struggle for power and the right to serve is not in the hands of the elite or the wealthy who can afford the election process. This anomaly goes against the principle of democracy and tends towards aristocracy.

In advanced democracies, all efforts are made to, structurally and procedurally, create an enabling environment and easy access for many, irrespective of their social and economic background, to aspire for power and to serve.

Based on this principle, most countries limit the cost of electioneering campaigns and the electoral process. Although it has been challenging to implement such financial restrictions, there have been attempts to limit campaign costs in Nigeria.

Recently, parties in Nigeria put out information on the cost of expression of interests and nomination forms for various elective positions in the country, including that of presidential candidates.

The figures mentioned have not followed the reality of economic conditions in the country nor the basic principles of financial restriction in elections and, in the views of many, are considered exorbitant and only affordable by the wealthy, thereby shutting out average Nigerians who have the capacity and ability to serve in various capacities but could not afford the party’s nomination form to participate in the primaries.

There is a moral panic regarding the outrageous cost of these party nomination forms, especially with the two major parties of APC and PDP. The PDP and APC pegged their presidential nomination forms at N40m and N100m respectively.

The APC charge has resulted in a 370% increase from the cost in the 2019 elections. The APC Publicity Secretary, Felix Morka, on national television, have posited that though the cost of N100m may seem high, it is vital to charge that much to raise funds to cover party expenses for the forthcoming elections because the party has little or no funding sources.

He further argued that the capacity to raise funds, overall, is a critical measure of acceptability and viability of aspirants for office. As noble as this idea seems, N100m for nomination form has a psychological tipping edge for most Nigerians who see that amount as huge and outrageous, especially in a country where the minimum wage is N30,000 per month, and still people are not paid for months.

The costs of these nomination forms for APC and PDP, the two major political parties in Nigeria, are beyond the reach of more than 90% of Nigerians. This cost comes across as “party tickets for sale”.

Over 90% of the electorate cannot afford these amounts, especially for the presidency and governorship nomination forms, which shuts them off the election process.

Inadvertently, this cost bars the middle class and working-class people who have something to offer from participating in the electoral process to the best of their ability and interest.

Besides the cost of the nomination form, data on campaign expenditure in Nigeria is not available, and money spent on the electioneering process is top secret and just left for individuals to conjecture.

What is known is that with each election cycle, the cost gets higher, and inversely the value office holders deliver in-service drops. The inference is a relationship between the prohibitive cost of running elections to get elected and the quality of governance.

We may not capture the consequences of the excessive cost of securing a party ticket and getting elected in numbers, but citizens feel it.

The argument that aspirants from less privileged financial backgrounds should solicit funds from party members or family and friends to raise money to buy nomination forms and fund elections is not tenable and goes against the spirit of democratic service.

Aspirants should not be indebted or beholding to anyone or persons to avoid problems of the rich and powerful hijacking the election process and, ultimately, political leaders that will emerge.

One of the significant reasons candidates compete for elective posts is that they want to serve.

Sometimes, some candidates know that the financial reward for serving may be little compared to the rewards from their private ventures, and they often will be willing to bear a minimal cost for this privilege.

Nevertheless, with the prohibitive cost of electioneering, from getting a party ticket to running a campaign, the venture becomes monetised and transactional.

The more money it costs to win an election, the more candidates become Machiavellian in their approach to pursuing it—the prohibitive cost of securing party tickets and conducting election fuel corruption and undermines democratic values.

Cerebral Felix Morka also countered this, that there is no direct correlation between cost of fees and tendency for corrupt enrichment .

Little wonder to some candidates, winning is a do or die affair and must be done at all costs. After running huge costs, they become corrupt to recover their “investment and make a profit” when they eventually win.

This problem makes many politicians loot the treasury with impunity when in power. If they borrowed the funds or their “godfathers” sponsored them, they would become puppets in the hands of these financiers or special interest groups.