IF the order of elections in Nigeria is judged to be connected with electoral outcomes, it is a subject of research that may take a few more years, perhaps even decades, to conclusively establish. What is, however, clear is that more than anything else, sitting governments in Nigeria, with the possible exception of the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, often force those outcomes, regardless of the order of elections. It is therefore a little hard to explain why the House of Representatives two Tuesdays ago chose to tinker, through an amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), with the order of elections less than three weeks after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced both the order of elections and the timetable for the 2019 general elections. The only guess
The electoral umpire had in March last year first announced the election dates to commence from February 16, 2019. That announcement was reiterated on January 9 when INEC again indicated that the elections would commence in February with the presidential and National Assembly polls, and followed by the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls. The new timetable and order of elections seemed a foregone conclusion until the House of Representatives began work on the amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). According to the lower legislative chamber, the order of elections will follow a different trajectory from the INEC’s arrangement. In their opinion, the 2019 elections will start with the National Assembly, progress to the governorship and state Houses of Assembly, and then end with the presidential poll. As far as the Reps are concerned, the election will be bunched into three parcels, instead of INEC’s two.
The electoral umpire has shown its displeasure with the timing of the amendment, not necessarily the amendment itself. It however promised that it would not violate the law. So far, the presidency has kept discretely quiet on the matter. It is, of course, interested in the order of elections, and will doubtless show keener than normal interest in how the first two sets of elections play out, considering the fact that bandwagons cannot be totally ruled out in elections. If the Muhammadu Buhari government has apprehensions as to the order of elections and its possible consequences for the ruling party’s fortunes, it has been clever in disguising it. After all, there is nothing to indicate that the feared bandwagon effect can be ruled out of the amended Electoral Act which the Senate is likely to identify with. Overall, it appears the National Assembly is distrustful of the presidency, mortified by growing public disapproval of the president’s policies and appointments, and is therefore eager both to establish its own independence and to take control of its fate. Whether that gamble will pay off remains to be seen.
The target of the amendments is obviously not INEC. The electoral umpire must, therefore, do everything in its power to navigate the treacherous rapids of the 2019 polls triggered in part by the gale ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s ‘special statement’ unleashed against President Muhammadu Buhari last week. The former president had denounced President Buhari for incompetence and dismissed most of his policies as clannish and nepotistic. He summed up his intervention by advising the president not to seek a second term, an advice no one is certain the laconic and aloof president will take. Though the amendment to the of Assembly elections on January 9, then moved through National Assembly polls on February 20, and then lumbered to a halt with the presidential poll on February 27. Though it was clear who the Abdulsalami Abubakar government’s preferred candidate was, there was nothing to indicate that the order of elections was engineered to bring about that outcome; or indeed, even if that was the purpose, that it could have delivered the desired outcome forcefully. There were of course allegations that the polls were fiddled with, but the courts disagreed with the public suppositions, and ruled in favour of the winner, Olusegun Obasanjo.
By 2007, when Dr Obasanjo’s second term was coming to an end, the electoral umpire, probably profiting from experience or because it was simply determined to be more efficient, had tweaked the order of elections by scheduling the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls to begin first, as was the case in 1999, on April 14, while the presidential and National Assembly polls were bunched together to be held the same day on April 21 contrary to what prevailed in 1999. Again, if there was a nefarious intent to the order of elections, it was not immediately discernible from the eventual outcome of the polls. What was clear, however, was that the Obasanjo presidency was unprepared to leave anything to chance. It not only forcefully and undemocratically streamlined the number of aspirants, it enthroned candidates in some states, and then eventually foisted a presidential ticket of its own choosing on the then ruling party. Worse, it blatantly subverted the principles of openness and transparency by ensuring a particular electoral outcome that shocked the country and dismayed the rest of the world.
The 2011 elections were, however, much better. Though the order of elections was again split into three, as was the case in 1999, the arrangement was a little bizarre and did not seem designed to serve any particular purpose. It began with the parliamentary election on April 9, coursed through to the presidential poll on April 16, and then ended with the third layer of governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls on April 26. Allegations of electoral shenanigans were not as deafening as in 2007. By 2015, after a particularly contentious postponement of the polls, the order of elections was again tweaked amidst uproarious controversy and allegations of electoral chicanery designed to gift the Goodluck Jonathan presidency an unmerited ‘second term’. It began with the presidential and National Assembly polls, and ended with the governorship and state Houses of Assembly polls. Other than the usual allegation of preparing the ground for a bandwagon effect, little or no other meaning was read into the order of elections. In the end, partly because of the country’s changed political dynamics, and Dr Jonathan’s surprisingly civilised disposition to the concept of democracy, the elections were fairly credible and the outcome unquestionably a mirror of popular discontent, regardless of the grumblings of some of the losers.
All the frenzied tweaks that took place between 1999 and 2015 were a far cry from the leisurely pace adopted for the 1979 elections which put the senatorial poll first for July 7 of that year, followed by the House of Representatives poll held on July 14, governorship poll on July 28, and presidential poll on August 11. There did not seem to be any cold electoral calculation behind that scheduling, but it was no less controversial, and the electoral outcomes were even more negatively impactful. Apart from fouling the wells of justice as evident by the enunciation and adoption of very controversial juridic principles in resolving the litigations that flowed from the 1979 presidential poll, the democratic experiment of that time was itself doomed by the irresponsible projection of many questionable measures by an undisciplined political class.
There must be an end to the tweaking of the order of elections. The uncertainties and instability that flow from the numerous tweaks are sometimes befuddling and simply too destabilising to the polity to engender the growth of democracy so earnestly desired by a majority of Nigerians. Nigeria’s political elite, if they can act responsibly and above partisanship, must structure the country in such a disciplined and intelligent way that the order of elections will have no influence whatsoever on the outcomes of the elections. Otherwise, defeated parties will always accuse the winners and possibly the government that backs them of acting consistently mala fide.
Ref. http://thenationonlineng.net
No comments:
Post a Comment