The
2015 elections, more than any before them, attracted the attention of
the international community as well as Nigerians themselves with unequal
passion. The international community feared for its outcome, not least
because of a history of post-election violence. President Barack Obama
of the United States of America, among many world leaders, pleaded for
peaceful elections. The prospect of a disorganised Nigerian estate, both
to its immediate neighbours and the world community at large, could
hardly be contemplated.
Nigerians themselves feared the
worst. The fear of a possible disintegration of their nation was not
helped by threats of violence being made here and there should the
outcome of the presidential election favour one group against another.
With the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East zone raging with
election preparations, such fear was credible.
However,
the outcome of the election defied widely held fears. Both the Chairman
of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Prof. Attahiru Jega,
and President Goodluck Jonathan, were lavishly praised for different
reasons. The former and his team for conducting relatively successful
elections, while Jonathan was praised for sportsmanship in conceding
defeat to his challenger, Muhammadu Buhari.
With the elections
concluded, attention must focus on what can be taken from them as the
reform of the processes of democracy must continue. A “post-mortem”
exercise, as a matter of fact, must follow every election, not the least
in a nation whose democracy is still at the rudimentary stage.
The
first observation in the Nigerian 2015 elections is the role of money
played in its politics. We seem to be operating an electoral democracy
meant for the rich, or those who can risk becoming debtors in pursuit of
their political ambitions. The amounts of money stipulated for
“tickets” into the various elective offices are outrageous. Many honest
Nigerians can hardly partake in elections because of this.
Equally
outrageous is the assumption that there is a monetary tag on every
prospective Nigerian voter. There is hardly any doubt that it could be
expensive to get political messages across via the media in general but
the assumption that money or monetary gifts must be distributed to
Nigerian voters is highly insulting and should be criminalised, both for
the giver as well as for the taker. The cheering news from the 2015
elections may have been the disappointment by those who still failed to
win their elections despite having spent so much attempting to induce
favourable outcomes.
There is also a sense in which many
celebrated the defeat of President Jonathan, the candidate of the
Peoples Democratic Party. Even when they did not belong to any of the
political parties, they nevertheless felt infuriated by the volume of
naira that vested interests pumped into his campaign funds. They wished
for his defeat because of that, so the rich and their monumental
obscenity could be shamed in a democracy that is about all of us. There
must be an enforceable cap on how much can be donated to individuals and
political parties, as well as how much could be spent on electoral
campaigns.
Another observation from the elections is that
primordial sentiments still predominate. There was ethnic, regional and
religious voting in most of the geopolitical zones. The outcome of the
presidential election hinged on who benefitted more from the balance of
sentiments. Of course, the election of Buhari, candidate of the All
Progressives Congress was popular both at home and abroad; the fact of
sentiments in our politics nevertheless remains intrinsic with the
nature of society itself.
The South-South and South-East zones,
for no considerations other than ethnic, voted overwhelmingly for
Jonathan, while it was unlikely the North could suddenly have turned the
bastion of progressive ideology were the presidential candidate of the
PDP to have come from that region and that of the rival APC from the
South. The North voted overwhelmingly for Buhari, a revered member of
the region.
Finally, there is hardly any doubt that Jega and his
colleagues did a competent and patriotic job. One quite admired the
cultured and professorial manner Jega lectured Godsday Orubebe, on the
propriety of public conduct. Orubebe, a former Minister of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria and an agent of the PDP in the presidential
election, seemed determined to disrupt procedures at the election
results collating centre, not least because his party was on the losing
end. He alleged partiality on the part of Jega, but should have since
realised that his rather unruly conduct did not recommend him to the
future. However, issues of election malpractices and election-related
violence and killings must not be ignored. A future campaign based on
issues, rather than personal attacks and desperation, will go a long way
in educating our people that democracy belongs in the pantheon of
decent cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment