ELECTORAL REFORM IN NIGERIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
  Since the electoral meltdown in the 1983 General elections, each Election Day has raised new alarms that the foundation of our democracy --- the right to vote in free and fair elections --- remains beset with varied problems. Years after serious problems were exposed to the public, it has become increasingly apparent that our elections system is technologically, legally, and administratively inadequate and unfair.
     Over the last three years, INEC, Nigerian politicians, civil society organizations, and the international community have all sought to learn from 1999 and 2003 elections by launching projects that aim to improve the Nigerian electoral process (Carl Le Van, 2006)
      In 1992, there were allegations of irregularities and other acts of bad conducts leveled against the presidential candidates but NEC went ahead and cleared them. There were proofs as well as documented evidence of widespread use of money during the party primaries as well as the presidential election. These were the bad conduct for which the party presidential primaries of that were cancelled. Evidence available to government put the total amount of money spent by the presidential candidates as over two billion, one hundred million naira (#2.1 billion). The use of money was again manifested as the major source of undermining the electoral process for personal aggrandizement to clinch the more coveted seat at all cost at the expense of the vast and honest Nigerians (Babangida, 1993).
     In his election annulment speech of June 26, 1993, the head of state, General Ibrahim  Babangida, boldly came out to the public that the allegations and evidence of 1992 presidential primaries were known to the National Defence and Security Council before the holding of the June 12, 1993 election, the National Defence and Security Council overlooked these areas of problems in its determination to fulfill the promise to hand over to an elected president on due date. The Head of state himself confirmed this in his speech: ‘‘fellow Nigerians you would recall that it was precisely because the presidential primaries of last year did not meet the basic requirements of free and fair election that the Armed Forces Ruling council, had good reason to cancel those primaries. The recently annulled presidential election was similarly afflicted by these problems. Even before the presidential elections, and indeed at the party conventions, we had full knowledge of the bad signals pertaining to the enormous breach of the rules and regulations of democracy elections. But because we were determined  to keep faith the deadline of  27th August  1993 for the return of civil rule, we overlooked the reported breaches unfortunately, these breaches continued into the presidential election of June 12, 1993, on an even greater proportion.’’
     Given the above corollaries, one would say they are possible scenarios in our electoral process unless necessary actions are taken at the right psychological moment of time. And this is  why today’s electoral reform agenda is a welcome development in the annals of nation’s electoral history. There are possible electoral challenges and opportunities in the current electoral reform in Nigeria which I would like to draw the attention of the electoral reform committee (ERC) headed by former chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Justice Muhammed  Uwais, apart from the adumbrated ones above.
       It is axiomatic in comparative politics that political competition presumes a basket of political rights (Dahl, 1971). But then, nowhere in the world in which the practice of democracy is the same, even if the principles are similar and even for countries  which share the same intellectual tradition and cultural foundation. Thus, the history of our country is not the history of other country in the world, which is either practicing advanced democracy or struggling to lay the foundation for democracy. Every country has her own electoral problems, not peculiar to Nigeria. Yet, Nigeria has her own electoral peculiarities. In spite of these peculiarities and uniqueness, there are certain prerequisites, which constitute an irreducible minimum for democracy regardless of our political rights. Such essential factors include: free and fair elections; uncoerced expression of voters preference in election; respect for electorates as unfettered final arbiter on election; decorum and fairness on the part of the electoral umpires; and absolute respect for the rule of law. All these must be stressed in the on- going electoral reform before true electoral process can be said to have taken place.
          The confirmation of General Babangida in his annulment speech of 1993 concerning electoral irregularities and failures that trailed the 1992 presidential primaries was indicative of a country that has apparently long been notorious for electoral malpractices. Aside the above declarations by him, the General went further to say the there were moral issues, apart from the tremendous negative use of money during the party primaries and presidential elections, which were also overlooked by the Defence and National Security Council.
        Given the electoral meltdown in the 1992/1993 national elections, the electoral reform committee and INEC should see to the security situation of the future elections to engender true electoral process in the country. Cultivating a secure and peaceful environment before and on election day is a major issues that requires fresh thinking. For example, in the weeks leading up to the April 2003 elections, It became  evident that there were nowhere near enough police to man a sufficient presence throughout the  nation. The only panacea to this, for the purpose of future election, is to hire private security group and ‘‘vigilante’’ organizations to serve as security at polling stations. It was learnt that reports by electoral observation groups and domestic monitors did not identify these organizations as a problem in the April 2003 elections. It was also said that most attention was focused on the police, who had received guidelines from the police service commission and were informed that they operated under the direction of the presiding officer at each polling station (Transition Monitoring Group 2003a)
        Similarly, the use of arms by private security must be looked into. The 2002 Electoral Act did not appear to anticipate the substantial and visible role that informal security organizations ended up playing. Section 85 prohibited any offensive weapons at political rallies or polling centers unless that person is lawfully authorized member of a security agency to carry arms. And since private security organizations are likely to play an important role again in 2011, it is critical to clarify their chain of command in the polling area. They should be clearly informed of who they answer to through materials and orientation training.
          Another challenge is the use of thugs by political candidates, is a case in question, which was also widespread in all elections. Something must be done to address this problem: a code of conduct for the political parties, such as the one advanced in 2003, is an important step towards reducing potential violence. But this will do little to curb the behaviour of paramilitaries operating semi-autonomously. This, for us to have credible elections, INEC should do something to tame the so- called ‘‘area boys’’ or political thugs.
         Besides, the area that also needs urgent attention is the molestation of the election observers and those providing democratization assistance. They are guests in Nigeria --- a foreign land; they should not be subject to intimidation or harassment.
         Another reform would be to reduce the disproportional of results. Electoral experts define disproportional as the difference between the votes share of a party and its seat share. In the words of Carl Le Van (2006), it is not inherently destabilizing and comparative studies suggest it is an almost inevitable result of Single Member District (SMD) electoral systems such as Nigeria’s (Lijphart, 1999). To explain further in SMD-plurality electoral systems, there is only one seat up for grabs in each district and the candidate with the most votes, whether it is a majority or not, wins that seat; the loser gets nothing.
         But in a socially diverse country like Nigeria, this over- representation of large parties and under-representation of smaller parties could contribute to dangerous frustrations among ethnic and political minorities, especially if the parties fail to cut across social differences. For instance, after the 2005 elections Iraq’s parliament was paralyzed by the inability to agree on a prime minister. A little noticed fact is that the party that secured a minority of the seats actually did not obtain a minority of the votes. Such unpleasant (and not unforeseeable) realities exacerbated popular pessimism about the party’s legitimate mandate to rule. I think alternation of power is a natural remedy to these frustrations. But  Nigeria  has yet to experience even one turnover of power, and its tradition of  power shift within parties, potentially undermines the ability for voters to actually punish politicians who do not perform (or to reward those who do) (Carl,2006)
         Now, on the INEC, several significant developments are shaping the political  environment and threatened political competition. These issues have received less attention because they seem isolated, they do not appear to be within INEC’s responsibilities, or they are on the ethical margins of democratization assistance.
         Moreso, the INEC’s guidelines must conform with the constitution. Besides, INEC should accept nomination directly from parties at the state. Given the Electoral law (section 21-23 of the 2002 Act), Political party must submit to INEC its list of candidate prior to the election. Differences between lists produced at the state and national level accounts for many problems during primaries (Legal Defence Center, 2004). With this in mind, the commission might contribute to the decentralization and internal democratization of all parties by accepting nomination of candidates directly from parties at the state level, rather than strictly the national level.
     The 2002 Electoral Act gives INEC ability to monitor critical activities of parties, including candidate nomination procedures. Section 75 states, in part : ‘‘ every registered political party  shall give the commission at least 21 days notice of any convention, congress, conference  or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive  committees, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified under this Act.’’
       The commission is also expected to monitor and keep records of the activities of political parties, including activities that might violate electoral law. (This language was retained in the 2004 draft of the new electoral bill as sections 91 and 92, respectively.) This language currently represents a dilemma that is reflected in bureaucratic and political reality; on the other hand, a policy of laissez-faire helps insulate the parties from undue interference.
        Furthermore, in Nigeria, previously, the constitution did not include sex (gender) as one of the classifications and therefore it was possible for some states to deny women the right to vote. Whereas, in comparative politics, it is axiomatic that political competition presumes a basket of political rights: either you are a woman or man. Justice Brennan said ‘‘there can be no doubt that our nation has long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which in practical effect puts women not on a pedestal but in a cage’’
       Justice Brennan could have been speaking of present-day  Nigeria where women are still excluded from bailing people form police custody; are regarded as chattels to be inherited by man under customary law (family); require their husbands’ consent to obtain passports. Although they are now allowed to vote, the inclusion of sex among the prohibited grounds for discrimination was not in the Draft constitution but was introduced by a female member of the constituent assembly. It is necessary to note that ‘‘any law in force in Nigeria ‘’ covers Customary Law, Islamic Law and common law as well as statute law. The complete emancipation of women by the 1979 constitution is reflected in the right which it gives them to vote and be voted for at elections to a Local Government council, State House of Assembly, House of Representatives, Senate, the office of Governor of a state and the presidency of Nigeria (on an equal footing with men); the right to form or belong to a political party, trade union, or other association for the protection of common interest ; the right to participate in the discussion of public affairs; to criticize the actions of government; to campaign freely for public causes; and to agitate for change. It appears now that there is no constitutional discrimination against the women, but what about electoral discrimination? But it appears that the draft Bill submitted by INEC to the National Assembly in 1999 was not gender- sensitive. The electoral Bill has sexist language which is unacceptable in contemporary world. Thus, this Bill must be critically examined by the Electoral Reform Committee (ERC)
        It is an opportunity to increase access to by removing existing barriers, changing registration and voting practices, and ensuring voting rights for all Nigerians. Besides, there is need to safeguard our voting systems by passing federal and state legislation to really enhance voting machine accuracy and security to engender electoral confidence and trust in the INEC. Also, the election officials should be held accountable by passing legislation prohibiting partisan activity and establishing strict conflict of interest laws. Furthermore, there is need to support creation of independent redistricting commissions to draw to draw legislative district line, as opposed to the current system that consists mostly of state legislators drawing district lines to protect their seats and pressure their party’s power. In seeking to take the redistricting process out of the hands of partisan politicians and to establish fair criteria to guide the redistricting process, common cause’s goal is to create legislative and congressional districts that are representatives of the population and districting plans that result in more competitive congressional and legislative districts.
         I would like to submit and suggest that an open ballot system of voting should be adopted in Nigeria. In the open ballot system, voters queue in front of the picture of the candidate they want to vote for. Indeed, there may be no need for a ballot box. Electoral officers will just count the number of people on each candidate’s queue and   the result will be known there and then by both voters and candidates. This cannot be altered thereafter; otherwise there could be civil war! There will be need of machine or manual counting of ballot papers. And huge savings would have been made by not having ballot boxes or printing ballot papers.
       By and large, failure to approve budgets and disburse funds in a timely fashion remains a major obstacle to good electoral management which may eventually crush the whole electoral process.
                                                                     08038294995
                                                                     succesfulkenny@yahoo.com