Behind the Electoral Act

By 

Godwin Egbo

Politics according to Harold Lasswell, is the struggle for positions of power and influence. Politicians are known to employ with full means to secure or sustain positions of power and influence. The electoral bill has generated so much controversy yet the National Assembly remains intransigent. Possibly, there is a "hidden agenda" behind the bill.

Many members of the National Assembly have argued that what they did is constitutional and in the best interest of the nation. However, that they have the power to amend the 1982 electoral bill is not disputable, but that they did it for selfless purposes or in the best interest of the nation, can be contested.

The two legislative chambers in their respective versions of the bill, reversed the sequence of elections and increased the tenure of local government political office holders from three years to four years. The public cried out against the Senate's electoral bill which stipulates that presidential election would take place first, which considering the political immaturity of most Nigerians, might produce a band-wagon effect, implying that the party that wins presidential election might capture all or most of the other elective offices. This is believed to be the ploy of PDP senators to plunge the other parties into political bankruptcy. The House of Representatives felt the pulse of the public over the Senate's bill and in their own, provided that all the elections would be held in one day.

The national legislators, trying to justify the elongation of the tenure of local government office holders, maintained that it is necessary for sustenance of the nascent democracy. Therefore the decision was overtly occasioned by the legislators' suspicion and mistrust of the governors. It was explained that if the governors stayed in office longer than local government political office holders that they might manipulate the local government election to ensure that their men who in turn would ensure their re-election, would win local government chairmanship and councillorship elections. Therefore, the extension of the tenure of council chairmen and councillors is conceived by the legislators to be the panacea to electoral malpractices. But it is doubtful that the implicit purpose for the tenure extension is to guard against electoral fraud. Also, devising ways of checking electoral malpractices or rigging should be best done by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The failure of the legislators to do anything or include any clause in the bill that would make it hard for them also to attempt regaining their seats through illegitimate means come next election, suggests that they are not vulnerable to doing that (rigging election).

It is therefore arguable that the electoral bill is a calculated design to achieve certain parochial political goals . The 1982 electoral Act had been experimented and found okey. What then is the rationale in adopting a new or untested electoral guideline in a very volatile polity like ours? The dust the bill has raised is indicative of its unpopularity and undesirability. The legislators' anchorage of the bill on their constitutional right is in any case, legally justifiable but it certainly lacks political credibility. At the inception of this democracy, undemocratic acts exhibited by our political office holders, were always blamed on the military culture that our people have imbibed over the years. This democracy is now more than two years old, is it not time we gave up military mentality? In democracy power belongs to the people. In fact, the electorate or the people are the political sovereign, rulers are expected to be guided by the wishes of the people. The law makers' amendment of the acclaimed spotless electoral Act of 1982 even when public opinion had revealed the position of the people on the matter, is a negation of democratic norms and it obviously suggests that there is more to the electoral bill than what we are told.

It is ostensible that the law makers fashioned the bill for security of their political interests.

The fear that holding the local government election during the incumbency of the governors would create an environment that would not be conducive for their re-election, can be reasonably inferred to be one of the reasons for the extension of the tenure of the office of local government political office holders and also, the House of Representatives' provision that all elections would take place the same day is possibly born out of that fear. It is apparent that many of the legislators are not in good terms with their governors. The logical assumption is that the election would place the governors in the vantage position to ruin the chances of their re-election. It is expected that the governors would give moral and logistic supports to their party candidates for the election. This is permissible in democracy and no responsible and faithful member of any party, much less a person in governorship position will not want to make any legitimate contribution to facilitate his party's victory at elections. Party loyalty which is a mark of credibility and entails defence of the interests of the party, places on the governors, the responsibility of co-operating with the legislators for their victory at the polls. Any governor that intends to sabotage the party on whose ticket he came to office, because of his rift with an individual needs to learn the tenets of politics and is in fact not worthy to hold political office. The point is that the fear of victimisation by the governors is not called for.

Another possible implicit reason for the amendment of the Act is unwillingness of some national lawmakers who are eyeing their council chairmanship, to vacate their seats at the National Assembly, a year earlier than when due, that is if the local government election is to be held in 2002. The fact that local government chairmen enjoy executive powers and are in the position to meaningfully touch the lives of the people of their areas, makes councils chairmanship attractive despite that it is lowly in political office hierarchy. Therefore, a good number of the Abuja law makers, especially those of the lower house are likely to be desirous of occupying that seat, but it is not logical for them to forgo what they have for what they are not too sure of getting and so the better alternative is to solicit for the sentiment of their colleagues to employ a legislative instrument to dislodge the impediment; the result is the bill for extension of the tenure of local government political office holders.

The spoils of political office are very enticing, this explains why some political office holders do anything possible to remain in office. The concern of all Nigerians should be to consolidate this hard earned democracy and to safeguard the unity of our nation. We need to place the interests of our nation above our personal interests.

Speakers of the state Houses of Assembly, after their meeting on October 18, advised their governors to dissolve the councils and appoint caretaker committees in preparation for council election in April, 2002. Southern governors in their recent meeting reiterated their determination to conduct the election next April. A situation where the state Independent Electoral Commission conducts the election next year and the federal government refuses to recognise it, its attendant confusion may mark the end of this republic and possibly that of Nigeria also.

The desperation with which some political office holders go about their re-election bid, portends doom for our country. Many Nigerians have suggested that non renewable one term of six years should be adopted for all elective political offices in our nation to forestall the unpleasant activities that usually characterise re-election effort. I implore the National Assembly to think about it.