NOTHING, in recent times, have shown the true character of the Nigerian state, the Nigerian ruling classes and the power blocs developed therefrom, as clearly as the current build-up to the 2002/2003 elections, especially the guidelines for the registration of new political parties recently published by, or rather through, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). I should hasten to add, however, that the guidelines, as reprehensive as they are, say nothing, one way or the other, about the personal integrity of the leaders and functionaries of the Commission, except possibly that they are not revolutionary democrats. Not even a saint put to serve the Nigerian ruling classes and their social system can do much better. In fact, if a saint is inserted into the Nigerian social system to regulate the struggle for power he or she will emerge from the exercise painted devil-black. Several politicians and pro-democracy advocates have argued that the INEC guidelines are in contradiction with the 1999 Constitution in some critical areas, and against the "spirit" of that basic document. The two-point assertion is very correct. But the matter goes beyond that. I submit that a true democrat must question both the Constitution and the Electoral Act, and then the INEC Guidelines, their legitimate baby.

The monstrosity of INEC guidelines is a direct product of the power structure in Nigeria, the Construction and the Electoral Act. In short, in the final analysis, it does not matter whether the INEC people are acting out a script, prepared by someone or some authority, or acting out their own script, inspired by the Constitution, the Electoral Act and their own consciousness and understanding. The point is that there is a very limited degree of freedom for any election umpire operating today in Nigeria. But I agree that the INEC guidelines can be battled on its own grounds. Nigerians have a lot to learn from such a battle. They will learn very quickly from such a battle - if it is rigorously and uncompromisingly waged - that the existing political system is heavily weighted against true democrats, the poor, the marginalised, the exploited, the dispossessed and the internal colonial subjects. Let us therefore take a look at this particular child of the Nigerian system, the INEC guidelines and its parent, guardian and inspirer, the 1999 Constitution.

INEC opened its Guidelines for the Registration of Political Parties (dated May 15, 2002) with the following definition: A political association for the purposes of these guidelines is defined as an organisation or persons: "seeking registration as a political party in order to participate in an election by meeting all prescribed statutory requirements" (section 1). The 1999 Constitution defines an "association" and a "political party" (section 229). It does not define a "political association". This was done by INEC. Now, if the Constitution which is the nation's basic law defines an association, then any other definitions of subsets of "association" made by any institution or organ deriving its existence, powers and functions from the Constitution, must not detract from the general definition offered by the Constitution. They can only signify and elaborate on what differentiates one type of association from the others. A sub-set does not detract from the qualities of the full set of which it is a part. For instance, if INEC wishes, it can sub-divide the set of associations into sub-sets: political, cultural, social, ethnic, religious, occupational, etc, as the 1999 Constitution recognises and permits in Section 229. So far, so good. Section 221 of the Constitution states: "No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate at an election". This is one of the most criminal provisions in the Constitution, a guarantee that, through elections, the present power structure, heavily weighted against the masses, will be maintained and perpetuated - until such a time that the "wretched of the Nigerian earth" will accept their fate as immutable!

Going by the letter and spirit of the 1999 Constitution from which INEC has abstracted and then extended and interpreted, every association, defined by the Constitution as "any body of persons corporate or unincorporated who agree to act together for any common purpose, and includes an association formed for an ethnic, social, cultural, occupational or religious purpose", can apply to INEC to function (that is the word used by the Constitution) as a political party which the same basic document defines as including "any association whose activities includes canvassing for votes in support of a candidate for election to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or membership of a legislative house or of a local government council". The import of this is that the various social-cultural organisations in the country, religious groups and ethnic gatherings and regional formations, especially those in Nigeria's internal colonies (the Niger Delta, etc) and even ethnic militias can seek to function as political parties.

The question is whether they can be registered as political parties. The Constitution and INEC say no, not all of them. I can understand why ethnic militias cannot be registered: the state, any state whatsoever, must remain, or aspire to remain, the only legitimate armed force within the territory internationally recognised as belonging to that state. But why can't small pro-democracy, human rights and socio-political groups and unarmed resistance groups in marginalised and colonised segments of the Nigerian nation be permitted to function as political parties? Why can't a small group in this country, which belong to all of us, start in a small place, test its message, platform and strength electorally in a small area, if it chooses to do so, and then develop? The Nigerian state and its institutions and agencies say that this will endanger the corporate existence of Nigeria and detract from current "efforts" at developing national unity. What then should these small groups do? The Nigerian state replies that they should find accommodation within the big "national" parties that have functioning, well-furnished and well-equipped offices and documented memberships in at least 24 states. But in seeking this accommodation they must dissolve themselves into the big parties since, according to INEC Guidelines, (Section 5), every party member must be so in his or her "personal capacity". No group, as a group, can seek legitimate alliance with another group or party to wage a common electoral battle. It must dissolve itself into a large group. This is another criminal provision, similarly aimed at perpetual hegemony. In any case we all know that with very few exceptions, only big political formations infinitely endowed financially can fulfil INEC's material and bureaucratic conditions. We also know that these big political formations are not simply dominated by the power blocs, they are owned by the power blocs. And their agenda is clear: the perpetual domination of Nigeria within the economic framework of capitalist globalisation, neo-liberalism, mass impoverishment and enslavement and the political ideology of "war against global terror". Any national or international dissenter is a terrorist.

President Olusegun Obasanjo has, in recent past made two statements which deserve some response. He insulated himself from any perceived shortcomings in INEC Guidelines, saying that it was not his duty to write the guidelines; he did not write them; and, in fact, had no time for such exercise. Anyone who is dissatisfied should go to the court. But he was of the opinion that guidelines are necessary for the registration of political parties. Fine talk. But we should know, going by the nature of the state in general and Nigerian political history in particular, that INEC Guidelines could not have seen the light of day if the President did not approve of every line of it. If we do not know this then we should go back to an elementary school of political science and political history. In another statement reported in The Guardian of May 26, 2002, President Obasanjo gave six reasons why he "favours" democracy. The reasons are that democracy is the only means by which leadership can be brought in or removed peacefully; it does not allow for leadership till death do them part, as leaders have to periodically test their popularity; it allows for competition" where the people can judge by programme and record; it has checks and balances with three four or even five arms; it allows for dialogue; and it gives minority a voice". The first five reasons are mere propaganda. INEC Guidelines are a negation of the sixth.

Nigeria has been declared a democracy by the ruling classes, their power blocs, and the "international community" whose endorsement is now the decisive criterion worldwide for designation as a democracy. The forthcoming elections, even the current preparations for them, are a further confirmation of the designation of our country as a democracy. But popular and truly democratic voices in Nigeria are saying that is a huge lie: that Nigeria is not a democracy and that the electoral process, including INEC Guidelines, are moving the country even further away from the direction of democracy. These voices must become stronger, louder and sharper.

July 2002