POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW ELECTORAL LAW IN NIGERIA:

by

Professor Omo Omoruyi

Research Fellow, African Studies Center,

Boston University

CEO, Advancing Democracy in Africa (ADA)

The attempt of the PDP National Assembly and the PDP President to use the Electoral Law to inflict a one party dominance and dictatorship in the country, comes 2003 reminds one of the work by Douglas Rae, The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws published by the Yale University Press in 1967.. The focus of this study was on mature Democracies. Today, we should focus on the political consequences of the new electoral law recently signed into law by the President within 24 hours of its presentation to him by the National Assembly. The application of the new electoral laws would in the end bring about negative consequences for the political order.

The new Electoral Bill would not be democracy enhancing; in fact, it would destroy what Nigerians call the nascent democracy, whatever that means, at its infancy. It certainly would sanction the commencement of a chain of events, the ends ought to be obvious to the President and the PDP in particular and the political class in general from our history where and when one party and office holders set out to perpetuate themselves in office by inflicting themselves on the unwilling Nigerian people through a massively rigged election. The PDP President and the PDP members would be shortsighted to think that they would stand to gain under it. They should look back to the narrow vision of the parties in power in 1964 and in 1983. The forces that led Alhaji Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Shehu Shagari to embark on anti-democratic measure to assume a one party dominance are at work again under the guise of the new Electoral Bill. President OBASANJO should learn from their fate. This will be revisited again.

I once raised a question published in This Day in which I called into question the ability of the current regime to preside over a free, fair and credible election in 2003. This grew out of the same issue raised in the academic conference by many participants with me at the Houston Meeting of the African Studies Association as to whether President and his party can deliver a credible election to the Nigeria. My view then was one of apprehension and I so expressed it in the essay in This Day and published in four main Nigerian international Websites: gamji.com, nigeriaworld.com, nigerdeltacongress.com and transsharan.com. In this essay, I called on the President to do away with the national pride and farm out the election process to an international body like the UN or the Commonwealth.

Today, arising from the way the National Assembly came about the Electoral Bill and the unusual steps taken by the President to quickly assent to the Bill, one could come to the conclusion that the 2003 is prone to foul play. Nigerians should not wait until the Election Day in 2003 before making their views known. Nigerians should know that the election of 2003 was rigged from the day the President appended his signature to the highly partisan Electoral Bill. Those who are dissatisfied with the new Bill are many and varied.

USE OF THE COURT FOR POLITICAL ENDS UNDEMOCRATIC

The President's call to Nigerians dissatisfied with the new Bill to go to the Supreme Court betrays his political insensitivity to an essential political issue, which he refused when the issue of Sharia was first raised with him even though he reneged on that rule when it came to issue of resource control. The President is indirectly asking Nigerians to take the impossible route of the Supreme Court to pursue their legitimate political demands. How do we commence the election process with a resort to the Supreme Court? Is this the proper thing to do? Would that not making the Supreme Court part of the legislative process?

PDP PRESIDENT OBASANJO ONLY VIABLE CANDIDATE IN 2003

I warned Nigerians since 1999 that election rigging usually starts many days, in fact months before the Election Day and the President wants to rope in the Supreme Court into the process. Hence the one-day wonder usually performed by international observers never addresses the harm done months before the Election Day. The election shall have been rigged, massively of course if the new Electoral Bill is allowed to stay. The political implications should be obvious by now.

Do Nigerians know that President Obasanjo would be the only VIABLE Presidential candidate in 2003 under the present Bill?

Do Nigerians know that the PDP would be the only VIABLE party in 2003?

Do Nigerians know that the AD or the APP in their present factionalized form are not viable parties and would not be able to produce an alternative Presidential candidate to President Obasanjo in 2003?

Do Nigerians know that no NEW party or parties would qualify to vie for the Federal offices (President and National Assembly) under the present rule of (a) using the local government presence as the basis of determining the viability of parties and (b) making the local government election the last in the series of elections.

From the foregoing, the end would be obvious. Nigerians and the international community should not wait until the Election Day event in 2003. Nigerians and the international community should know that those who surround President OBASANJO have no experience or commitment to a free and fair election. They are bent on massively rigging the pre-election day events thus making the results of the Election Day a foregone conclusion. If Nigerians do not protest and stop these pre-election day anti-democratic practices of the PDP, the Election Day event would enthrone a one party rule in Nigeria.

I SAW AND DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM IN THE PAST.

The manifestations of bounded uncertainty among Nigerian as to the credibility of 2003 are not new. I saw this in the past; I advised General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) that the new political class should be put through a programmed political education, which I pioneered under the Centre for Democratic Studies (CDS). The purpose was to make the political class believe in the sanctity of the ballot box and have faith in the election they were involved in at any particular time as part of a series of elections to come in their life time and in the future of the country. We made them believe in the vote as the voice of the people; we made them have faith that the current election in which they were involved would not be the end of election in their lifetime or in the future of Nigeria.

It is part of the history of the past that the erratic system of banning and unbanning from Babangida’s changing moves and moods that ruined the programmed political education that was beginning to bear fruits. It is an aspect of the political development of the country that the erratic policies of banning and unbanning opened the political space for non-believers in one person and one vote. They constituted the new political class made up of the members of the National Executive Committees and the Presidential candidates of the two political parties that grew out of the National Conventions of the two political parties in March 1993. They did not benefit from the programmed political education of the CDS between 1989 and 1992 and hence they did not value the vote as the voice of the people. Whatever faith some had before and during the June 1993, the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election finally killed the little faith the political class was beginning to have in the sanctity of election and the prospect of a series of elections.

NON-BELIEVERS SURROUND PRESIDENT OBASANJO

President OBASANJO is not a politician; he does not have faith in the political class and in the institution of political parties. To compound the problem, President OBASANJO is a victim of those in the leadership of his political party or serving with him in his cabinet or occupying position of responsibility in the National Assembly Nigerians that do not believe in the sanctity of the ballot box. Their action from the way the new Election Bill was handled demonstrates that they actually have no faith in the prospect of another election. President OBASANJO knew or ought to have known that those who are coming up with all sorts of laws in the national Assembly and in the PDP about the 2003 election have no democratic credentials. It is a rule in the program of democratic transition that one could not predicate democracy on non-democratic institutions. Or put in another way, one needs democrats to create democracy. This is the situation Nigerians find themselves since 1999 till today.

What President OBASANJO and the political class should or ought to appreciate is that democracy is anchored on the feeling or faith under three conditions.

That there would be another election.

That the winner would not be the winner for all time.

That the loser would not be the loser for all time.

WHAT PRESIDENT OBASANJO ACTUALLY WANTED

It is well known that President OBASANJO has no stomach for another competitive election based on a multi or on a VIABLE two party system when he would be made to show case what he had achieved during his first term. President OBASANJO's actual plan was to have his tenure and that of the other office holders that came to office with him in 1999 to be extended by two years. The Security reports paraded by the Presidency are to the effect that the country would face some difficulties under an uncontrolled Presidential election. This is the same reason, which informed the extension of the tenure of the local government by one year because the country would not withstand an election in over 700 locations in the country in 2002.

The political handlers and the security details of the President are of the opinion that as long as the PDP remains the majority party, its candidate would always win an election in 2003, 2007 etc. This means that those outside the PDP would forever have no chance of competing for the office of the President. This was why the President first line of attack on the issue of election Bill was to take the matter to the PDP caucus and empanel a Committee of PDP Assemblymen and party leaders to harmonize the contentious provisions in the Bill. The President failed to address why this failed. The truth of the matter was that some of the PDP Governors and Assemblymen were not on the same wavelength with the President and the political handlers and security details as to the need for a level playing field for all political parties.

2003 WILL LEAD TO ONE PARTY DOMINANCE

The political implication of the new political plan from the new electoral law should be obvious by now. Under the principle of 'if you cannot beat them join them' or if you want to stay with the winner as Chief Tony Enahoro argued as the reasons for his decision to join the PDP, Nigeria is heading for a one party dominance.

It should have been obvious to the political class that democracy abhors such expression that 'there is no vacancy in the Presidential Villa in 2003' or that the Ndi Igbo could only aspire to the highest office in 2015.

President OBASANJO knows the implication of such an expression for the future of democracy in Nigeria. If he does not, one should let him know that the expression, "no vacancy in the Presidential Villa or in the Aso Rock in 2003" can only mean one of two things or both, which are:

1. That there would not be a free and fair nomination process within his party, the PDP.

2. That there would not be a free and fair election process in 2003 involving the President and other candidates.

The political implications of "no vacancy in Aso Rock in 2003" are evident today from the action of the National Assembly and the President over the election bill and other measures so far. We should recap them.

i. That the two processes (nomination and election) would be massively rigged to achieve the predetermined ends, one party dominance under the PDP.

ii. That the President’s men would work to implement a program directed at the two ends, nomination and election.

iii. That the process of choosing party offices within the PDP would be applied to achieve the same ends.

iv. That the process of divide and rule would be implemented to deal with the AD and the APP.

v. That the Electoral Bill that would come out of the National Assembly on the next election would be such as to achieve the predetermined ends and lead to a one party dominance.

vi. That the use of "faked" security reports as an argument to determine the schedule of elections in 2002 for the local government would be used by the President to lobby the PDP Governors and separate them from the other Governors.

vii. That the local government election would be put off till 2993 after the Presidential election.

viii. That everything should be done to frustrate any efforts by some Nigerians to form other political parties and compete with the PDP.

ix. That everything should be done to kill the other two parties (AD and APP).

x. That in the end the PDP should do everything to create the one party dominance for Nigeria.

Nigerians should recognize the foregoing as the 'warning signs' directed at two ends, which are (a) the massive rigging the process of nomination within the PDP and (b) the massive rigging of the election in 2003.

The implication ought to be obvious to well meaning Nigerians by now. Nigeria is heading toward a one party state and dictatorship.

One hopes that this is not the legacy President OBASANJO wants to bequeath to the Nigerian people at the end of the first term

2003 MAY BE ANOTHER 1964 AND 1983 UNLESS….

Let me repeat what I said in another context about the likelihood of 2003 becoming another 1964 or 1983. I am concerned that the same politicians who were at the root of the election manipulations in 1964 and in 1983 are now in charge of the PDP unfortunately are the same actors in the southwest still alive and planning to manipulate the election in 2003 for the current regime. It is a statement of fact that those who are managing the 2003 election are the same people who massively rigged the elections in 1964 and in 1983 because they never had faith in a free, fair and credible election. The signs are there that there would not be a free, fair and credible election come 2003. One is constantly been reminded of the 'succession elections' of 1964 and of 1983 organized by the ruling political party and massively rigged by the same political party.

RIGGED ELECTIONS (1964/1983) TRIGGERED MILITARY COUPS (1966/1983).

The unfortunate part is that President OBASANJO is a novice to partisan politics; many of his security and political details were alien to politics of 1964 and 1983 to be able to advise him correctly. Do we need to be reminded of the consequences of both infractions? Is President OBASANJO alien to the causes of coups in the past? Let me remind him that he should go back to the past; he should appreciate that the rigged elections in 1964 and in 1983 by the party in power either created the political environment for a military coup or triggered the military intervention in politics in 1966 and in 1983. It is this relationship that is usually ignored by those who want to engage in the blame game that the Igbo or the Hausa/Fulani did this or that. If the elections in 1964 and in 1983 had not been massively rigged, Nigeria would not have had the coups of 1966 and 1983.

A one party dominance through a rigged election usually produces a government that is at variance with the 'will of the people and consequently leads to undue dependence of the party in power on the military for survival. The increase dependence of the government on the military usually increases the military participation ratio in politics. There is evidence of this since 1999, such as the Odi invasion, the Benue incidence and the various religious clashes in Kaduna, Jos, and Kano. One does not need to remind President OBASANJO the way the approach of the President is being caricatured in the international media that President OBASANJO is losing grip of the government and that the role of the military is becoming evident in the day to day running of the government.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WAS PARTISAN

The National Assembly should not have engaged in the following partisan action, which are very disturbing.

They set out to postpone the local government council beyond 2002.

They are fiddling with the Governors' tenure.

They decided not to use the National ID card for election.

They want to disenfranchise Nigerians in Diaspora.

They want to commence election with the Presidential election.

They plan to make it impossible for other parties to emerge.

They plan to kill the AD and the other party through the act of application of the schedule of elections.

These are pointers that the National Assembly and the President have no credibility to make laws for a free, fair and credible election in 2003 in which they are candidates. This a matter of fairness; no party vying for office would come up with rules under which it would be thrown out of office. The principle of level playing field means that no party in power should come up with conditions and rules under which Nigerians would judge it in an election.

How could the political class that could not organize party congresses and convention be entrusted with the capacity to organize a free, fair and credible election? Is it not a shame that none of the three political parties had been able to organize a successful convention, which did not lead to factions?

RADIO AND TELEVISION SHOULD BE RUN BY ALL PARTY BODY

Recently we saw how the Federal Government controlled Radio and Television were used to black out the Chairman of the PDP Chief Banarbas Gemade in his fight for survival against the actual owners of the Party and lost. This is within the PDP, one wonders what would happen if the fight were between the PDP and other parties. We saw how the Nigerian Television Authority was used by the Nigerian Television Authority declare false results, which were at variance with the true votes from voters in 1983. Is this not evidence that the government controlled mass communication would not be fair to all parties during the election? Is this the actual reason why the government controlled mass communication should be placed in a body, which has representatives of all parties? This was what the Election Bill should have addressed.

ELECTION COMMISSION SHOULD BE AN ALL PARTY-COMMISSION

Do we know that under the 1999 Constitution, the Independent National Election Commission is part of the Executive, which is the PDP President? We need a truly independent body not because the Constitution says that it is Independent but because the Commission has representatives of all the political parties at all the levels: local, state and federal. The example is the US where the Federal Election Commission has equal representatives from the Republican and the Democratic Parties. This is a fundamental decision, which all the political parties and political class should have been calling for today.

ENTIRE ELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE INTERNATIONALIZED

Nigerians who want a free, fair and credible should farm out the entire election process to the UN or the Commonwealth or a Joint Body of the National Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) of the US and other bodies.

Nigeria under President OBASANJO should set an example for other African countries to follow. President OBASANJO ought to known or should have known that for a succession election to be credible in a place like Nigeria with many groups distrusting of one another about power and the exercise of power, the entire election process should not be handled by the political party in power. Zimbabwe would follow suit. Elections in Nigeria in 2003 have international implications, just like the future election in Zimbabwe.

Our oil money should be able to finance the international conduct of the election. There is no doubt that it would not only be cheaper, but that it would ensure a level playing field and a credible succession. In the end it will be a stable Nigeria and a stable Africa.

December 2001