Why Nigeria’s elections are do-or-die By Wale Sokunbi

jegaIt is bad enough that at a time that we should have put the 2015 elections behind us, and be eagerly awaiting the swearing-in of a newly elected president, state governors and legislators, Nigerians are still filled with trepidation on the likely outcome the elections now holding on March 28 and April 11. It is even more worrisome that the electioneering gimmicks are becoming more and more odious, reprehensible and off-putting by the day. The presidential election is fast taking on the toga of the Biblical cup which, if many Nigerians had their way, they would be glad to have it pass over them.

But, these elections are not just going to go away.  March 28 must come and Nigerians must go the polls. So, all Nigerians must endure the outright blackmails, deceit, lies, shenanigans and all manner of dastardly and outrageous tactics spewing forth from the arsenals of the two leading political parties, all in a bid to win the highly coveted Number One position.

Ordinarily, presidential elections are no easy rides anywhere in the world. They are so hotly contested because the stakes are high and the prize is humongous, especially in a country like Nigeria where politics has become the most viable “business”, and the presidency is the overriding dispenser of national patronage in the country.

In Nigeria, politics has gone beyond the notion of power for the sake of service to the people. It has become a matter of life and death, a “kill me or I kill you” proposition for contestants, especially for the office of president,  because whoever wins the election into the office gets all its appurtenances —  the power, the glory, the honour, the authority and, perhaps, most importantly, the money.

The loser, on the other hand gets nothing. Nothing at all!  All the billions of naira that went into the campaign, the sweat, the energy, sleepless nights, physical and mental exertions, all end up in the dustbin of history.

The winner instantly becomes lord, king and holder of the key to the national treasury, literally, since he can, by his signature, scrawny or not, award contracts running into billions of naira. Meanwhile, the loser is left to lick his wounds and wait for the next four years to try again. He goes home emptied and broke, and has no way to recoup his funds, while the winner has the national treasury at his behest. He can recoup his election expenses and those of his “friends” who donated billions of naira to his campaign war chest so that they are again in better stead to fight and win the next election.

This scenario, in a nutshell, is the reason for the hue and cry and the “I must win or die” attitude that has turned Nigeria’s elections,  especially this particular electoral season, into a nightmare..

It is the reason that the politicians who say they want to serve the people are ready to rig, maim, kill and scatter elections to get into office. It is the reason that winning is everything, and a loss cannot just be contemplated. It is the reason that they must get into office by all means, fair or foul, to “serve” the people.

The presidential system practised in Nigeria which provides for this winner takes all scenario is increasingly coming under focus. It provides for the winning party in any presidential election, and also in the states, to form the government without any recourse to other parties that took part in the elections.

In this regard, a political party that wins the presidential election with 52 per cent of the vote forms the government with no role at all for the runner up party that might have won up to 45 per cent of the vote.

This potentially troublesome arrangement that leaves other parties high and dry has been fuelling discussions in some quarters for a review of the nation’s wholesale embrace of the presidential system that leaves no room for other parties that have a strong showing in the presidential election to have a presence in the government.

Some analysts are canvassing the view that a unity government, comprising a balanced mixture of top public office holders across the country’s political, social, economic and religious divides, can help to stabilise the polity.

This would mean, in our present instance, that any of the two major political parties that wins the presidential election would appoint some ministers and few other political office holders from the ranks of the other parties which had a strong showing in the elections.

This will help to provide for an inclusive government in which all parties will have a role to play and a sense of belonging, instead of the present situation in which a party’s loss of a presidential or governorship election by a slight margin would amount to an unmitigated disaster.

However, the rancour, acrimony, mudslinging and hate tactics that characterise elections in the country would make this system of government impracticable in the country. Such a system can only work where the overall interest of the political parties is service to the people and not personal or party interests.

It will certainly be difficult for parties that have turned the political turf to a war zone and so utterly demonized other political parties and their candidates to now work together in the best interest of the country.

The winner takes all mentality fuels desperation for political offices, greed and corruption whenever such an office is won because the winning candidates and the parties would want to make as much money out of the public office as possible, knowing that they  may never have a chance to do so again if they lose the position in the next election.

Again, the ruling party would be afraid to lose the election out of fear of the corresponding “loser-loses-all” scenario. This is one of the main causes of the disunity in the country’s body politic.

One way to reduce the desperation for the office of president may be to reduce the over-concentration of the allocation of the nation’s resources to the Federal Government. The states, in particular, need to have a larger share of the resources.

Senior political office holders should also cultivate the habit of carrying Nigerians from all political, social, ethnic and economic divides along in their decision-making processes.  The attitude of “we have won this election and you are duty bound to accept whatever we do as you can do nothing about it” is wrong.

Unity, as the nation’s motto says, is strength. Nigeria will thrive better when the people are united and development-oriented instead of the present view of public office as war booty. As things stand, hopes of attaining this much-desired unity and oneness are fast fading among the older generation of Nigerians.  We must begin to guide and look in the direction of our youths for a united Nigeria  where ethnicity or state of origin would not matter.

 

 

END

CLICK HERE TO SIGNUP FOR NEWS & ANALYSIS EMAIL NOTIFICATION

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.