“Voters need to believe the probity of the democratic process itself, and in the long run, all Nigerians win with free and fair elections”
–Carl Levan, Op-ed page, New York Times, December 6, 2018.
All politics, as Tip O’Neil, a former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, famously reminded us, are local; that notwithstanding, the theatre and ripple effects of politics are increasingly global, not local. Indeed, the inventive expression, ‘glocal’, speaks to the intersections of the global and the local, how predominantly local events are globalised, and those of global resonances are reinterpreted or reformulated in local, even rustic settings. Hence, for example, the opposition, the Peoples Democratic Party, has consistently chosen to report cases of alleged pre-election infractions to the European Union, the United States and the rest of the world. Recall too, that former President Goodluck Jonathan in his recent book, My Transition Hours, attributed his upset defeat, in the 2015 presidential election, to the handiwork of the United States. True or not, Jonathan’s statement is a monitor of perception, even if a faulty one. It is for these reasons that this columnist has chosen to take more than a cursory look at what we may broadly call, the opinion of the international media on the forthcoming elections, as reflected in the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post in the United States, as well as The Economist and The Guardian based in the United Kingdom.
Expectedly, The New York Times took an early interest in the political skirmishes related to the elections as far back as April last year, when it published a piece entitled, ‘Nigeria’s President facing calls to step aside says he will run again’. The article discussed the perception, probably dominant at the time, that Buhari’s weak governance record reflected in, for example, his handling of the national question, and the persistent so-called herdsmen-farmers clashes in the Middle Belt, did not exactly recommend him for a second term. Quoting Sola Tayo, a Fellow at Chatham House, London, the piece argued that, ‘the herder-farmer conflict, rural banditry, and increase in kidnapping are being discussed more openly and government performance judged more critically’. Last month, The New York Times published on December 6, an essay entitled, ‘Nigeria: Identities, Insecurity, and Integrity in dead-heat election’, authored by Carl LeVan, a political science professor at the American University in Washington D.C. The opinion piece, from where the opening quote is sourced suggested that the fact that the two leading presidential candidates are from the Northern part of the country and are both Muslims means that the election would be decided not by religion or ethnicity, but by the way in which major issues such as the economy, security, anti-corruption are handled. Ordinarily, LeVan argues, anti-corruption should have given Buhari an edge over his rival, except that, he went on to say, ‘convictions of high-level officials are very rare’. Despite that limitation, one can hazard a guess that if the election were to be fought on corruption alone, Buhari would gain an edge over Atiku. Talking about the probability of a neck-to-neck election, LeVan refers to a recent opinion poll which had Buhari scoring an approval rating of 43%, disapproval of 42%, with 15% undecided or sitting on the fence. The Washington Post on its own part, published on November 25, 2018, an essay describing the 2019 Presidential election as, ‘a two-horse race with uninspiring candidates’. This, of course, is fairly obvious, but the article alluded to a feeling of frustration and concern, ‘because neither of the two leading presidential aspirants offers any real hope’. That again is fairly obvious, except that one of the candidates would emerge the lucky or unlucky winner, unlucky in the sense of the enormity of challenges such a person will face.
An interesting background to the opinions of elite US media is the recent complaint by a United States policy wonk, Jodd Devermont, published in the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies Journal. The article refers to the need to borrow from the 2015 playbook of the US Government when it influenced the course of events by sending a former Secretary of State, John Kerry, to Nigeria, followed up by former President Barack Obama’s video message calling for free and fair elections in Nigeria.
Turning to the British media, newspaper readers are already aware of the controversy that broke out over the two contradictory predictions of The Economist. The first at the end of October last year predicting that Buhari will lose, and the second on December 4, forecasting that the opposition will collapse and Buhari will win. Not a little damage was done to the journal’s credibility by its opinion, based on fragmentary evidence, that one candidate will win, while a few weeks later, saying that the other candidate will win. Nonetheless, the comments indicate the attention which the journal is giving to our elections, while its analysis of the depressing background to the election, is noteworthy. For example, in the latter piece entitled, “The World in 2019”, The Economist maintains that “given the outlook for continuing political weakness, there is little prospect of progress in the fight against the Islamic insurgency in the North, nationalism in the oil-producing Delta and the secession in the Biafran region”. That is another way of saying that whoever the victor is, the country may be confronted with another example of transition without change. There also is The Guardian of London which published a story on December 4, entitled, ‘Nigeria Election: Buhari battles body-double rumours and economic woe’. The article maintains that both candidates are tarnished, one by incompetence, the other by corruption allegations that refuse to go away. It is written in tandem with the narrative of an election that is too close to call, but whose lasting significance in terms of governance reforms will be minimal.
The recurrent themes in the pieces selected include not much of hope for change for now, with one of them lamenting the paradox of a country with a predominantly youthful population featuring two major candidates, both of whom are over 70 years. The other recurring decimal relates to the need for free and fair elections, and for INEC to maintain impartiality. This factor assumes a new importance in the light of the ongoing controversy regarding the appointment of Amina Zakari, believed to be Buhari’s relation, as chair of INEC’s ad hoc Committee on National Collation Centre for the Elections. This whole controversy must also be taken in the context of our endemic weakness as a nation for even-handedness and equity. When young academics submit articles for publication in journals, they are hoping that the editor will skew judgment in their favour. As a people with undeveloped instincts of fair play, the sanctity of procedures and rules is not our greatest strength.
However, it will help a great deal if the 2019 elections were refereed impartially and honestly, not minding whose ox is gored. In the event that this happens, our reputation and soft power will notch up globally. A final point from the articles reviewed is that, there is more to governance and democracy than holding elections. We cannot afford to lose sight of the important aftermath of the presidential election, whoever wins.
END
Be the first to comment