Election is a formal group decision-making process by which a population chooses individuals to hold public offices. On the other hand, State Administrative Resources are public resources which the state puts at the disposal of public officials for the common good. They are to be used in the management and administration of the state and ultimately benefit the whole population. These resources could be fiscal, law enforcement, prosecutorial, media and insignia of office, etc. The resources can be deployed positively for purposes recognised by law or negatively, to advance private interests in elections. They can be deployed to influence the outcome of the polls in the interest of present occupants of office.
The 2019 general election is just some months away and most political parties have released their timetable for activities leading up to the elections. The election management body, Independent National Electoral Commission, has also released the timetable for activities including nominations, notice of polls, etc. Thus, the use of SARs in elections is an issue that merits the attention of INEC, government, election monitoring groups, donor agencies and civil society organisations. Among many different ways SARs can be applied are: (1) Mobilisation of organisational and financial resources. The authorities can easily pressure businessmen to fund preferred candidates and parties. (2) The laws can be selectively applied to assist friendly candidates, by hindering their competitors. The authorities can use frequent tax inspections, police searches and arrests to punish businessmen who fund the competing candidates. The authorities can also use the election laws to their advantage, for example, by creating a condition to background a legal challenge or to appeal against the results later if their unfavoured candidate wins. Another option is to stop from voting some group of people who are likely to vote against the preferred candidate. (3) Government-controlled organisations such as the army, police, prisons, hospitals, public schools, etc. can be mobilised for encouraging intimidation, election fraud and malpractices and other goals relating to election activities; they can also influence their employees and customers to vote for particular candidates and exercise control over votes by housing the polling stations. (4) Redistribution of budget funds. The authorities can bribe the electorate indirectly by repaying pension debts, indexing salaries, etc. The Federal Government can control governors by measuring donations to their regions.
Also, controlling the mass media is another means of using SAR. The President or governors can easily create news topics for the media, getting free publicity and circumventing the limits for TV advertisements imposed on all candidates. This method was used with particular effectiveness in the Russian presidential election in 2004. (6) Falsifying the election results. Additional ballots can be introduced under the names of those who didn’t vote, ballots for “wrong” candidate can be invalidated by damaging them, and ballots can be replaced. The authorities can also control the staff of INEC and prevent control by independent observers. For instance, Centre for Social Justice, a civil society organisation based in Abuja is currently suffering unnecessary delay in its application made to INEC for the monitoring of the election primaries which according to investigations was deliberately ignored by the authorities.
All these and numerous other activities are currently and gradually playing out in Nigeria. Thus, the liberal democratic project is based on the assumption that the electorate are granted the freedom to choose, determine the future of their country and their individual/collective future respectively. When they make mistakes, they bear the consequences. Thus, a few years later depending on the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act which in the Nigerian context stipulates four years tenure, the electorate may also be allowed the opportunity to correct their mistakes and hope for the best within the framework of representational democracy. But the drawback to all has been the use of State and Administrative Resources to project desirable aspirants by incumbent authorities.
Nevertheless, Sections 100 and 101 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended prohibit the use of state apparatus including the media, unequal allocation of media time and the opposing of a particular political party or the election of a particular candidate over the radio, television, newspaper, magazine, handbill, or any print or electronic media whatsoever called during 24 hours immediately preceding or on polling day. But recent events have shown that government apparatus are constantly used to manipulate election processes. For instance, security agents were recorded to have been deployed in large number to the recently held Ekiti State governorship election which according to eyewitnesses resulted to intimidations and all sorts of election malpractices. Also, the Osun State election which was initially declared inconclusive by INEC before the re-run was also interpreted by both international and local observers as a clear evidence of gross violation of the above provisions of the Electoral Act.
There is an urgent need to revive the dying provisions of the constitution and the Electoral Act with regard to electioneering in Nigeria to save the country from the looming anarchy and gross disregard of regulatory frameworks by persons who are so desperate to destabilise the relative public peace which Nigeria has enjoyed so far.
Gregory T. Okere, Centre for Social Justice, Abuja
END
Be the first to comment