No one doubts that corruption and poverty are the bane of democracy in Nigeria today. Not only does corruption affect governance and the delivery of the dividends of democracy, it also affects the dispensation of justice and the sanctity of the electoral process. In a corrupt society like Nigeria, everything is up for grabs by the highest bidder. However, much less has been said about how poverty impacts the democratic process than the effects of corruption on the process. One reason for this neglect is the focus on other kinds of statistics by the Independent National Electoral Commission, which is charged with the conduct and supervision of elections.
For example, the recent statistics released by the Independent National Electoral Commission show that the largest voting bloc in the 2019 elections is made up of male voters, accounting for 52.5 per cent of the electorate. This is followed by youths (aged 18-35), accounting for 51.11 per cent of the voters. Female voters are in the third position at 47.14 per cent. These are among the statistics INEC could generate from the registration of voters.
However, cutting across these statistics is a category of voters that the registration data could not provide. It is the group of voters, who are categorised as poor, that is, they live below the poverty line of $2 a day. Yet, this is the category of voters that may shape the outcome of the 2019 elections for reasons discussed fully below.
According to a recent report by The World Poverty Clock, Nigeria not only has a very large number of poor people, it also has the largest number of extremely poor people in a single country in the world. Specifically, about 70 per cent of the population is said to be poor, the majority of them being categorised as extremely poor. According to The World Poverty Clock, the number of people living in extreme poverty in Nigeria is approaching 90 million, accounting for nearly 50 per cent of the population.
To be sure, this category of voters is a dent on the economy, which is why poverty has been viewed largely as an economic problem. It is generally believed that various social protection programmes, including poverty alleviation measures, could be deployed to cushion the biting effects of poverty on a large segment of the population.
However, much less attention has been paid to the conception of poverty as a political problem, especially its impact on the democratic process. Yet, poverty poses a serious danger to democracy, because poor voters are soft targets for various electoral malpractices.
To start with, many poor voters, especially in the rural areas, often cannot read or write and those among them who can read often do not have access to electoral materials, such as party constitution, candidates’ manifestoes, and campaign brochures. As a result, they are subject to manipulation by political bosses, including local traditional and religious leaders.
More importantly, the search for daily bread leads the poor to flock around party aspirants, candidates, party agents, campaign offices, and political rallies in the hope of making some money. The association of politics with money leads the poor to view the election season as their factory – a money-making factory. They are willing to perform various roles and functions to make some money. Some act as thugs, others work as party agents. Yet others are “rented” as attendees at political rallies even across state lines.
The negative impact of poverty on the democratic process is evident in the purchase of Permanent Voter Cards by party candidates or their agents. Those who are confronted daily with existential problems cannot think of their franchise, when offered money to sell their votes. The online sale of cloned PVCs, which was recently condemned by INEC, may not be as serious as the sale of INEC-issued PVCs, as reported last year during the Ekiti and Osun governorship elections.
Poverty is also the reason for many voters to sell their votes. In a recent post-election poll, many respondents indicated that voters were offered various sums, ranging from N1,000 to N10,000 for their votes. There are, of course, voters who sell their votes, not because they are necessarily poor but because they are greedy. Such voters are known to have collected as much as N10,000 or more for voting for the party of their paymaster.
Another fallout of poverty is the recruitment of poor, unemployed youths into gangs of political thugs. If they are not busy intimidating, maiming, or even killing political opponents, they are charged with snatching ballot boxes or disrupting collation centres. Whatever action they take is handsomely rewarded with money and other material goods, including cars and, in some cases, houses. Rivers State provides a good case study of large-scale thuggery and its implications for electoral outcomes.
Now that the 2019 elections are around the corner, it is incumbent on INEC to devise effective accreditation strategies that would limit the impact of poverty-induced electoral malpractices.
An important first step is to avoid staggered accreditation and voting procedures by which voters first undergo accreditation and go back home, only to reappear hours later to vote. This process allows for mischief. For example, “imported” voters could be given previously purchased or cloned PVCs to vote in places where the polling agents and other officials have been compromised.
Second, INEC must ensure that only PVCs belonging to voters in a given polling station are the only ones that the card readers assigned to the station can read and accept.
Third, since past experiences show that the last-hour rush often allows for laxity in voting and security procedures, it will be useful to tighten security during that period. This measure is necessary to eliminate cloned and other extraneous PVCs.
Fourth, although not much could be done now to prevent vote-buying on the eve of election, the practice should be prevented during voting. This requires massive public education and strict instructions to security officials deployed to polling stations. It has been repeatedly reported that security officials often looked away whenever vote-buying was in process during past elections. This must be prevented during the 2019 elections. Indeed, the movement of cash around election period, especially three to five days before Election Day, must be prevented.
Fifth, special attention should be paid to multiple voting in different polling stations by the same voter, who is usually paid to do so. In this regard, INEC must ensure that its proclaimed elimination of multiple registration is fully verified and certified to be so. Already, INEC may have missed out on a mischievous practice by which voters were moved across state lines to register to vote in states other than their own. This practice was rampant during lone state elections as in Ekiti and Osun last year. The security must not be lax during the forthcoming elections in ensuring lack of movement beyond one’s voting area.
The foregoing shows that poverty will continue to impede the processes of democratic renewal in Nigeria, encouraging politicians to seek new ways of luring poor voters with money to sell their votes and, by implication, their franchise. Two things must be done: (1) Limit the circulation of money during elections, as it is the case in advanced democracies, such as the United States and (2) Lift as many people as possible out of poverty. The former is a short-term task; the latter a long-term goal. Both ultimately must be achieved in order for democracy to thrive in Nigeria.
END
Be the first to comment