Doubtless, the most poetic comment on the serious error on this page last Wednesday was the one that came from a highly respected senior colleague describing the mistake a “Freudian coup”. Instead of the “public sphere” which was the topic of discussion, what appeared in the caption was “pubic sphere”. It was, therefore, justifiable for some readers to verbally flagellate the columnist. While the error is deeply regretted, the readers should be rest assured that given the growing tension 10 days to the presidential election the mind of this reporter is on no other sphere than the context in which the elections would take place. Indeed, all those who wish Nigeria peace and progress should think beyond whatever the results of the election would be and focus more attention on the build-up to the elections and the aftermath.
As observed last week, the public sphere is increasingly polluted and abysmally bereft of decorum. The polity is hardly witnessing robust debates on what should be the big issues of the elections. Pray, where are the fresh perspectives (partisan or otherwise) on the economic issues or the security question beyond sloganeering? However, in the traditional and social media there are rains of curses and torrents of insults. No serious debate about the future is taking place before an election. Politicians and their publicists have so focussed the attention of the nation on the contest that not enough attention is given to the context. Now, there is an organic linkage between the terrible things taking place in the public sphere in the name of campaigns on the one hand and the palpable tension enveloping the polity on the other hand. In other words, there is a correlation between verbal violence and mayhem on the streets.
It is more difficult intellectually to engage in the discussion of problems and proffer logical solutions than to abuse an opponent. Socio-economic issues seem ignored and instead some “issues” are being invented. It is only in this context that one could explain how the Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru Jega, has suddenly become the issue of this election. The campaign for his removal is already wearing a tinge of violence. For the avoidance of doubt, the preparedness of INEC for the elections should be scrutinised.
Criticisms should be made for the commission to improve on its performance. Yet, that does not make Jega the issue. For the law is clear about his appointment and removal from office. Instead of discussion of issues, Jega is the new issue for some partisans. A political culture defined by violence and irrationality is growing and the nation seems helpless in the circumstance. This should worry those who care not only about the fate candidates but also the stability of the nation.
In this regard, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is one of the institutions doing a lot about drawing attention to the context of the elections. To be sure, it is by looking at the context that one could possibly make sense of the tension preceding the election. For instance, in a perceptive pre-election advisory, the NHRC has grimly reported that at least 58 persons have been killed and about 100 others injured in the course of campaigns. Meanwhile, the report covers only the period between December 3, 2014 and January 31, 2015. There have been more reports of killings during campaigns since January 31. Worse still, hardly is any of the killers being prosecuted. The reign of impunity is supreme in the land. Those who killed in previous elections were not punished; so there is no deterrent against those nursing the proclivity to commit the same crime. That is why it is being viewed as a culture. Meanwhile, the NHRC continues to receive petitions by those alleging that their opponents unleash violence on them thereby violating human rights in the course of politicking.
While the human rights commission is busy sensitising the public about the grave dangers of political violence on the national horizon, the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague, Netherlands, issued another warning two days to the perpetrators of electoral violence in Nigeria. According to the ICC’s Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, those unleashing violence in Nigeria could end up in The Hague to face criminal prosecution. It should rankle the politicians and the electorate alike that Nigeria is listed among the countries in which the ICC is “conducting preliminary examinations.” The Prosecutor has timely reiterated the resolve of the ICC to prosecute the offenders: “ Any person who incites or engages in acts of violence in the context of the upcoming elections or otherwise – including by ordering, inciting, encouraging or contributing to the commission of crimes that fall within ICC’s jurisdiction – is liable to prosecution either by Nigerian courts or by the ICC.”
In many respects, ICC is actually echoing many voices of sanity within Nigeria warning against violence. Indeed, some eminent Nigerians recently organised the signing of an accord against electoral violence by both President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and General Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC). It is a sad commentary that some weeks after the signing of that document, ICC still has cause to issue a statement saying inter alia: ” Violence is not a solution.
The conduct and outcome of elections in Nigeria free from violence, will not only prevent further instability in the country but will also send a clear message that electoral competition does not have to result in violence and crimes that shock the conscience of humanity.” The bitter experiences of Kenya and Cote d’voire should be instructive to those unleashing violence in Nigeria. In those countries, politicians have been dragged to The Hague for prosecution following election-related violence. In the Nigerian situation, it is more than being pacifist to call for an end to electoral violence. Electoral violence is a categorical threat to the stability of the country. The consequences of electoral violence go beyond the announcement of the winner of the elections.
So, beyond the indecent language being employed in the public sphere the physical activities of political agents pose a threat to security in the society. It is an open secret that hardly is any part of the country immune to the dangerous flow of small arms. Arms and ammunition are brandished at rallies and marches. On some tragic occasions gunshots have replaced party slogans. For some time, there have been worrisome reports of non-state actors freely stockpiling arms.
The context of the elections is becoming increasingly violent; so the focus should not just be on the results of the contest. What happens to the country thereafter should also be a focal point.
THISDAY
END
Be the first to comment