Author: The Nation

A democracy is as rugged or fragile as its election, the major pillar that props up the government of the people by the people and for the people. A compromised election is like a structure built with fake materials. It is only a matter of time before it crumbles. Thus, the credibility of an election lies with the people – all those who contribute the materials that are mixed to build the system. The politicians, the electoral umpire’s officials, the security agents, the voters, and the agents of the political parties involved in the conduct of the polls determine the extent of an election’s integrity or otherwise.

Nations can dismantle their democracy after disputed elections, often due to the menace of vote-buying.

But how does this menace creep into an election? How do politicians perceive this malpractice? What are the consequences of vote-buying on democracy? How could a nation systematically ease the menace out of its elections?

Vote-buying, which connotes the intent to alter political behaviour and swing the votes through financial inducement, is perhaps the greatest threat to democratic elections in the country and many other parts of the world. For Nigeria, it has been conjoined with the electoral system, like Siamese twins. It is an affront on the sanctity of the ballot box; a special case of influence that elicits instant compliance at polling booths on election day, with severe losses to the unsuspecting or helpless opponents who may not be able to match the deep purse of desperate rivals, particularly the highest bidder.

Many believe that this form of bribery is immoral, yet they find it irresistible. But sometimes, vote-buying is exaggerated. These days, it is also employed as a weapon of blackmail to discredit the integrity of a substantially free and fair election.

At a time the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is working hard to deliver credible elections, vote-buying creates a dent on the nation’s electoral scorecard. It is a peculiar style of electoral fraud that may continue to defy solution, unless all stakeholders make concerted efforts to weed it out of the system, with the honest intention that it is an ill will that does no one any good. It may affect Part A today; tomorrow, it might wreck Party B. Vote-buying is a tsunami that spares no party. 

The umpire is helpless in the face of the monetisation of voting before, during, and even after the electorate has cast their ballot. It lacks the power to curb the menace, which is the last trick of politicians to secure victory through the back door.

Efforts by security agencies to also track the deviant behaviour have not succeeded to a large extent.

It is a complex matter. Not all forms of vote-buying can be easily interrogated, especially when the shoddy action may not happen in broad daylight or very close to the polling booths during elections.

Many have been arrested and prosecuted for electoral offences, such as ballot stuffing, hijacking of voting materials, thuggery, falsification of results, disruption of collation and violence. But vote-buyers often escape the eagle eyes of the law. While a few arrests were made in past electoral seasons, the trial of suspects never saw the light of day.

As Nigeria began to experience political stability, the competition for power became stiffer. The urge to occupy political seats became more attractive and voters started making demands from politicians, both popular and unpopular, beyond their constitutional responsibilities of defending public welfare. The perception is that the money is with the politicians to spend.

The gap between the political class and the voting public widened and interactions have paled into periodic engagements during electioneering. Those in power swim in opulence and the only way to warm themselves to the electorate is through clientelism, accompanied by the promise of cosmetic material empowerment in the post-election period.

A few years ago, “di’bo koo se’be” (vote to cook soup) became a popular slogan of mobilisation in a part of the country. Attention shifted from previous achievements of political actors and campaign promises to the expectation of crumbs falling from the tables of power mongers. Monetary exchanges, distribution of food, and goods, particularly clothing materials, became the vogue. No matter how popular a candidate is now, party members believe that it is risky to dismiss patronage politics with a wave of the hand. Stomach infrastructure is accorded priority.

Read Also: The missing opposition: Why Nigeria’s democracy is losing its pulse

Buying and selling of votes is not peculiar to Nigeria. But it is a serious political infection that undermines the predictive value of elections and the accuracy of electoral outcomes. It is a secret affair, often concealed from the public glare. Direct buyers may not be candidates, but their skilled and overzealous agents who have acquired informal training on how to target and persuade potential voters, without the security agents knowing the plot.

The agents are armed with a voter register, which enhances their spade work. They act as legitimate canvassers ahead of elections, and in the process of mobilisation, introduce the dimension of inducement.

An essential feature of vote-buying is bargaining. The buyer and seller are familiar with each other because they reside in the same community. Clever voters engage in double dealings by playing along with agents of multiple candidates, although each voter has only one vote to donate. Ultimately, the highest bidder is favoured.

In the rural areas, innocent elderly voters who are financially induced remain faithful to the deal. Although they are often aware that they mortage their conscience, they see it as a new way of life, especially when they see their neighbours also partaking in the sharing of money

Generally, certain populations are clearly susceptible to accepting gifts or other forms of compensation in exchange for votes. Poverty is a factor, as vote-buying is targeted at people from the lower socio-economic stratum of society.

The involvement of wealthy people raises concern about inordinate influence peddling. The high class and patrons of candidates and parties participate as middlemen by deploying their clout to organise, mobilise, and distribute money on behalf of the candidates to those in the neighbourhood who look up to them in the community as influencers.

As voters accept money from them, they tend to impose on the electorate the obligation of compliance. As they vote for the particular candidate after collecting money, the rival candidate is deprived of the legitimate right to a fair contest. But in some cases, vote buyers also target those who have made up their minds to vote for only those who are ready to pay them, without the agents knowing.

In the past, car booths of vote buyers were loaded with cash. These days, technology makes it easier. The money is transferred to the bank accounts of voters. This is evidence that the agents really target the voters. It also ensures accountability.

The monitoring of compliance is challenging. It is a game. The players are locked in the infamy. Some voters renege on their promise to vote for a particular politician,  and criminals who induce them with money cannot report to the police. Some voters manage to enter the polling booth with their phones to snap the ballot paper, which serves as evidence of a duty fully discharged.

Usually, the efficacy of vote-buying is measured by the outcome. Losers become winners, and democratic decline is inadvertently celebrated in their camps. But integrity is at stake. This is the first consequence of the malpractice.

Also, popular votes cannot be ascertained and the genuineness of the authentic winner is suspect. To that extent, there is no popular choice. The autonomy or independence of voters is destroyed when voting behaviour is shaped by the crumbs falling off the tables of unpatriotic politicians.

The greatest danger is the post-election behaviour of the winner. He sees an election as an investment that should enable him to garner returns. It is the baseline for graft in high places and bad governance.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is usually on the prowl during the off-cycle elections. During the general elections, the commission’s officials cannot go round all the voting units. They lack the resources – money, men, and materials.

Obviously, an election is a joint responsibility involving all the stakeholders – candidates, parties, government, security agencies, traditional institutions, and the electorate. All hands must be on deck to sanitise the electoral system.

INEC has called for the setting up of a special electoral tribunal for the trial of electoral offenders. It is up to the National Assembly to bring it into fruition. But the most effective solution is to educate the voters on the danger of selling their franchise to the highest bidder. The more enlightened electorate we have, the fewer cases of vote-buying we will record. The fewer case of the malpractice we record, the stronger this pillar of democracy will become.