It is improbable anyone would dismiss offhandedly, recent security concerns by the Independent National Electoral Commission INEC on the fate of the November 11, governorship elections in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa states. Not with the outcome of the last general elections that are still facing a plethora of litigations across the country. Not with observed covert efforts by politicians to convert the dire security situation to partisan political advantage.
Things are not helped by rulings from election tribunals that voided party primaries’ nominations in Imo State and House of Representatives elections; because candidates emerged through primaries held outside their senatorial zones on account of same insecurity.
Ironically, the disruptive effect of the security situation prior to the last elections has continued to reverberate across the country as contestants seek redress for perceived electoral infractions. As high as the number of these litigations are, they inexorably highlight two pitfalls – the imperfections of those elections and the refusal by politicians to accept defeat even when the facts of their losses are clear.
Emotions are bound to be ruffled by yet another alarm from the same electoral body on the prospects of insecurity affecting adversely, the conduct of the impending off cycle polls in three states. In the instant case, the electoral body is worried that if the level of insecurity in the three states is not brought down, it could affect free and credible polls.
It’s National Commissioner, Mohammed Haruna threw up this foreboding possibility when he warned that if ‘insecurity is allowed to continue, there is the likelihood that people will be afraid to come out to vote on the election day’. He said the impact is already being felt as INEC is having a shortfall in the number of ad hoc staff to superintend over the elections as most of those expected to work are afraid of their safety.
Apparently worried by the growing level of insecurity and violence in Kogi and Imo states, Haruna described the situations as unacceptable and unhealthy for our democracy even as he rated Bayelsa a shade better than the other two states.
Before the last general elections, the same electoral umpire had raised similar concerns on the possibility of elections not holding in sufficient constituencies as to adversely affect their outcome due to insecurity. Chairman, Board of The Electoral Institute, TEI, INEC’s training arm, Prof. Abdullahi Zuru shared this view as the elections drew nearer.
He had warned that, “if the insecurity is not monitored and dealt with decisively, it could ultimately culminate in the cancellation and or postponement of elections in sufficient constituencies to hinder the declaration of election results and precipitate a constitutional crisis”.
At other times, the commission was clearly apprehensive of the recurring attacks on its facilities across the country and their fallouts on the conduct of free and fair elections. But it got assurances from the security hierarchy that things would improve to allow the polls to go on without substantial theat.
INEC was not just crying wolf then. The concerns were clearly evident from the unceasing security infractions across the country. There was the challenge of the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, banditry and kidnapping for ransom in the northwest and insurgency of the herdsmen and sundry criminalities in the north- central. The southeast and southwest contended with self-determination agitations, kidnapping and other criminal manifestations while militancy held sway in the Niger Delta.
These added up to stretch the capacities of security agencies to elastic limits and heightened fears on the conduct of free, fair and credible polls. Then also, there were many local governments across the country, constituencies and wards under the control of sundry non-state actors foreclosing security penetration and possibility of elections holding there. It was a matter of conjecture how INEC could possibly conduct elections in those places under the uncertain setting.
Somehow, elections results were announced for some of those crisis prone areas. How that happened can only be explained by INEC. But, reports had it that voting centres were provided outside the wards in some of those impenetrable areas, in circumstances that have continued to confound political observers.
Trust politicians! The governments in power in those states capitalized on the situation to rig the election to advantage. It is not for nothing that insecurity contributed largely to the electoral disputes arising from the last general polls.
There is the threat of repeat performance in the coming off cycle elections. This must be checked especially given the rancorous and deadly nature of the politics played on these shores. This is more so given accusations of political coloration being ascribed to these flashpoints of insecurity.
This angle should be further explored. Allegations had been freely traded by sundry political actors regarding the political dimensions to the festering insecurity in some of the states. Even then, the decrease in insecurity as the last elections drew closer and the rise of same thereafter, would seem to suggest positive correlation between elections and resurgence of violence.
That may account for the observations by INEC in the two states. The introduction of technological innovations was largely to put a check to man-made obstacles to credible polls and reduce acts of violence during elections.
Technology would guarantee direct transmission of election results from the polling units to INEC result viewing centres. That will take care of ballot box snatching, re-writing of results in homes and hotels and manipulations that rubbish the collective will of the electorate.
That objective was substantially served during the last elections. But technology curiously failed during the upload of the presidential results. That has been the major source of the challenge to the outcome of the election and accusations of sabotage against INEC. But that is not all. There was an observed loophole in the collation of results at the local government headquarters during the governorship and state assembly polls.
That is where the governments in power in the states manipulated election results. That was the story of party agents and officials chased away by those who control the instruments of power at the states. They struck at the wee hours only to manipulate the final results which they took to the state headquarters of INEC.
With the aid of some compromising officials of INEC, the altered results were declared only to ask aggrieved contestants to go to court. Go to court? Ironically this exhortation has come to assume a pejorative undertone in our clime. Why? It conjures the miserable impression (rightly or wrongly) that one may not be able to get justice when once the result has been declared by the INEC.
And the daunting tasks of proving electoral infractions evident from tribunal rulings that do not lend themselves to clear comprehension seem to reinforce this feeling. The courts are there quite alright. But they do not constitute credible alternatives to the collective will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. They are definitely no alternatives to the sovereignty of the electorate.
So each time our elections end up in courts (they often do), they convey the message of a faulty electoral process-one unable to approximate the collective will of the voters. Barring devious antics of desperate politicians, our electoral system should be able to produce undisputable popular candidates. That is the antidote to the mad resort to election litigations that have in many cases only imposed unpopular candidates on the electorate.
That is the clear challenge before INEC still smarting from low morale on account of accusations and counter accusations that trailed the last general elections. It has yet another opportunity to redeem the image left of the organization. Good a thing we are contending with just the governorship election in three states. There should be no room for excuses this time around.
Pervading low morale and shaken confidence in the electoral process capture aptly, the mood of the electorate. It happened before. But through reforms and improvements in the electoral process peoples’ confidence was restored.
Scepticisms are again on the rise as to whether this is all there is to democracy. Our brand of democracy is facing serious crisis of relevance and should be able to market itself as a credible alternative to other forms of governance construct. It is not just enough to eulogize democracy in this aberrant form. Democracy is not an end but a means to public good through credible representation. Democracy has to prove its relevance in guaranteeing the sovereignty of the electorate or pass for any other form of abhorrent governance paradigm.
