Unruly parties

Editorial

Nigeria’s political parties have once again come on the spot over members’ political behaviour and the conduct of their internal processes. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) threatened to sanction parties whose supporters perpetrate violence during their congresses or conventions, thereby negating the essence of democracy and endangering public order and safety.

The commission said it had watched with dismay and concern the acrimony and violence that attended recent congresses of some political parties across the country. It noted that such behaviour hampers the electoral body from discharging its statutory oversight responsibility to the parties and it would, therefore, not stand idly by while the behaviour persists.

Speaking in a statement last week, INEC National Commissioner and Chairman of its Information and Voter Education Committee, Festus Okoye, said: “This is the season of political party congresses and conventions to elect their leaders at various levels of party organisation and INEC is mandated by law to monitor them. These meetings constitute a very important aspect of the electoral process and democracy generally in Nigeria. The level of violence in some of the congresses is making it extremely difficult for the commission to exercise its statutory oversight responsibility enshrined in Sections 85 and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010. In one of such congresses in Kaduna recently, violence broke out, leading to the destruction of the commission’s ballot boxes. Political parties are reminded that they have a clear obligation to ensure that their congresses and conventions are orderly, democratic and in accordance with extant legal framework, their own constitutions and guidelines, as well as INEC’s regulations and guidelines. This commission will not stand askance and watch party conventions and congresses degenerate into farcical rituals and violent fiascos that threaten lives and destroy property.”

Read Also: INEC may boycott primaries over violence

Likely sanctions threatened by the electoral body include that it would “henceforth reconsider its involvement in these events, should they continue to put lives of members of the public and staff of the commission at risk.” Okoye added: “Henceforth, there will be far-reaching consequences in any situation where party congresses and conventions degenerate into violence and destruction of INEC property. Apart from replacing such destroyed materials, parties may be blacklisted from receipt of INEC materials for their activities in the future. The commission may also withdraw its staff from monitoring such violent political party meetings, with the resultant non-recognition of their outcomes.”

INEC’s tough talk highlighted afresh, not just the prevalent behaviour of the political class but also the need for some readjustment of the legal framework. Proclivity to violence by power actors historically characterised our political culture in this country, such that in a mere house of assembly constituency by-election in Ekiti State in March, no fewer than four lives were lost with a handful of others suffering varying degrees of injury. For many power gladiators and their supporters, political activism is synonymous with thuggery. Worse is that the political parties are mostly in breach of internal democracy as their processes are hardly free and fair to allow for democratic emergence of officers / candidates. INEC alluded to this in its statement, saying: “In the conduct of their internal processes, political parties must hold themselves to the same standards they hold the commission during elections namely openness, fairness, adherence to rules and peaceful conduct.”

But the commission itself is on tenuous ground regarding the threat of withholding recognition for outcomes of violent party processes. While that may be feasible for congresses, it isn’t readily so for primaries – which are equally disposed to rabid violence – in the light of Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 that forbids it from rejecting or disqualifying parties’ candidates for any reason whatsoever. There has for long been an advocacy by INEC and other stakeholders that the definition of ‘candidate’ in this section be aligned with the selection procedure prescribed in Section 87 of the same law. This alignment isn’t yet done, and the earlier this happens the better for the electoral process.

All in all, there is need for our political culture to become more civilised and law-compliant, because it is good people who make systems good.