The success of the recent Osun gubernatorial election notwithstanding, it is just as well that the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega, has faulted the deployment of masked operatives by the Department of State Security (DSS) for the poll, which saw incumbent Rauf Aregbesola of the opposition All progressive Congress (APC) defeat Senator Iyiola Omisore of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). If there is any comfort to draw from the Osun election, it is probably that amid all the doomsday scenario- allegations of plots of rigging and threats of violence; and after putting the nation on edge with a long wait for the final results, INEC announced Aregbesola as the winner, triggering a gale of congratulatory messages, including, surprisingly, from President Goodluck Jonathan whose message had the sinister inference of self-congratulations, “for allowing the APC to win.” The President’s message was both comforting and distressing, given the increasing militarization of the electoral process which has now gone beyond the bounds of impartiality and decency.
Against a history of recurring electoral fraud and consequent credibility and legitimacy crisis in Nigeria, it is not surprising that Jega has lent an exasperated voice to the need for a proper electoral process in Nigeria. Speaking Wednesday in Abuja at the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room Dialogue, organized by the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre with support of the Department For International Development (DFID), Jega said the presence of hooded operatives during the Osun polls negated the principle of transparency, which INEC stands for. He vowed that henceforth, outcomes of all elections would be determined by voters, not by manipulation, stating that he was alarmed at the “emerging trend” where security agencies deploy hooded operatives for election duties, and has taken up the issue with the concerned authorities to forestall a repeat.
“If you must do security work at the elections, you must be someone identifiable. Having security in hoods is not good because…if a security man who is in hood compromises the system, how do we identify him and punish him? “We even saw an operative arrest an official of INEC and youth corps members on election duties. If not by chance, we would have had delays with them delivering election materials in view of their arrest by an overzealous operative. Men in hood as security operatives is an emerging trend which must be addressed and stopped quickly.” Jega also identified the overzealousness of security operatives during elections as a challenge for the electoral process and advocated continued training to build the capacity of security operatives being deployed for election duties.
It may be argued, of course, that security agents are needed to avert crisis, and that they have always been part of Nigeria’s elections. But 15 years after the return to democracy in 1999, the expectation is that elections should be dominated by civil authorities and not combat-ready soldiers whose presence tend to convey more fear and less confidence to the electorate. In Osun, like Ekiti before, it looked as if the nation was preparing for war and not election. The government placed Osun under siege and the standing view was that the state was under emergency rule. Osun was completely locked down with security agents of every hue and ilk – DSS, police, civil defence corps, soldiers and others, all armed to the teeth. There were at least 5,000 DSS agents alone deployed to Osun during the election.
Whereas the nation’s peculiar democratic deficits demand some measures to guarantee the security of the electoral process, taking it to the level of saber-rattling and partisanship casts an indelible slur on the process in ways that undermine its legitimacy. It is in the interest of the country to insulate soldiers from partisan inclination, especially in the electoral process, because it might signal the death of civil values and the entrenchment of tyranny which consequence is all too familiar.
According to Jega, “the key lesson for politicians from the Ekiti and Osun elections is that the voter is key to electoral fortune or misfortune. They can no longer rely on INEC officials to manipulate votes. To win elections, politicians must get voters to come out and cast their votes. Political thugs and INEC officials cannot make them win elections.” This is a self-fulfilling prophesy that reeks of self-righteous indignation like the President’s patronizing self-congratulatory admonition over the Osun election. The expectation is that Nigeria ought to have gotten to a stage of development as would make democracy assume its true meaning with elections as its most potent tool. Keen observers of the Nigerian political process are unanimous that the prospect of any election in Nigeria often engenders an aerie feeling of the impossibility of a transparent and violent-free exercise. This may not be unconnected with a tainted political past signposted by electoral fiascoes and gross failure of leadership.
Even as the President and the INEC chief have been giving reassurances of favorable expectations at the conduct of the 2015 elections, the unwarranted militarization of the electoral process reeks of “do-or-die” politics and adds little value to the credibility of the electoral umpire, let alone, put the nation in better international standing. With less than a year to the 2015 general elections, the heightened insecurity, occasioned by the Boko Haram insurgency, the rising carnage by destabilizing forces, and the utter state of national perplexity, shows no signs of abating. The besieged states of Borno, Adamawa, Yobe and Gombe are still smoldering under emergency rule and insane bloodletting. Perhaps it is to forestall an escalation of violence that heavily armed security agents are deployed at election venues, but can any credible election be conducted in states where Boko Haram reign supreme? Will the election be free and fair if parts of the north which is hostile to the president is disenfranchised?
It bears repeating, and with emphasis that democracy lives or dies on the altar of the electoral process. It is a majestic ideal that must never be trifled with in style and in substance. All of democracy’s processes – from voter registration to actual voting and counting must bear the signature of integrity. There will always be winners and losers in any election, but it is victory for Nigeria and Nigerians when the process is not only free, fair, transparent and credible, but is seen to be so. The President cast himself in the mold of a benevolent despot and does himself no favors by his frequent assurances that the 2015 elections would be free, fair and transparent, as though a free and fair election is a political favor to be dispensed.
