The failed attempt by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to get the House of Representatives rescind their earlier decision giving the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) express powers to “request” for deployment of soldiers during elections bears closer examination. Owing to the glaring misuse of the military in the Ekiti and Osun gubernatorial elections and more importantly, given the pervasive fear that the same may be repeated in the 2015 elections, House reps at a plenary last September 30, amended Section 29 (1) Clause 8 of the 2010 Electoral Act, restricting the military’s role to only “securing the distribution and delivery of electoral materials.” The attempt by House Deputy Leader, Leo Ogor to return to the status quo ante is unpatriotic and worrisome. It is just as well that the motion was unanimously voted down by the Chamber. Such an action was timely. Limiting military involvement in the conduct of elections is an ideal that must be upheld for the good of the nation.
Undoubtedly, security is pivotal to effective electoral administration and the case can be made that security units are needed to avert crisis, and that they have always been part of Nigeria’s elections. But Ogor should also recognize that elections fulfil their democratic ideals only if they engender political participation in a non-violent manner. The massive deployment of soldiers, police, state security and civil defence outfits creates the impression that the nation is at war. Although insecurity diminishes electoral integrity by compromising political competition and participation, this should not be a justification for the militarization of elections.
True, Nigeria is witnessing an unprecedented state of insecurity, but that does not mean that every state of the federation is in crisis. That government would deploy soldiers to places that are relatively peaceful does not augur well for the health of democracy. In a democracy, free, fair and regular elections are the means by which the citizens express their most essential political right, namely the right to elect their representatives and hold them accountable. By tradition, the military has no place in elections; the constitution is very clear about the role of the military. Specifically, Sections 217 (1-3) and 218 (1-4) detail the processes regarding the establishment, purpose and control of the armed forces of Nigeria. These provisions forbid the deployment of the military for civil-related duties. They are, most notably, deployable for defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country against any form of aggression. These sections also demand that the military be subjected to civil authorities. This explains why the President of the country is constitutionally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, with powers to appoint service chiefs and the operational deployment of the military.
As commander-in-chief, the president has substantial powers over the military, it is important that adequate measures are taken not to abuse the application of such powers. These constitutional measures ensure stability by subjecting the military to civil authorities and to maintain their loyalty to the President as Commander-in-Chief not as a partisan stakeholder in any election. An abuse of these powers, for whatever reason, could destroy the core values and traditions of the military, with dire consequences for the nation. The deployment of the military for such purely civil affairs as the conduct of elections is also a way of bringing the military back-in into politics. Worse still, using the military for electoral purposes, apart from creating the impression that civilians are unable to govern, harbor other grave dangers, including compromising the military’s integrity. Granted that deploying the military for elections can yield short-term gains, it is, indeed, a dangerous path to the politicization of the military, with long-term collateral damage to the nation.
Parading heavily-armed soldiers often deployed from distant formations, on the streets before, during and after elections could actually intimidate prospective voters, with adverse effect on the level and quality of political participation, most especially voter turnout. This explains why the police and paramilitary agencies are constitutionally mandated to handle matters of internal security, including elections. If these agencies are deficient in whatever form, it is better to address those deficiencies, to adequately equip them to cope with the challenges of internal security, including elections security. If soldiers must be deployed, it must be at the request of the electoral umpire to avert security threats beyond the police’s capability.
Fifteen years after the return to democracy in 1999, the expectation at this stage is that elections should be dominated by civil authorities and not soldiers whose presence convey more fear and less confidence to the electorate. Militarizing elections is a disservice to democracy. Even as the President repeats assurances that the world would marvel at the conduct of the 2015 elections, the reality does not seem to portend such optimism. With only a few months to 2015, the heightened insecurity, the rising carnage and utter state of perplexity, has not yet abated. Besides, the besieged states of Adamawa, Borno, Gombe and Yobe are still smoldering under insane bloodletting and violence. Will election be free and fair if a part of the country in which the president claims leadership is disenfranchised?
Perhaps it is to forestall an escalation of violence that heavily armed security personnel are deployed at election venues. But the credibility of any democratic government is adjudged by the rational and free exercise of the will of the people through the ballot box. An exercise so sacred, it is an intrinsic value of democracy and non-negotiable. It is for this reason that the President’s mantra that the 2015 elections would be free and fair is superfluous. Rather than dish out assurances that are contradicted by the state of affairs in the country, the President should create an environment that would engender free, fair, credible and transparent elections in all parts of the country. In which case, the real cry is: let action speak louder than the words!
