By Emeka Alex Duru (08054103327)
By this time on Saturday, many, if not most Nigerians, would be casting their votes for their preferred choice in the Presidential election. By that, the days and months of permutations would be over. By the same token, some years of friendship and acquaintances would either have been permanently ruptured or strengthened depending on the positions taken by those involved while the moments of politicking lasted. But the question, really, is where would Nigeria be after the Saturday election?
This, ordinarily, should not have been an issue to worry about, if we had trained ourselves to understand that election is an event in which there must be winners and losers, at the end of the day. In saner climes, election is seen as fun, hence it is referred to as a game. Besides, it is an indication of intention to serve. Seen therefore from this prism, the choice for who serves them, should be with the electorate. They are the ones to select from the numbers that have volunteered to serve, who will afford them better delivery at least cost. In such a situation, election is not a do-or-die affair. It is mere call to service.
At the village level where the call to serve holds, eligible candidates – those found to be capable of certain offices – even when they do not signify intentions for any offices, are often elected in absentia. That is where trust reigns. We may not recommend that in a complex and multi-dimensional system as Nigeria. But there are inherent lessons in the exercise. It shows that election to an office, is a call to service and in that case, certain unusual tendencies are greatly reduced, if not obliterated entirely.
Some years ago, some of our colleagues were sent to Ghana to cover the country’s presidential election. While on the assignment, they were at loss, on what to report, given the smoothness of the exercise. One of the Correspondents, reported, “even the workers went to their duty posts, schools were in session, market were open and the vehicles were on the roads”. The Editor, promptly cut him short, reminding him that he had even told the news, without knowing it. The next day, the headline of the paper, read “Schools, markets, roads open as Ghana holds election”. That was not rocket science. It was rather, a conscious effort by the leaders and citizens to get their country working.
This is a departure from what we will see on Saturday. In our case, the entire country will be shut. All the roads, airports and sea ports, leading to or out of the country, will be closed in adherence to the no-movement policy that accompanies any national election. The leaders explain the sordid directive on the need to guard against violence and manipulation of the polls. But what has not been taken into consideration is how much the nation loses on such occasions in terms of the economy and man-hour. Another question is the extent the measure has succeeded in curbing violence and vote rigging.
Of course, we may not admit it. But the fact remains that most of these measures have become mere routine exercises that have not helped the country advance in any way. The explanation of using the restriction of movement to fight rigging, has proven to be futile. Given the trend which now sees voters battering their votes with candidates or agents with stronger capacity to pay, time has come for a review of the strategy.
Rolling out policies without corresponding actions on enforcement, will always end up in futility. In this case, what should matter most, is getting to the root of the reasons that make the voters available to highest bidder. Some blame the action on the ravaging poverty in the land. Others say that the voters do so because that is the only opportunity they have to extract something from the leaders, who often disappear after the election. Whichever of the two is the reason, should guide the voters in casting their ballots on Saturday.
Since the veil on the campaigns was lifted last year, the candidates have been on the field, marketing their policies and programmes. But it is for perceptive minds to look into their agenda and antecedents to sieve the wheat from the chaff. The two leading candidates for the poll – President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), are incidentally, not strangers for the office. Buhari had been a military head of state from 1984 to 1985. He has also been on the saddle in the current dispensation, since 2015. Atiku, on the other hand, was Vice President in the Olusegun Obasanjo administration between 1999 and 2007. The two, thus, have fairly strong antecedents on which to assess them. The consideration therefore, is how far any of them would go in fixing the country that is currently at a piteous level on virtually all indices of development and standard of living.
What is therefore needed, is a deep and conscious reflection on what happens to the country in the next four years on account of the decision made at the point of casting the votes. Somehow, and incidentally, the two debilitating factors that had been holding the country down on decision making – ethnicity and religion, will not have roles to play on Saturday as the two major candidates are Muslims and Northerners. That may settle the case.
But there are other demanding questions. They include: Are we satisfied with the trend of events and developments under Buhari in the last four years? Do we want the situation to continue for the next four years? On the other hand, do we need a change that Atiku promises? Does he have the capacity to do so? These are the questions. And they transcend immediate monetary gains, ethnic and religious considerations.
