Yesterday was the much-talked about and energy-sapping presidential and National Assembly elections in Nigeria. It is therefore the morning after, or mourning after, depending on who is looking at it. I say so because many people had worked themselves into frenzy about the elections, such that an outcome outside their expectations is likely to hurt them, especially in our clime.
While waiting for the results of the elections, it is important for citizens to know the rules of winning, so they don’t wrongly feel that anything was manipulated in the event that their preferred candidate does not win. To be elected president, a candidate needs to score the majority of valid votes cast as well as one-quarter (that is 25 per cent) of votes in at least two-thirds of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) which is 24 states. In the event that no one candidate achieves that from yesterday’s election, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would have to conduct a re-run election between the top two candidates to ensure one of them achieves that. If that fails again, then a straight contest between the two would be required wherein the person with the simple majority of valid votes cast will be declared winner.
Whoever wins the presidency, the issues to be confronted remain the same and the prospective winner must get ready to hit the ground running, to use a cliche. But did we really need to get so worked up about the elections? It was unfortunate that during the campaigns, undue focus was placed on the issues of religion and ethnicity which tended to divert attention from more critical issues of governance such as security, corruption and the economy.
Thankfully, the Boko Haram insurgency, which raged for at least six years, and increased in audacity to the extent that the criminal group actually occupied several North Eastern towns in the last one year, was addressed few weeks to the election. In a renewed joint operation by Nigeria and three of its neighbours (Cameroon, Niger and Chad), the military succeeded in pushing the insurgents out of most of the previously occupied territories of Nigeria, thus allowing the conduct of elections there. On Friday, a day before the national elections, Gwoza town in Borno State was re-captured from the insurgents by the military.
On corruption, Nigeria has had a bad reputation, ranking 39th most corrupt in the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International in 2014, scoring a mere 27 per cent. That ranking only confirmed findings of various state and non-state agencies on the phenomenon, especially in the oil industry and in government transactions. In a recent report released by ActionAid Nigeria, the organisation linked the country’s pervasive poverty to corruption, bemoaning that despite the multiplicity of anti-corruption agencies, corruption was still high. In fact, 82 per cent of the respondents linked corruption to poverty.
Linked to the above is the state of Nigeria’s economy. The crash in global oil prices has seriously harmed Nigeria’s revenue, most of which come from this single commodity. Its currency, the naira, has slipped significantly against the dollar since the oil prices crashed at the end of 2014. Thus, even the emergence of the country as Africa’s largest economy following the rebasing of its economy early in 2014 has had little positive impact.
It is, therefore, obvious that whoever wins this Saturday’s election would face enormous challenge of boosting citizens’ confidence, rebuilding the economy, fighting insurgency, fighting inequality, cutting down on cost of running of government, plugging loopholes in revenue generation and stemming corruption. And for a country whose citizens have a short supply of patience, the popularity rating of the eventual winner would surely be short-lived.
And I don’t see the achievement of the above as a walk in the park for any of the candidates. Don’t be deceived by all the beautifully-packaged adverts that assailed our ears and eyes about how the candidates have the Midas’ touch. There are tougher times ahead.
One area of grave concern during the campaigns was the use of hate messages which could result in post-election violence. This is feared, given the violence that trailed even the pre-election period. The hate messages appeared on regular media like radio, television and newspapers, which could be regulated but were not. The negative campaigners also utilised the social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and mobile phone text messages etc). This prompted civil society campaigns against hate messages, a campaign echoed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and buoyed by a statement issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), warning the political actors of possibility of prosecution by the court as consequences of their election-related conducts. I truly look forward to perpetrators having their days in the courts.
In the period after the elections, the state must live up to its duty of safeguarding lives and property across the land. We cannot afford to repeat the mistake of 2011. This day must be the morning after, not the mourning after.
