Saturday’s Governorship election in Ekiti State presents a vital opportunity to have a dry run before next year’s pivotal elections. As the American Consular General has pointed out in an op-ed piece carried elsewhere in this issue, we have to get it right.
Democracy, we must remember, was restored in our country 15 years ago at a cost. Many, high and low, paid the supreme sacrifice for the democratic space we are in today. That our democracy is still very much inadequate 15 years on is as a result of the failure of institutions.
The most important institution here is the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The election in Ekiti State on Saturday provides a much needed opportunity for INEC to redeem its somewhat battered image. Recent electoral debacles in Delta Central and Anambra State have placed a question mark on the efficacy of INEC.
This is not just unfortunate, it is also dangerous. For, in a society in which the democratic ethos is not yet fully entrenched, the Electoral Commission must be accepted as the undisputable umpire. Like Caesar’s wife, the commission must be perceived to be completely above board. This is the case in Ghana, the Republic of South Africa and India. Nigeria must join that democratic company.
The INEC carries the greatest part of the burden of restitution needed to reinforce our fragile democracy. It has to set an agenda in accordance with international best practices. This is why the complaint about the inadequacy of funding made recently by the Commission’s Chairman Professor Attahiru Jega is ominous.
For INEC, the first critical issue is logistics. The usual newspaper headline about the perennial ‘late arrival of voting materials’ is unacceptable. Logistics is not about rocket science. All over the country on a daily basis, private initiatives co-ordinate their supply chain in an effective way. Newspaper vendors for example, are on the streets as early as 6a.m. Hotel chains and ‘fast-food’ outlets open their doors by 7 a.m.
The two examples cited above show that with planning, proper coordination and due diligence, the supply chain can be managed. INEC has had few years in which to prepare for Saturday’s outing. For this reason, the public as well as the international observers will not accept any excuses for logistics snarl-ups.
A key element in the logistics disorder starts from the faulty foundation of voters’ registration. The INEC must also accept responsibility for this. However, it is not the only stakeholder. The Civil Society Organisations (CSO) also have a key role to play as the watchdog. The most fundamental role however resides within the political establishment itself. Drivers of the system should see their role within the context of self-preservation.
If they observe events through this prism, it will become obvious that they collectively have the most to lose if democracy unravels. The political elite have been the only segment of civil society to have benefitted from a dividend of democracy. If they care to look at the unfolding events in Thailand and Egypt, then they will realise what is at stake and what they as a class have to lose.
Unfortunately, the refusal of the political establishment to work out a national democratic agreement amongst themselves imperils our democracy. Even though they hardly think of the electorate, they should act in their own collective self-interest for their own self-preservation. This starts with understanding that free and fair elections are the life blood needed to nourish and sustain a democracy.
It is also pertinent to state that it is to be expected that the results will be announced in Ekiti State. This is in line with the spirit of the Constitution and with democratic practices. The security forces must also act within the spirit of the Constitution and in line with the democratic ethos.
Finally, a critical word for the end-user. In Ekiti State, everyone who has carried out their moral obligation to register to vote must go out to carry out their democratic duties on Saturday. They must not only vote, but also stand firm to make sure that their votes are fairly counted.
What they must look out for in deciding their choice is straightforward. Are they better off today than they were three and a half years ago? In addition, which party’s programme provides the realistic trajectory for a better tomorrow? The choice is theirs and they must be allowed in a democracy to freely express it.
