The fact that President Umaru Yar’Adua has constituted an electoral reforms panel to refurbish the nation’s electoral processes that brought him to power is a testament to his content of character by way of values, purpose, patriotic courage and direction of leadership. I make bold to say this because I am not persuaded by this argument that because he is a product of flawed elections, he necessarily lacks moral rectitude or platform upon which he can stand and leap to higher grounds of engendering comprehensive electoral reforms that will usher in credible elections in the country. But who can do so under a dispensation reputed to have produced elected public officers through foul means? That is to say, we have been told that the entire elections in 2007 that produced both elective executive and legislative public officers across the nation were flawed to the extent that none of the product is credible enough to cast the first stone. Yet somebody must seize the initiative, however the circumstance of his emergence.

What is more, the fact of history says the Electoral Act of 2006 is to blame for the controversial elections. But it was an Act of the parliament which did not appear to know the import of its assignment. It is the importance of campaign and electoral processes to democracy that compelled the Senate of the U.S.A. to have its longest nonstop sitting of 57 hours 24 minutes in 1988. Our National Assembly glossed over this important issue to democratic values and practices.

More distressing is the popular notion that sovereignty is no more with the ordinary people but automatically conferred on those who have by those who have nothing to lose. People simply believe there are those consigned by manifest destiny to be hewers of woods and drawers of water. Else, they would know that election is a two-edged sword. If people exercise poor judgment by electing wrong leaders, they suffer the consequences by way of pains, denials and privations for the period of the mandate. And if the leadership is unable to perform, it risks losing the next elections. It does not appear Nigerians know these facts. Hence the topsy-turvy in the national polity.

As a seminal figure in the Arewa Consultative Forum, it is tempting for people to conclude that these notes are precursors for the position of ACF or the North. But make no mistake because this note was not written with consultations and express permission of the august body, precisely because it is unlikely to do any havoc to what ACF stands for.

i.                    Internal Democracy within the parties.

I have stated over and over again that democracy may differ in forms but when it comes to its content of liberty, justice and common decency, it is the same all over the world. And so, whoever believes he can redefine the elements of democratic values and practices may as well reinvent the wheel or redefine the truth. But our political parties have proceeded to redefine their internal selection processes to be anything but democratic. For example, the practices of “affirmation” and “consensus” in the party congresses and primaries were introduced in 2005 to bring about party leadership that would be pliable for the use of checkmating the vice president who had used his influence within the party executive to embarrass his boss in 2003. And it came to pass.

This practice was copied by the state chapters of most of the political parties. For example, Alhaji Wamakko as Deputy Governor used his grip on the party leadership to shove off his boss, Governor Bafarawa, from the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) in Sokoto State. Senator Sheriff used the same tactics to edge Governor Kachalla out of ANPP. Even in Anambra State, it was the leadership of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which Chris Uba employed to drive away Governor Mbadunaju and installed Chris Ngige.

They all succeeded because the party leadership did not follow their parties’ due process in accordance with their constitution and guideline. In Nasarawa State for example, former Governor Adamu simply did not allow for party congresses in 2005; he just announced that all party officers be allowed to go for the second term, and it came to pass. In 2008, the same affirmation took place for the party officers to go for their third term in offices. It was affirmed clearly against PDP constitution and guidelines. That accounts for why it is relatively easy to substitute candidates at the whims and caprices of the helmsmen during party primaries. Poachings took place in Sokoto, Kebbi, Anambra and Nasarawa states where people who did not contest during concluded primaries were returned as candidates. In Nasarawa state, it is on record that some parties substituted candidates not in accordance with due process of laws of both their parties and Electoral Act.

It is such scenario that attracted the attention of the Appeal Court sitting in Kaduna on the case between Alhaji Wamakko and Dakingari. Judges of the Appeal court in passing their judgment made the following remark: “Those who disrespect their own party constitution with impunity should not reasonably be expected to be true or serious protectors and defenders of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. That may also explain President Yar’Adua’s position that “the more a society has respect for the rule of law, the more civilized that society is. The more justice and fairness thrive in a society, the more stable, developed prosperous and peaceful that society is”.

It is against such background that the reforms panel should recommend that party congresses and primaries must be democratic and reflect the wishes of party members. INEC should be vested with adequate powers to ensure that party congresses and primaries must conform with due process of party constitution and party guidelines. Otherwise, the emerging “democracy” is unlikely to spawn a democracy that can promote a growing economy, a resurgent society, vibrant culture and a national pride. It will not produce leaders who have abiding faith in the judgment of the people.

ii.                  Electoral Disputes and National Unity

Elections or electoral campaigns are divisive in their nature. But when the results of the contests are formally announced and the winners assume offices, it is expected that they would bring the people together in order for them to live up their synergistic potential. However, the practices where tribunal sits to adjudicate on electoral disputes with a sitting winner does not augur well for the unity of the nation because it means the President or the Governor is forced to preside over a divided people.

What offends many people’s sense of justice is the practice whereby the winner enjoys the advantage of using his access to state resources to pay his legal fees to the chagrin of the challenger. It is, therefore, suggested that for the purpose of level playing ground and unity of the people, all electoral disputes should be disposed of before inauguration.

iii.                Independence of INEC

For the purpose of confidence and credibility of institutions that organize elections, party card-carrying members should not be appointed into the leadership positions of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Only retired justices, permanent secretaries or retired academicians should occupy high positions of INEC. And their removal before their terms end should be by 2/3 of the National Assembly.

Funding of INEC should be from the consolidated revenue like the state and local governments. That may ensure the independence of INEC.

iv.                Two-party system and open ballot

Since the two party and open ballot systems are reputed to have been the only systems that gave the nation freest and fairest elections; and since a multi-party system is tending towards one party state, as a result of victory of fear by the people over reason and hope for change, a two-party system and open ballot elections may still be the best in the circumstance. Furthermore, a two-party system may provide clearer ideological choices for the electorate who see the current political parties as mere clones of one another. Worse still, they consist of different political tendencies within the same platforms.

v.                  Proportional Representation

Since ours is a third world economy where government determines who gets what, why, where, how and when, a zero-sum game politics may be unhelpful. And so, proportional representations and government funding of political parties should be by proportions of votes scored, and not on number of seats won. This is because a party with 51% can win all the seats while that with 49% may have no seats at all in a state.

vi.                Electoral Frauds

Electoral frauds are criminal offences. That is why they must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet their perpetrators are never sanctioned according to laws dealing with criminal offences. They should be prosecuted accordingly. Money bags and corrupt politicians should be regarded as criminals and so should be prosecuted and be banned from partisan politics.

vii.              Tenure of office by the President and the Governor

Any management of human affairs must provide for rewards and sanctions. A single tenure makes no allowance for excellence, since both the good and the not so good will do one tenure. To provide for reward of excellence, let the present two-terms be retained but they should not be consecutive in order to avoid the abuse of incumbency factor.

Anthony N.Z. Sani, National Publicity Secretary, Arewa Consultative Forum.