INEC AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Every democracy, whether developed or developing, is rated by its electoral transparency, credibility and fairness. A democracy can be said to have come of age when the electoral aspirations of the populace are allowed to translate into votes cum outcomes, displaying the yearnings of the electorate. United States of America, United Kingdom, and other developed democracies of the world, are usually cited as examples of advanced democracies because the votes cast during elections reflect the overriding wishes of the electorate.
Nigeria is still listed amongst developing democracies in the world, not because of the number of years we have practiced democracy, uninterruptedly, but the low level of confidence of the electorate in our system. Some Nigerians harbor these ill feelings that votes do not count, even when they avail themselves to be part of the electioneering—and they cannot be blamed for holding such views. Inadequacies of the electoral system frustrate enthusiastic voters who want to determine their leaders via a credible, all-inclusive process.
In Nigeria, whenever it seems outcome of elections does not represent the will of the people, the number one “culprit” that is always is the electoral umpire: the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). As the referee, anything that goes wrong in the match is placed on its table of responsibilities. The electoral commission is made to bear the moral and legal burdens caused by the shortcomings in the system. Interestingly, some of these shortcomings are consequences of thoughtless actions of desperate politicians who want to get to corridors of power, by hook or by crook. So they do everything humanly possible to subvert the process; including sabotaging the INEC.
The INEC has shown course, covertly or overtly, in recent past, while Nigerian voters should question its capacity and impartiality to give them electoral process that will be credible and trustworthy. Some pundits have even queried the true meaning of “Independent” in the acronym—INEC, because of myriad of accusations that have been hurled in the direction of the commission, especially by keen politicians and their ebullient supporters, majorly, when the outcome of the elections does not go their way.
I agree with the propagators of the opinion that INEC has a long way to go in sanitizing our electoral processes and restoring diminishing confidence of the voters in the system. But, only few thinkers have taken time to look at INEC’s constraints, albeit constitutionally. The INEC, like every other government institution, is populated by Nigerians. The actions of INEC staff members reflect what happens in our general society. INEC is not an isolated oasis inhabited by saints. The Commission is not immune from the social ills of corruption plaguing the nation. It has its fair share of institutional weaknesses.
But, I think INEC is being “over blamed” for the failings in Nigeria’s electoral system. No matter how strategic cum indispensable its constitutional roles are, the Commission as a body cannot on its own guarantee credible electoral process, if other supporting government agencies, institutions and critical stakeholders do not live up to their own responsibilities. It is a collective duty. The Commission does not enact its own laws: it is the responsibility of the National Assembly to make laws for the Commission. But when the legislature defaults on its duties, no one notices it until it affects the functions of the umpire.
The consequences of bad/impracticable laws are observed during the electioneering process. And the blame is shifted to the umpire, no one remembers that the electoral body only executes, and does not make laws. For example, INEC does not control security agencies, but when security agencies fail in their respective assignments to provide security during elections, it affects the entire process, thereby robbing negatively on the efforts of the Commission to organize elections. The INEC is made the whipping boy by the politicians and other critical stakeholders in the electoral value chain. Most of the electoral officers deploy during elections as ad hoc staff are not even INEC direct staff members, though supervised by the Commission.
Ironically, the Commission dares not defend a sabotaged process, frustrated by other stakeholders like security agencies or political parties. If it does, the political parties will accuse it of being “compromised”. If INEC accepts responsibility for the failings in the system—which might not have come from its own end of the chain, disgruntled stakeholders will question its “capacity” to conduct elections in the first place, thereby sandwiching the umpire in between the devil and deep blue sea. I am not here to defend INEC but all the stakeholders involved in the electoral process must get their act together before we can boost of credible electoral system that will be difficult to compromise.