CHAPTER
ONE
May 29, 1999 marked a watershed in
Nigeria's political annals. It was the dawn of the Fourth Republic, a return to
democratic rule after several years under the yoke of military misrule which
was marked by much suffering, infrastructure decay, and institutionalized
corruption. The hope of the common man for a just and an egalitarian society
became rekindled with the institution of a democratic government. Nigerians greeted the return to democratic
rule with widespread jubilation and optimism as they looked forward to a new
era of stability, peace, and prosperity. However, sixteen (16) years after,
Nigerians are still anxious to see and enjoy “democracy dividends” – social
welfare, justice, equity, and equal access to resources andpower.
Nigeria’s chequered political history is
bedeviled with the gory tales of electoral malpractices which have
significantly impacted negatively on the nation’s polity. Effective management of the electoral process
has therefore, become an imperative political demand so as to ensure the
sanctity, transparency and credibility of election results in the nation’s
democratic setting (Akinboye, 2005). The
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the institutionalized
governmental body established, through the instrumentality of law, to manage
the nation’s electoral process. The
INEC, as an instrument of processing democratic ideals and structures, is
hopefully, expected to be a truly independent body that personifies the ideals
of transparency, impartiality, accountability and responsiveness. This perhaps, informed the popular perception
that the body is insulated from partisan politics, and that, it is fully
empowered to discharge its avowed duties devoid of any influence whatsoever
(Udu, Nkwede et.al 2014).
In reality, there are empirical
evidences over the years, that the INEC has not been fully autonomous and
non-partisan; neither does it appear to be sufficiently empowered to carry out
its assigned duties and responsibilities impartially. However, in the 2015 General elections in
Nigeria, despite some pockets of irregularities evidenced in late arrival or
non-availability of electoral materials, falsification of election results in
some areas, failure of the Card Reader Machines and collusion with politicians
and security personnels to subvert the process, the outcome of the 2015 general
elections has been generally accepted to be transparent and indeed, an
improvement on past elections in the country. Indeed, foreign intelligence and
diplomatic sources had been quoted severally since 2011 to have predicted the
end of Nigeria as a country, consequent upon the outcome of the 2015
elections.
A former U.S Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr.
John Campbell is more prominently quoted to have insisted that the country would
break up in 2015 because the elections will plunge Nigeria in crisis (Yaqub,
2015). Truly, had the result of the
election turned otherwise, many believed that Campbell prediction may have been
inevitable. Frankly, Nigerians have
desired a change of the Goodluck Jonathan’s PDP administration which has been
generally accused of inefficiency, corruption, contempt of the people,
insecurity etc. Security was brazenly
compromised as government security agencies, including the military conducted
their responsibilities with clear partisan inclinations that left nobody in
doubt that state apparatuses as important as security and military institutions
became tools of political vendetta, electoral manipulations and subversion of
democratic norms.
Democracy is for all
citizens where majority determines the winner but majority is not always right.
There are numerous iniquities in partisanship which produces democracy.
Nigeria’s democracy would have fared better had many credible, competent and
knowledgeable electees occupied strategic positions in governance. Politics has
been hijacked by wealthy but mainly people of unrefined minds and untamed
passions. Doing for the citizens what they cannot do ordinarily on their own
for themselves is the very essence and justification of governments at all
levels.
The universal acceptance
of democracy as the best system of governance is incontestable. This is
premised on the participatory opportunity democracy affords the citizenry in
the selection and election of their leaders and representatives. It guaranteed
some recipe for good governance and the fundamental human rights of all law
abiding citizens. These enviable attractions coupled with the global urge
precipitated the return of the country (Nigeria) to democracy on May 29, 1999
after a prolonged heinous military dictatorship. Upon the return, Nigerians
heaped a sigh of relief that at last they are liberated from the shackles of
unilateralism and arbitrariness that characterized military rule.
However, the envisaged
opportunities and hope seem to have given way for illusion and bewilderment 16
years after the experimentation (with democracy). This is accounted for by
crude politics, corruption, selfishness and greed of the political leadership. For
instance, despite her energy wealth, Nigeria is often mired in the dark; and
despite her abundance human resource her economic and political affairs cannot
be effectively managed. This is reflective in the on-going political
cannibalism that is crippling the economy in deference to the unhindered
citizen participation, tolerance of opposing views, abhorrence of arbitrary
rule and unilateral decision making that political democracy involves. Since
1999, the polity has witnessed an increasing buildup of authoritarian
structures and institutions and human rights abuses. The resultant unstable
political atmosphere has combined with poor social infrastructure to question
the viability of democracy in Nigeria.
Government is entrusted in
Nigeria mainly to undeserving people; as a result, integrity is lost and
citizens suffer untold hardships. The failure of a country begins when her
policy continuously fails to guarantee security and create jobs for educated,
patriotic, strong and productive citizens. Our clime is one of blurred vision,
blackmail, culture of frivolity, impunity and failure of a system. Our current
system feeds directly into a culture of corruption, frivolity, ineptitude and
impunity.
The general objective of this study is
to establish the nature of the democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The
specific objectives are:
(i) To identify the features of the noticeable
progress in democratic consolidation in Nigeria;
(ii)
To identify INEC roles in the
democratic consolidation process in Nigeria, especially the period of 2011 to
2015 (the past president Goodluck Jonathan’s administration);
(iii) To examine the nature of the attendant
challenges to democratic consolidation in Nigeria; and
(iv) Make recommendations on how to enhance the
chances of democratic consolidation in Nigeria.
The scope of
this research is limited to democratic consolidation process in Nigeria and to
examine the democratic journey in Nigeria in the last 16 years, with special
attention to the role of INEC in democratic consolidation process (2011- 2015)
; A case study of INEC in Edo State.
Basically,
the significance of any research is its value or contribution to already
existing knowledge in terms of theoretical justification or relevance and the
solution it will provide towards the amelioration of a practical problem of
concern. However, the significance of this research are as follows:
1) To
assist government at all levels, electoral body and policy makers in the
process of policy formulation and implementation.
2) It
observed and revealed the past electioneering activities, and why many years of independence
3) This
study is timely, because it is ongoing
4) Empirically
or practically, this study will be of immense beneifits to politicians,
international institutions, students and researchers.
The
research questions formulated to be answered in this study are:
(i) Are there noticeable progress in
democratic consolidation in Nigeria?
(ii) What role has INEC played in the democratic
consolidation process in Nigeria, especially within the period of 2011 to 2015?
(iii) What are the major challenges to democratic
consolidation in Nigeria?
For better understanding of the main
concept of this topic, the following are defined:
Assessment:
Mariam Webster dictionary defined assessement as the act of making a judgement
about something. To assess is to officially say what the amount, value, or rate
of (something) is. Assessment is the act of assessing something, it could be an
idea or opinion about something.
Democracy:
Rousseau
and Rivero (2003) see democracy as the power of the people as it manifest in
ways of thinking, behaving and organizing that enhances participation in, and
influence over decisions that affects their everyday lives. Huntington (1991)
sees democracy as a political system where in the most popular candidates are
chosen through fair, honest and periodic elections in which candidates are free
to compete for votes and which virtually all theadult population are qualified
to vote.
Democratic Consolidation
Democratic consolidation is the process
by which a new democracy matures, in a way that means it is unlikely to revert
to authoritarianism without an external shock. As diamond has rightly
observed, democracy can be said to be consolidated when it has become so
broadly profoundly legitimate among its citizens that is very unlikely to
breakdown.