Last week I thought I had foreseen all possibilities we could be dealing with today, four days after a much anticipated election. From the perfectly feasible to the most improbable. I thought we could be celebrating a credible election and a loser who accepted defeat. And why not? We had a similar outcome in 2015, and all the current candidates have gone through the now familiar drill of pledging to accept results of credible elections. We had a peaceful transition from defeated incumbent to a new administration headed by a serial loser who never believed he was fairly defeated. The heavy hand of foreign interests was visible behind notable local do-gooders. We had an INEC that was so smug in its confidence in organising a free and fair election that only die-hard cynics and heretics would doubt them. The threat of large-scale blood-letting was muted, principally on the presumption that religion was a lot less potent as a factor with two leading Muslim candidates. I thought this was the best outcome possible in a landmark election that was to show if our democracy is progressing or retrogressing.
I also foresaw the possibilities of an inconclusive election, the result of the in-bred chaos which shapes all major phenomena that is Nigerian, or widespread violence that would render the election meaningless in terms of credibility. I mentioned the possibility of a repeat election in which no candidate meets the constitutional requirements for victory. I raised the worrying possibility of a disputed result and prolonged constitutional and related crises which it may engender. Although I wondered if INEC’s insistence that it was ready and capable of conducting credible elections will be vindicated by the facts, I am, to be kind to myself, deeply embarrassed that I omitted to mention one of the most likely outcomes of the momentous elections of February 16th: the elections will not hold. I now admit, I am guilty of the most gross and unforgiving oversight.
How could anyone familiar with the tortuous progressof Nigeria’s democracy fail to predict with informed certainty that scheduled election dates are basically propositions that get everyone all worked up as if they are cast in stone and more sacrosanct than gospel? The last three elections all had to be postponed, so this one scheduled for February 16th ought to have been approached with tremendous, popular skepticism. I for one do not buy the suggestion that the postponement was the handiwork of meticulous, corrupting partisan interests. What, then, could explain the child-like faith that INEC will conduct credible elections in two days set months ago, within a four- year timeframe? Certainly, 2015 was an influential backdrop, although the INEC that claims partial success for 2015 was the same one that told Nigerians who were literally queuing to vote in 2011 to go home because it had botched the elections. The outcome of the rescheduled elections was greeted with bloodletting the nation had never witnessed over election results.
The confidence that informed my omission of a postponed election was derived from assurances of Professor Mahmud Yakubu that neither time nor funds had affected the planning of the elections. In the face of worrying delays in treating its financial requirements by the presidency, further delays and questionable nit-picking from the legislature, the Professor answered every question on the Commission’s preparations with an emphatic ‘No problem,!’ Foreign interests (defined as governments, monitors, observers and their army of local agents) must have been suckered in by the confidence of INEC (in addition to making up here and there and investing in other areas that reinforced their hands and influence) not to have raised alarm through their multiple avenues that the Commission’s planning was being threatened by tardiness, corruption or subversion.
If INEC had covered up weaknesses or challenges created outside it, all the way to the postponement, it was a most irresponsible thing to do. Political correctness has no place in a matter as complex and sensitive as elections. If it created and then sat on its own problems and gave the nation the impression that all was well, it is even more irresponsible. A culture of postponing elections should not be tolerated and encouraged, and it certainly should not be further entrenched by a Commission which says it has virtually mastered the political and electoral terrain with close to 200 elections since 2015.The litany of excuses which Professor Yakubu reeled out were foreseeable, avoidable or tolerable. The nation will be right to demand a thorough enquiry into the causes of these postponements. INEC may be independent, but it is also accountable, and not just through the judicial process when its conduct is challenged by candidates. First, though, it must conduct a credible election.
Even more damaging to the reputations of trusted Nigerians to conduct elections and the collective shame of a nation neck deep in soiled image is the fact that the postponement has damaged the credibility of the elections they will conduct. We may dismiss the shrill voices of political parties raised in mutual blame which require critical scrutiny to verify, but a nation on edge over an election that has tensed up and split the population will be open to suggestions that the postponement will bestow an unfair advantage to a particular party. Propaganda, lies and fabrications over attempts to secure unfair advantages before the new dates will raise possibilities of disputed outcomes and post-election violence. Since the postponements, rhetorics have become more bitter. Everyone is denouncing INEC as suspect and/or irresponsible, yet it will be relied on to conduct free and fair elections in a few days’ time. A legitimate question to ask is the level of morale of INEC leadership and staff, as well as the disposition of the one million people who will work for it during the elections. When President Buhari hints that ballot box snatchers could be shot, you know the temperature cannot be higher.
Now the nation is in such a tight corner, it has absolutely no room for error. Somehow INEC must conduct the elections with the highest levels of competence and integrity. Its logistics preparations must be flawless. Its staff must be knowledgeable, neutral, competent and confident. It must conduct elections that are transparently credible, because its reputation and integrity have been severely tainted. Ordinarily, the Commission should enjoy a situation where every politician thinks it is in bed with the other camp. This is not one of such instances. Unless there is a political party with INEC in its pocket feigning fury, it will do INEC a lot of good to behave as if it is universally and deservedly suspect, and its only salvation is the conduct of elections that leave no room for further suspicion or dispute.
