The 2023 general election will throw up some of the most challenging scenarios in Nigeria as the country battles from all angles with complex security challenges. Banditry and terrorism that defined the last election are yet to be quelled, with bandits operating more audaciously across the nation. The 2023 election is thus set to take place amid nationwide insecurity, with kidnapping on the rise. Today, we shall continue with the definition of some important terms commonly used; the nexus between rule of law, electoral process, good governance and development; and the missing link/where we got it wrong.
Conceptual clarification
(Continues)
Good governance
The cardinal or fundamental principles of democratic governance are based on the constitutional provisions on tenets of good governance. These include representation, rule of law, separation of powers, autonomy and checks and balances. All of these principles are critical to enthrone good governance. The World Bank defines “governance” as a means where power is exercised in the management of country’s economic and social resources for development and good governance for sound development management. Governance refers to management of public and private sectors; legitimacy of government; competence of governments to formulate appropriate policies, make timely decisions; implement them effectively and deliver services; accountability, information and technology, legal framework for reforms. “Good governance” is characterized by rule of law, participation, transparency, responsiveness, equity, inclusiveness, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. It means security of human rights and civil liberties, devolution of powers and respect for local autonomy. Good governance is truly an invitation to judgment about how a community, a country is being governed, how committed the leaders are to improving the public welfare and how responsive they are to the needs of the citizens.
Development
The word ‘development’ is an age-long concept and bears several meanings. Some commonly adopted meanings of the word include the following:
“A substantial human-created change to improved or unimproved real estate, including the construction of buildings or other structures…An activity, action, or alteration that changes underdeveloped property into developed property.”
This definition does not focus specifically on change in economic terms which is the most meaningful clarification of development. In that sense, development includes growth in gross national product (GNP), promotion of technology and industrialization. In modern terms, following Sen’s exposition, development has been enlarged in meaning to incorporate expansion of human freedom. Development broadly embraces dynamic, positive change that would improve the human elements, who in turn would improve their society in virtually all areas, National development is thus seen in terms of sustainability, representing a shift of focus more on economic development, social development and environmental protection for future generations.
Nexus between rule of law, electoral process, good governance and development
The rule of law provides the general framework for democratic rule, electoral process, governance and good governance which in turn is the destination of both democracy and rule of law. The link between election and democratic governance is no more than a tenuous one. Where elections are credible and truly democratic there is a likelihood that they can lead to the sustenance of democracy. Sham or incredible elections cannot achieve that outcome. Although democracy is not synonymous with election, free and fair election is generally accepted to be at the heart of democracy. Unless there is free and fair election, the meaning inherent in the definition of the term, ‘democracy’ cannot hold – government of the people, by the people and for the people. ‘By the people’ and ‘of the people’ denote a government composed through the freely given consent of the people, expressed in an election. Once the element of ‘free consent’ is absent in an electoral process, then the product is no longer democracy but dictatorship. This is what is implied in Section 14(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which categorically proclaims: “It is hereby accordingly declared that – sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this Constitution derives all its powers and authority.”
The life of good governance depends on the electoral body put in place. The credibility and legitimacy accorded on election victory is thus, determined by the extent to which it is free and fair. Election should, therefore, be devoid of intimidation, ballot box-snatching and stuffing, vote-buying, rigging, political assassinations, etc. Lack of credible elections, in the words of Apam, have resulted in “massive corruption of the state officials… and the present reforms, since 1999, have entailed rolling back the stage and cutting down on public expenditure, which has drastically reduced support for social services for the vast majority of the people.”
That electoral mismanagement has major implications for the delivery of good governance by emergent officials is quite obvious. It is evident that incredible election has drifted many countries into conflicts, absence of law and order, forcing states into paralysis, incapacitation, and hence unable to discharge basic functions such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo (2011), Kenya (2007), Zimbabwe (2008), Nigeria (2007 and 2011), Guinea (October 2015), Congo DR, Cote d’Ivoire (2010 and 2015) and Burkina-Faso (2015). Based on these considerations, it is predictably feasible to argue that incidences of bad governance in a number of African countries cause woes largely due to the flawed and fraudulent electoral processes. In effect, electoral mismanagement refers to any wrongdoing affecting election procedures and outcomes, especially by government officials and political party and candidate’s agents in such a way as altering the outcomes of the elections from what they should have otherwise been. It takes different forms ranging from irregularities, deficiencies, flaws in electoral management at different levels during the election process. Drawing from the above premise, Foreign Policy magazine (July 1, 2005) reasoned that election’s are almost universally regarded as helpful in promoting good governance. It further explains that when elections are rigged, conducted during active fighting or attract a low turn-out, they can be ineffective or even harmful to stability of states.
It is true that elections do not necessarily guarantee worthwhile democratic rule, it is also an incontrovertible fact that elections are at the heart of the modern concept and discourse of democracy following the inability of the modern society to accommodate the classical democratic governance involving every citizen in decision-making. As such, it is a critical part of the democratic process, which offers the electorate the freedom to make choice, the power to hold elected representatives accountable and a bulwark against perpetuation of arbitrary rule. It is through elections that formal allocation of power occurs in all democracies which give meaning to power relationships within the political community. It is the foundation of the social contract between the people and their representatives in government.
Imperatively, the conception of democratic government as a responsive and responsive government is not unrelated to the fact that the power of governance, through election, rest essentially with the people themselves; it is through election that the will of the people, which forms the basis of democratic government is expressed. And since power is rested in the electorate who supply and withdraw mandate from those who direct state affairs, elected officials are compelled to be accountable to their constituencies. Thus, in order not to be voted out of office, elected officials would as much as possible try to be answerable and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people.
A government that is genuinely instituted and constituted by popular mandate enjoys a lot of support and legitimacy because its laws are easily obeyed by the citizens who see public office holders as their representatives freely chosen by them. Conversely, an administration that was established through a fraudulent and violent electoral process usually lacks such vital ingredient of democracy. Governments that are instituted through questionable electoral processes, in bid to strengthen their stranglehold on power, tend to be high-handed and repressive in nature. This, in a considerable way, explains why most African states are gross abusers of human rights and why they cannot tolerate dissenting positions and groups.
Political scientists and development theorists link free, fair and credible elections to good governance and development. The thrust of their argument is that free, fair and credible elections provide the basis for the emergence of democratic, accountable and legitimate governments with the capacity to initiate and implement clearly articulated people-oriented development programs and policies. They further claim that credible elections empower the electorate to hold the government accountable for their actions and/or inactions.
Undoubtedly, electoral mismanagement or misconduct has effects on Nigeria’s development in many ways. First, it reduces the incentive for government to deliver development performance. Second, incredible elections devalue votes. Third, incredible elections increase the possibility of politicians sacrificing national development on the altar of the quest to gain, acquire and remain in power. Fourthly conflict and violence are precipitated by electoral misconduct.
Worthy of note is that, Election and electoral process are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. Sustainable national development is, logically speaking, the end to which election and electoral process are directed.
The missing link/where we got it wrong
The dynamics of political and electoral practices in Nigeria reveal a palpable missing link between party politics and sustainable development. In the context of culture of politics, one cannot but agree with Claude Ake that both the failure of development and the failure to put development on the agenda in Africa are largely attributable to negative political conditions. One of these more salient conditions is the lack of integrity of the electoral process largely characterized by violence and ‘warfare’, a culture that is antithetical to the possibilities of development as well as rule of law, democracy and good governance. There are uncountable electoral malpractices. Another often cited missing link in the 4th Republic political dispensation is lack of ideology by the political parties that have emerged since 1999. This fosters defection and cross-carpeting by politicians without much ado. There is unabated subversion of the electoral process. Frustrations abound in the polity. When there is frustration, rules are breached and political elites and politicians take to extra-legal means to achieve their goals. Coupled with inadequate encouragement of the people to exercise their power of choice of leaders, there is deep-seated loss of confidence in the electoral system. This can create a dangerous trend of lack of continuity and stability in the political system and thereby occasioning delayed democratic maturity. A fundamental missing link is the question of how unquestionable is the integrity of the electoral bodies or umpires in charge of electoral administration in the country.
(To be continued)
Sounds and Bites
“A bad system doesn’t appear wrong to those who benefit from it. They do everything to defend it to the detriment of larger society” –Anonymous
Thought for the week
“Several amendments should be made to the primary and general election laws to improve them, but such changes must in no way interfere with a full and free expression of the people’s choice in naming the candidates to be voted on at general election.” – Tzipi Livni