2007: 'Presidential Debate Commission Underway'
Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on Electoral Matters, Hon. Hamisu Shira in this interview with Chuks Okocha speaks on several issues including the efforts of the House to reform the nation's electoral system and the moves to create a Presidential Debate Commission that will handle all debates before the next presidential election
As the chairman of the committee on Electoral Matters, can you appraise the last general elections, particularly the local government polls?
We, in the Committee on Electoral Matters, were apprehensive about the outcome of the exercise. These were the first set of elections to be organized by the SIECs. Against the backdrop of our experience in the past, it was difficult to be optimistic. Yet, we did not imagine that the bungling would be as disastrous as we all witnessed. Worried by the dark, ominous cloud hovering over it, we had decided to monitor the elections across the country for first hand information on it. The media and other monitoring groups corroborated the reports of the monitoring teams, which formed the basis for the report submitted to the Hon. Speaker.
The findings of the Committee's monitoring teams corroborated by other observer bodies as well as the media, it would appear that whatever other advantages the experiment may have, it is an unmitigated failure from the standpoint of having reasonably free and fair elections. There were overwhelming evidence to support the view that state governments simply got the SIECs to stamp their seal on pre-determined election results. Cases of officially sponsored rigging, harassment and victimization of the opposition and other flagrant abuse of the electoral process run through the various reports received from across the country. It is instructive that the parties all claimed landslide victories in states controlled by them. In sharp contrast, elections in the Federal Capital Territory conducted by a more impartial and disinterested INEC yielded results that favoured parties according to their relative strength in the area. The ANPP won three councils while the PDP won the other three.
An interesting scenario was even recorded in one of the area councils where the chairmanship seat went to the PDP while majority of the councilors were elected from the ANPP. It is glaring that on balance, elections (as opposed to selections) did actually take place and the results reflected fairly the wishes of the electorate. It is true that INEC's performance was enhanced by experience, which the SIECs lacked, but the factor of impartiality clearly made the difference.
What of the turn out at the elections?
The low turn out recorded across the country may be attributed to apathy occasioned by widespread disillusionment of our people with the manner the affairs of the councils have been run since the advent of this democratic dispensation. The media have described it as a resounding vote against the status quo and we cannot but agree. Where violence was recorded, they can also be ascribed to attempts to subvert the will of the people using the instrumentality of state power.
If that is the case, what recommendations is your committee making to avert a further occurrence?
Perhaps in future, the polity would mature to a level that we could entrust the states with an assignment as delicate as conducting elections into their councils. It does not appear we are there yet. It should be reasonable to suggest that the SIECs be allowed to stumble, rise and learn in the process. However, we may be imperiling our young democracy and the polity by so doing. The Committee, therefore, recommends that relevant provisions of the constitution be reviewed to do away with the SIECs for now. This recommendation represents our position on SIECs.
What then are the lessons to be derived from the conduct of the council elections?
To my mind, the main lesson from the March 27 exercise is the affirmation that the neutrality of the umpire, has serious bearing on the integrity, and sanctity of elections. The report of my Committee quoted above has it that elections in the Federal Capital Territory referred by a disinterested INEC, were, to a large extent, free and fair. The results clearly reflected this. On the other hand, those conducted by SIECs, which proved themselves appendages of their respective state governments, were characterized by irregularities. Again, the results proved this. Clearly therefore, a neutral election body, all other things considered, stands a greater chance of organizing decent elections. Since neutrality is a function of independence, overhauling the laws to guarantee that INEC does not have to pander to the wishes of a government in power, is an absolute imperative. Questions must necessarily be asked as to why the March 27 exercise registered such low voter turn out. Were the electorate not aware? Were they not sensitized enough? Could they have ignored the exercise because the councils did not positively touch their lives in the three or so years they were in place? Are our people losing faith in the electoral process, or the entire democracy project? I am inclined to think that apathy at the degree registered during the elections could be considered a resounding no-vote, a lack of confidence or faith in the process or worse still, the system. We won't have drawn enough lessons from the council polls if we fail to ponder seriously on these issues.
The need to devolve power from the center in conformity with the demands of federalism must have been one of the considerations that informed the decision to create the SIECs. It is a valid argument that the system we have in place currently is no textbook federalism. Too much power is concentrated at the center to the detriment of the other two tiers. But in advocating for more devolution of powers, we must be mindful of our circumstances. The March 27 polls have proved that allowing states oversee the conduct of elections into councils isn't so terrific an idea. In the past, we toyed with the idea of encouraging state police. With the benefit of the lessons of the SIECs, I suppose it is no more difficult to appreciate the position held by many that state police would be a sure recipe for chaos.
If that is the position, how can we attain a credible election as the march toward 2007 is gradually becoming real?
Professor Gana in a work quoted elsewhere had insisted that. " ... Only a fundamental overhaul of the entire electoral system through a multi-stakeholder approach involving government, political parties, civil society and security agencies can restore faith in the electoral system". This position, endorsed by stakeholders, remains valid. Happily, the machinery is already in motion. I can assure you that the National Assembly, with the co-operation of all concerned, would review the laws in line with the observations made at this and other fora to give us the legal framework germane to the conduct of credible elections. As noted earlier, SIECs, was a good idea - on paper. Beside the need to devolve power to strengthen the fabric of the federation, states election bodies, for reasons of proximity to the councils and familiarity with the terrain and nuances of the people, should be advantage position to organize efficient and successful election. In practice however, other factors come to play. State governments, as we have seen, have found it difficult to resist the temptation of regarding the SIECs as a department of their government, which must serve their interest. I do not honestly see what can be done to remedy this. The SIECs therefore must give way if we hope to have credible elections at the level. We need only to strengthen INEC in line with the earlier recommendations, to do the job. Technology has simplified and even fastens complicated processes in every sphere of our live. It can be of tremendous use in the conduct of elections as other countries have found out. Apart from making for efficiency, it is cheaper and faster. But more importantly, used in conjunction with the National ID card, it has great potential to reduce the possibility of rigging and other malpractices and could therefore enhance the credibility of elections. We should seriously consider taking advantage of technology in the conduct of elections.
Don't you think that proposed the five-year tenure for the executive could help to reduce rigging and stabilize the system?
Whatever other drawbacks it has, a single (five-year) tenure, particularly for the executive branch (which control security agencies) can reduce incidence of manipulation of elections. Sometimes an incumbent president or governor may not be interested in rigging elections. But the security agencies, even those superintending elections whose fortunes are perceived to be tied to the government's, may work hard to compromise the process on the latter's behalf. From experience, we have seen that elections, in which incumbent governments did not participate, succeeded far more than those in which the incumbents contested. I think the issue of single tenure, is worth reconsidering. Something needs to be done, so that those who are attracted to public service are truly public-spirited people out to serve, make name for themselves and not necessarily wealth. It appears to me that if corruption were drastically reduced in government, that intent to loot public funds would not be attracted to vie for elections. This would pave way for good people to emerge. Most importantly, our people must be educated and sensitized to regard and value election for what it is: the only means by which they hold governments on leash. The habit of taking an intelligent interest in public affairs and subordinating private interest to public good must be widespread for as Lord Bafour has said, "It matters little what other gifts a people may posses, if they are wanting in those which, from this point of view, are most important: if for example, they have no capacity for grading their loyalties, as well as for being moved by them, if they have no natural inclination to liberty and no natural respect for law; if they lack good humour and tolerate foul play; if they know not how to compromise and when; if they have not that distrust of extreme conclusions which is sometimes misdescribed as want of logic; if corruption does not repel them and if their divisions are profound.
What is the position of the House Committee on setting up a Presidential Debate Commission?
As I have said the Presidential Debate Commission is all about a commission where the presidential candidates, governorship candidates and members of the National Assembly will meet on equal basis to tell the nation their programmes before they are voted into office. In this regard, Nigerians will have opportunity to know whom they are voting for. They will use the benefit of this commission to assess the candidates and know what they stand for. Take for instance, at the 2003 presidential elections, if President Olusegun Obasanjo had told Nigerians through the proposed PDC that he is going to increase the price of fuel, and then Nigerians will know how to vote. And if any politician who is eventually voted into office and he starts practicing a programme that is alien to the people, then the people can say, look, we did not vote for you to do this.
How then will this commission be formed?
Simply, amending the 2002 Electoral Act, by including the provisions of the PDC, will form this commission. A Chairman, who is apolitical and neutral and non-partisan, shall head it. All the registered political parties must be compelled by the act to participate and all their candidates must face the commission.
This commission will organize the debate, questions must be drawn and participants must not have prior knowledge of the questions. Above all, all the candidates must be given equal opportunities and the questions must be based on contemporary political, economic and social issues, foreign policies, how to tackle unemployment and other issues that affects Nigeria as a country.
I can tell you if well managed, the response of a candidate may go a long way to affect the votes he might receive from the electorate. The participation is not optional, but all electronic stations and print media must give mandatory and equal airtime as well. To us in the committee, this is to be seen as a fundamental aspect of electoral reforms.
What are other electoral reforms the committee is planning?
All we are saying at the moment is that INEC is not independent and until it is so, we may not witness a free and fair election in this country. The commission must be adequately funded, it must not go cap in hand begging for fund from the presidency, it must be funded from the first line charge as is the case with the South Africa Electoral Commis-sion. Also, the nature of the appointment of the chairman of the commission and members of the commission will go a long way to determine its independence. We want a situation where the chairman and commissioners are appointed like what is appointed in South Africa.
|
