The American poll
SIR: The long awaited, much talked about, November 2, 2004 presidential election of the United States of America has come and, as typical of any historical event, gone down memory lane. At the polls, Americans made a clear choice of who to lead them through the rough socio-economic and political terrains in the next four years. Once again, the onerous task fell on the shoulders of the incumbent president, George W. Bush.
The keenly contested election between President Bush and Senator John Kerry could best be described as a rancour-free and fair process, despite the heat literally generated during the electioneering campaign. This is opposed to what held in the year 2000 between Bush and the former democratic Vice President in the Clinton administration, Al Gore; one in which the results were decided upon in a verdict pronounced by judges of the Supreme Court.
An interesting feature of this electioneering process is the smear campaign that dominated the media. The campaign commercial gave adequate room to candidates for the various public offices to freely 'wash their dirty linen in the public'. Americans were fed with facts and figures on the shortcomings and achievements of candidates vying for elections. To a reasonable extent, the smear campaign achieved its objective in a way or the other. It enabled the electorate to decide genuinely on whose side to pitch their tents.
For instance, they were able to assess the candidates based on their opposition to or support for hot-button national issues such as the war on terrorism and nuclear weapons, legalisation of same-sex union, abortion, stem cell research, continuous tax incentives to American companies, which encouraged job outsourcing to less developed countries, to mention but a few. Another interesting aspect of the process was that election into all the vacant political offices across the nation were conducted the same day. There was no restriction of movement whatsoever. Schools and places of business were opened and people of voting age were permitted to take their time off duty to perform their civic duty.
As a student of Public Administration, this piece is meant to review the recent American poll and the May 29, 2003 polls in Nigeria. In the case of Nigeria, where elections are conducted on different days, it is absolutely obvious that wastage of resources is unavoidable. In addition, this mode of conducting elections, in a great deal, encourages election fraud and irregularities. It creates the opportunity for praise-singers and party loyalists, who engage in fisticuffs and destruction of lives and properties, to perfect their strategies when elections are scheduled for different days.
The 2007 general election in Nigeria is fast approaching and deft political moves are being schemed underground. In order for the Nigerian media to make its mark in the election year, this is the appropriate time to intensify the campaign for the passage for the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill. The American media, with the support of civil society groups, succeeded in painting a clear picture of individuals contesting for elections simply because they had the freedom to do so without undue interference.
At this point in time, media organisations in Nigeria must be strengthened to live up to expectations. Civil society groups must begin a fact-finding mission into the archives of past administrations so as to dig out the needed facts and figures to support the legacies, or otherwise, of any candidates that have signified their interests for the poll. As the watchdog of our new found democracy, we have a responsibility to provide Nigerians with genuine and adequate information in order to make an informed decision on the choice of candidates when the times comes.
Adekunle Olubowale,
Ohio, United States
