By: Ibrahim Danlami
Contrary to the misconception held by some of our home-based compatriots, it is not true that the Nigerian Diaspora is clueless on events unfolding back home in Nigeria. Some of us have had to argue to the contrary each time this popular (or is it notorious) misconception is offered as reason to shut the Nigerian Diaspora out of the Nigerian public discourse, especially of the political kind. Notwithstanding the quantum evidence to the contrary, however, the misconception persists and is wont to succeed sometimes in actually caging some Diasporans from daring to make any public contributions to many of Nigeria’s public debates. But if you go to the Blogs or other internet media, you will see a robust interplay of ideas spewing from many Diasporans of fine intellect and depth. Lately, one of the many issues that seemed to have attracted much talk amongst many in the United States where I live is the one dealing with electoral reforms in Nigeria.
Yes, electoral reforms and their garden varieties came to the fore recently in Atlanta USA in mid-July when Maurice Iwu was there to address a symposium of Diasporans of differing political hues. I was there to listen, observe and gauge the Diasporan pulse. I am aware that others present have written on it, including accurate and objective accounts by a Wale Odusote, Seyi Oduyela and a live presentation by Professor Okafor, all of whom have covered topical issues like the vexed matters of ‘Diaspora voting rights’ and ‘Diaspora set-asides’. But the two subject areas that continue to predominate have to do with ways and means of getting our politicians to play fair – for once; and making the current crop of electoral commissioners (or the INEC leadership) a valuable and practical part of the reform process. In plain terms, it means that anyone still hounding Maurice Iwu and INEC as if they are the problems Nigeria has with her electoral blues is missing the point. And what’s the point? The point is that Nigerian elections will surely become better when politicians decide that it is time to truly respect the rules of civilized political contest; and for Nigeria to reduce the overriding influence of money in our politics – as Maurice Iwu has been recommending.
For most of us who continue to observe how this whole drama is playing out, there is no escaping the plain truth that the singular corrupting influence on elections comes from politicians (especially the overambitious moneybags), not the hapless umpire, who unfortunately becomes the fall guy for all manners of trumped-up ills with the electoral process. Blaming the umpire is analogous to purveying the fallacy that River Niger now flows from the direction of the South to the North instead of the settled scientific truth of the otherwise. On the electoral pedestal, the place of the Nigerian politician is, metaphorically speaking, northerly while that of the umpire is southerly. Simple as that. Electoral umpires everywhere (not just Nigeria) are simply not empowered by any means, whether by any lapses in the current law or any vaunted capacity for mischief, to just decide who prevails or fails by sheer fiat. Though in plain view, Maurice Iwu took pains to make this point in Atlanta when he charged that prominent politicians made aggressive moves to buy the elections before the first ballots were cast but that they were rebuffed. One newspaper had untruthfully reported that Iwu had said that the elections were bought - lock, stock and barrel. I was present in Atlanta and I never heard any such thing coming out of Iwu’s mouth. He added though that he had warned the nation about it at the time. After the symposium, I took time to research back issues of Nigerian newspapers and I found that Iwu was rock solid credible on all fours. Now, when a nation’s top electoral umpire says such things, all well-meaning Nigerians (not just the fabled ‘stakeholders’) are supposed to take a pause and do a re-think. He wore the shoe and he sure knew where it pinched.
Therefore, I find it illogical to believe that our national umpires might have gone round the country plotting with some politicians to cook the results. To believe that they did, then you have to also believe that Maurice Iwu and INEC (as a whole) ‘conspired differently’ with PDP, ANPP, AC, PPA, etc and ‘delivered’ their candidates piecemeal in the different precincts where each party had prevailed, including some isolated anti-PDP ‘conspiracy’ to deliver Senator Osakwe against the all-powerful PDP Chairman Ahmadu Ali for whom Maurice Iwu and INEC were alleged to be working for. Incredible. If any such moves were made, it is plausible that it was the politicians themselves (who had so much at stake) that might have gone wild jockeying to corrupt the umpires. It must have been so because it comports with the natural order of (warped) human political behavior – the sort that compels men to try to win at all costs. Think of all the revelations of match fixing, whether in the sphere of Nigerian or any international sports. What we know as true wherever some fixing was alleged is that some team or its manager went around at night trying to corrupt the umpire or referee; or that some rapacious bookmaker peddled some undue influence in order to make a buck or two through some corrupt means of distorting the natural odds. I have not heard of the other kind where some soccer referee was the one looking for takers for his grand designs to sell a game. Again, think of the direction we all know River Niger to be flowing.
It is time we Nigerians began to tell each other some home and unpleasant truths. One truth is that it is becoming harder to believe that Maurice Iwu alone sat down and ‘rigged’ all the winning politicians (of different parties) into power. If he did, surely one of his commissioners would have by now become rattled enough to turn whistleblower, all with the quaint prospects that such a person will certainly become an instant Nigerian (and international) celebrity. I believe Nigeria currently has twelve national electoral commissioners and thirty-six Resident Electoral Commissioners (at the executive level); and several hundreds of top civil service grade electoral staff (permanent and ad-hoc). It strains credulity, therefore, that all these fine folks will continue to remain silent and protect what is not supposed to be a secret anymore had such a plan been hatched for real. Come on, give me a break. How can anyone hatch an iron-clad secret amongst thousands of fidgety and harried electoral officials and expect that it will forever remain a secret even when a small group of soldiers (trained to keep secrets) cannot even maintain the secrecy of a coup plan. Unbelievable.
The Nigerian Diasporan that I know continues to have confidence in the Uwais-led effort to reform the electoral process. But I must hasten to state our disappointment with the bizarre contributions coming from some of the members of the committee who continue to miss the point of the whole exercise by abusing the hallowed halls of the Committee to be witch-hunting INEC and Maurice Iwu. As a nation, Nigeria is a continuum and so are her institutions and systems. To illustrate, you cannot reform the Nigerian judiciary by throwing out the entire judicial leadership. You can only do that in a revolution, though the military didn’t even try. The same is true for the many other national institutions of cohesion and continuity such as the armed forces. Why are we not calling for the firing of the service chiefs because of some perception that the militancy in the Niger Delta persists; or why are we not also accusing them of even procuring the militancy? We are not - simply because it is not reasonable to do so; yet in the realm of elections, we can count on disgruntled and duplicitous politicians to point us to the wrong direction – smoking mirrors and River Niger suddenly changing course to flow from the South to North. Don’t believe the hype.
So, for many of us in the Diaspora, it comes down to these. INEC is an institution of national cohesion, continuity, and stability. Thus, it should be one of the few institutions that deserve some stability in its leadership cadres and urgently so. Nigeria has experimented with this ad-hoc chairmanship arrangement for far too long and it is not working. That is one of the reforms we need. Experience counts for something and whether anyone of us likes Maurice Iwu or not, three more things you can never take away from the lanky professor are guts, patriotism and the most credit for keeping Nigeria on an even keel when it mattered most. Further, we need to be mindful of the ignoble place of Nigerian politicians in the whole scheme of things and tell them to get their act together; or better still, tell them off. Maybe, it is time for our politicians to start talking of fielding fewer parties that will be big (and serious) enough to take on a dominant party like the PDP. Or, Nigeria may have to change the laws to statutorily sunset any political party that fails to return a victory at the polls.
Bruce Fein, a former assistant Attorney General of United States, writing in the Washington Times of July 15, 2008, called the 2007 elections ‘landmark’; and he ably contradicted the crass celebration of tribunal nullifications as some indictment of Iwu/INEC by referring to the bizarre verdict in the Abia governorship case. I agree with Attorney Fein and also with the proposition that Nigeria gained lots of mileage in 2007. Therefore, those that made it happen must be made part of any process designed to make it better the next time around.
Ibrahim Danlami wrote in from the US ibrahimdanlami@yahoo.com
Contrary to the misconception held by some of our home-based compatriots, it is not true that the Nigerian Diaspora is clueless on events unfolding back home in Nigeria. Some of us have had to argue to the contrary each time this popular (or is it notorious) misconception is offered as reason to shut the Nigerian Diaspora out of the Nigerian public discourse, especially of the political kind. Notwithstanding the quantum evidence to the contrary, however, the misconception persists and is wont to succeed sometimes in actually caging some Diasporans from daring to make any public contributions to many of Nigeria’s public debates. But if you go to the Blogs or other internet media, you will see a robust interplay of ideas spewing from many Diasporans of fine intellect and depth. Lately, one of the many issues that seemed to have attracted much talk amongst many in the United States where I live is the one dealing with electoral reforms in Nigeria.
Yes, electoral reforms and their garden varieties came to the fore recently in Atlanta USA in mid-July when Maurice Iwu was there to address a symposium of Diasporans of differing political hues. I was there to listen, observe and gauge the Diasporan pulse. I am aware that others present have written on it, including accurate and objective accounts by a Wale Odusote, Seyi Oduyela and a live presentation by Professor Okafor, all of whom have covered topical issues like the vexed matters of ‘Diaspora voting rights’ and ‘Diaspora set-asides’. But the two subject areas that continue to predominate have to do with ways and means of getting our politicians to play fair – for once; and making the current crop of electoral commissioners (or the INEC leadership) a valuable and practical part of the reform process. In plain terms, it means that anyone still hounding Maurice Iwu and INEC as if they are the problems Nigeria has with her electoral blues is missing the point. And what’s the point? The point is that Nigerian elections will surely become better when politicians decide that it is time to truly respect the rules of civilized political contest; and for Nigeria to reduce the overriding influence of money in our politics – as Maurice Iwu has been recommending.
For most of us who continue to observe how this whole drama is playing out, there is no escaping the plain truth that the singular corrupting influence on elections comes from politicians (especially the overambitious moneybags), not the hapless umpire, who unfortunately becomes the fall guy for all manners of trumped-up ills with the electoral process. Blaming the umpire is analogous to purveying the fallacy that River Niger now flows from the direction of the South to the North instead of the settled scientific truth of the otherwise. On the electoral pedestal, the place of the Nigerian politician is, metaphorically speaking, northerly while that of the umpire is southerly. Simple as that. Electoral umpires everywhere (not just Nigeria) are simply not empowered by any means, whether by any lapses in the current law or any vaunted capacity for mischief, to just decide who prevails or fails by sheer fiat. Though in plain view, Maurice Iwu took pains to make this point in Atlanta when he charged that prominent politicians made aggressive moves to buy the elections before the first ballots were cast but that they were rebuffed. One newspaper had untruthfully reported that Iwu had said that the elections were bought - lock, stock and barrel. I was present in Atlanta and I never heard any such thing coming out of Iwu’s mouth. He added though that he had warned the nation about it at the time. After the symposium, I took time to research back issues of Nigerian newspapers and I found that Iwu was rock solid credible on all fours. Now, when a nation’s top electoral umpire says such things, all well-meaning Nigerians (not just the fabled ‘stakeholders’) are supposed to take a pause and do a re-think. He wore the shoe and he sure knew where it pinched.
Therefore, I find it illogical to believe that our national umpires might have gone round the country plotting with some politicians to cook the results. To believe that they did, then you have to also believe that Maurice Iwu and INEC (as a whole) ‘conspired differently’ with PDP, ANPP, AC, PPA, etc and ‘delivered’ their candidates piecemeal in the different precincts where each party had prevailed, including some isolated anti-PDP ‘conspiracy’ to deliver Senator Osakwe against the all-powerful PDP Chairman Ahmadu Ali for whom Maurice Iwu and INEC were alleged to be working for. Incredible. If any such moves were made, it is plausible that it was the politicians themselves (who had so much at stake) that might have gone wild jockeying to corrupt the umpires. It must have been so because it comports with the natural order of (warped) human political behavior – the sort that compels men to try to win at all costs. Think of all the revelations of match fixing, whether in the sphere of Nigerian or any international sports. What we know as true wherever some fixing was alleged is that some team or its manager went around at night trying to corrupt the umpire or referee; or that some rapacious bookmaker peddled some undue influence in order to make a buck or two through some corrupt means of distorting the natural odds. I have not heard of the other kind where some soccer referee was the one looking for takers for his grand designs to sell a game. Again, think of the direction we all know River Niger to be flowing.
It is time we Nigerians began to tell each other some home and unpleasant truths. One truth is that it is becoming harder to believe that Maurice Iwu alone sat down and ‘rigged’ all the winning politicians (of different parties) into power. If he did, surely one of his commissioners would have by now become rattled enough to turn whistleblower, all with the quaint prospects that such a person will certainly become an instant Nigerian (and international) celebrity. I believe Nigeria currently has twelve national electoral commissioners and thirty-six Resident Electoral Commissioners (at the executive level); and several hundreds of top civil service grade electoral staff (permanent and ad-hoc). It strains credulity, therefore, that all these fine folks will continue to remain silent and protect what is not supposed to be a secret anymore had such a plan been hatched for real. Come on, give me a break. How can anyone hatch an iron-clad secret amongst thousands of fidgety and harried electoral officials and expect that it will forever remain a secret even when a small group of soldiers (trained to keep secrets) cannot even maintain the secrecy of a coup plan. Unbelievable.
The Nigerian Diasporan that I know continues to have confidence in the Uwais-led effort to reform the electoral process. But I must hasten to state our disappointment with the bizarre contributions coming from some of the members of the committee who continue to miss the point of the whole exercise by abusing the hallowed halls of the Committee to be witch-hunting INEC and Maurice Iwu. As a nation, Nigeria is a continuum and so are her institutions and systems. To illustrate, you cannot reform the Nigerian judiciary by throwing out the entire judicial leadership. You can only do that in a revolution, though the military didn’t even try. The same is true for the many other national institutions of cohesion and continuity such as the armed forces. Why are we not calling for the firing of the service chiefs because of some perception that the militancy in the Niger Delta persists; or why are we not also accusing them of even procuring the militancy? We are not - simply because it is not reasonable to do so; yet in the realm of elections, we can count on disgruntled and duplicitous politicians to point us to the wrong direction – smoking mirrors and River Niger suddenly changing course to flow from the South to North. Don’t believe the hype.
So, for many of us in the Diaspora, it comes down to these. INEC is an institution of national cohesion, continuity, and stability. Thus, it should be one of the few institutions that deserve some stability in its leadership cadres and urgently so. Nigeria has experimented with this ad-hoc chairmanship arrangement for far too long and it is not working. That is one of the reforms we need. Experience counts for something and whether anyone of us likes Maurice Iwu or not, three more things you can never take away from the lanky professor are guts, patriotism and the most credit for keeping Nigeria on an even keel when it mattered most. Further, we need to be mindful of the ignoble place of Nigerian politicians in the whole scheme of things and tell them to get their act together; or better still, tell them off. Maybe, it is time for our politicians to start talking of fielding fewer parties that will be big (and serious) enough to take on a dominant party like the PDP. Or, Nigeria may have to change the laws to statutorily sunset any political party that fails to return a victory at the polls.
Bruce Fein, a former assistant Attorney General of United States, writing in the Washington Times of July 15, 2008, called the 2007 elections ‘landmark’; and he ably contradicted the crass celebration of tribunal nullifications as some indictment of Iwu/INEC by referring to the bizarre verdict in the Abia governorship case. I agree with Attorney Fein and also with the proposition that Nigeria gained lots of mileage in 2007. Therefore, those that made it happen must be made part of any process designed to make it better the next time around.
Ibrahim Danlami wrote in from the US ibrahimdanlami@yahoo.com
