|
|
|
|
Publications >> International Forum Publications >> The 1999 Elections and the Future of Nigeria
|
|
Chair: I. William Zartman
Nigeria's transition to civilian rule encompassed four rounds of elections: local elections on 5 December 1998, state elections on 9 January 1999, national assembly elections on 20 February 1999, and presidential elections on 27 February 1999. These elections were a critical turning point for Nigeria as well as an important event in African history. The Nigerian situation is much better than it was a year ago, thanks mainly to fate. Nigeria's Newswatch magazine chose "death" as its 1998 Man of the Year, reasoning that the deaths in June 1998 of General Sani Abacha, military head of state, and M.K.O. Abiola, imprisoned winner of the annulled 1993 presidential election, brought about more fundamental changes than did any living individual. Nigeria has been under military dictatorship for 29 of the 39 years since its independence, and this history constrains all facets of the Nigerian polity, including the recent elections. The collapse of the Nigerian economy in the 1990s also influenced the elections, increasing the danger of fraudulent practices such as vote-buying and leaving little middle-class base for political activity. Nigerian society is fragmented and polarized, and discourse is strident. At least 26 groups tried to register as parties for the transitional elections. Another constraint was the fact that the elections were scheduled and held within a very short period of time, with rushed preparations. In addition, Nigeria has been isolated from the international community for years, so few international organizations were established on the ground to give technical assistance. On the other hand, despite the long dictatorship, Nigeria succeeded in mobilizing two strong and qualified candidates, Olu Falae of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and the All People's Party (APP) and Olusegun Obasanjo of the People's Democratic Party (PDP). General Abubakar, who succeeded Abacha as head of state, proved to be committed to the transition process, and the Independent National Election Commission (INEC) was viewed by most Nigerians as a credible entity, headed by a well-respected retired judge. The country also has a very vibrant civil society, as demonstrated by the success of the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG), a coalition of 66 civil-society groups that mobilized nearly 11,000 election observers. Many Nigerians have struggled for years and risked their lives to advocate political reform. It is important for the international community to show its commitment to these activists and to aid their struggle for a successful transition. The involvement of the international community was significant, especially considering Nigeria's recent history of isolation. Both the National Democratic Institute (with the Carter Center) and the International Republican Institute organized major election observation delegations. (All panelists served on one of these delegations.) The National Endowment for Democracy has had an ongoing grants program for Nigerian groups working to promote democracy and respect for human rights. There were a variety of other international observer delegations in addition to the American initiatives, including the Commonwealth and the Organization of African Unity. Some delegations seemed not to want to be overly critical of election irregularities, believing that the transition to civilian rule and the return of Nigeria to the international community were more important. Others did pinpoint instances of fraud and criticized the way the elections were organized and held. One panelist cautioned that the term "free and fair" to characterize elections has been thrown around very loosely; "free and fair" can become a trivialized concept, merely a hoop through which regimes jump to satisfy the international community. Assessment The 1998-99 elections were in fact an improvement over previous elections: they were peaceful; about 30 million citizens came out to vote; INEC was committed to its duties; and the media covered all the candidates. The ballots were secret, and Nigerians had some confidence that the results of the poll would be respected. Party development also was strong under the circumstances. Rather than one government-sponsored party, there were two genuinely competitive party machines, both of which were well organized in getting out the vote. This was also a significant change from the party structure created under Abacha, in which all five legal parties had nominated him as their presidential candidate, thus earning the description "the five fingers of a single leprous hand." Yet as has been widely reported, there were significant irregularities in the elections, and it is important for the international community to acknowledge this fact. Observer teams consistently reported lower apparent turnouts than those that were officially reported. Observer estimates of turnouts for the various rounds in different localities varied between 10-15 percent and 40 percent, yet an overall turnout of 50 percent was officially reported for the presidential elections. Individual districts sometimes reported 80-90 percent or, in one memorable case, 120 percent participation. The local elections were generally held to be the most successful, with a fairly high turnout as well as visible enthusiasm for grassroots candidates. The national assembly elections were described as more flawed than the other rounds. Candidates for the national assembly were selected very late and sometimes by less than fair processes; some candidates were former military officials and some were chosen by party chiefs. The conventions of two of the three major parties took place only the weekend before the elections; thus there was not enough time for candidates to present issues to the voters or to develop name recognition. One panelist witnessed ballot-stuffing firsthand, although he also observed other election rounds and other national-assembly polling places where there was no evidence of fraud. There were also some technical criticisms, such as questioning how inec's requirements for representativeness were determined and applied. There was confusion over the last-minute alliance in the presidential elections between the Alliance for Democracy and the All Peoples Party, since the ballots were not changed to reflect the alliance and presidential votes for the AD were not considered valid. Most Nigerians viewed the elections as a referendum on the military, and thus their votes were overwhelmingly in favor of the military's return to the barracks and the installation of a civilian government to lead Nigeria to a truly democratic system. People were concerned about how the new government would deal with the military and wanted to find strategies to retire not just the generals but the middle ranks of the military, who have been responsible for many of the human rights abuses of the past few years. The panelists agreed that the outcome of the elections must be placed in historical context. The 1999 elections can be said to have followed in the tradition of the last three national elections, one under Babangida and two under Shagari, all marred by accusations of fraud and notable for the contesting or annulment of the results. On the other hand, there is a danger in seeking perfection, since the pretext for Nigeria's long "transition without end" was the regime's insistence on perfection before election results would be respected: There could be no electoral irregularities, no parties based on ethnicity or religion, and no corruptionand therefore there was no transition at all. Both sides committed fraud in the recent elections, but it is impossible to ascertain whether this would have changed the results. As one panelist put it, "the elections were about as perfect as Nigeria itself." Ordinary Nigerians, in fact, seemed to expect fraud and inflated vote counts and were to some degree resigned to these irregularities. One panelist spoke of the elections as more a ritual than anything else; another called the elections a "transition to a transition." Nigerians now have higher hopes, but they don't expect miracles. The next elections, under a civilian government, will be both more important and more likely to be fair. The panel concluded on a forward-looking note: While any characterization of the elections is inherently political and controversial, it is more important to develop recommendations and conclusions that can bring about improvements and a better process next time. |
|
| |