January 24, 2009
I have lost count of the number of elected representatives that have so far lost their seats at both the executive and legislative branches of Nigeria government, courtesy of the Nigerian judiciary. Equally significant are the large number that end up wining back their position. When would we learn to change regimes in Africa without rancour, acrimony, riots and deaths?
African regimes are often long lasting and overstay their welcome but two have just ended. In Ghana, change happened through an election won by the opposition; in Guinea through a coup. The Ghana result has been widely welcomed by the international community, mainly because in Africa it so rare for oppositions to win. Opposition parties in Africa succeeded only when ruling parties lack the power to cheat. Power relations in Africa are so personalised that this weakened the party’s grip. Another problem was that, atypically the government do have big revenues from natural resources.
It is noteworthy that the ruling party in Ghana was relatively powerless because the incumbent president, John Kufour had hit his term limit and was not standing. The situation is different where the government do have big revenues from natural resources. Regimes with resource revenues buy support through a patronage system and keep taxes so low or do not tax the masses at all so as not to provoke scrutiny. (Ghana has discovered their oil but oil exploitation is yet to start)
This is why the Ghana miracle can never be replicated in Nigeria. That is also the reason why a “sickly” Umaru Yar’Adua, who could not actively campaign (he collapsed at a campaign ground for trying so hard and had to be rushed to a German hospital) must still win a landslide victory in the February 2007 elections. Nigeria oil revenue would guarantee the party in government victory no matter who is their candidate.
As noted in the UK Guardian, in Kenya in 2002, the same combination – no incumbent standing and no resource revenues – enabled the opposition to win. In both the preceding and subsequent elections, the incumbent stood and duly won- implying that term limits and transparency or resource revenues both matter for clean elections.
Guinea was at the other end of the spectrum: no term limit and big resource revenues. When the president died after 24 years in office, the likely prospect was that Guinea would follow Togo where after the demise of the president for life after 38 years in office, his son graciously assumed office in a token election. But junior army officers sought to pre-empt the evolution of Guinea from dictatorship to absolute monarchy by seizing the moment. The coup in Guinea followed a pattern: the absence of term limits and prolonged periods of rule increase the chances of a coup.
Clean elections matter for integrity, but do they matter for development? Does electoral accountability actually discipline a government to run the economy better? In their forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous places, Paul Collier and Lisa Chauvet analysed 30 years of data on elections in developing world. They wanted to capture how the economy was run under elected and unelected regimes in Africa. They discovered that when citizens were given the power of the vote to force their governments to attend to their concerns, what they demand is better policies and governance as against the demands of investors or the World Bank; the discipline of elections brings a significant improvement. However, “once we distinguish elections according to the quality of their conduct, we find that badly conducted elections fail to improve policy. Governments that steal elections are free to continue the old game of plunder”.
Apart from economic prosperity, there is something to be said for the national pride that necessarily results from a clean election. I had always avoided partisan politics and often gazed with amazement at the passion on display by the masses for one candidate or the other. I failed to understand why someone would leave his daily business to shout himself hoarse at a political rally. ‘The foolish masses’ I dubbed them until the American of election of 2008.
My wife complained that it seemed nothing bothers me anymore but Obama. I was surprised at myself: the agonizing when the polls dipped; the anger and annoyance when he gets negative media; the euphoria at wins upon wins over Hillary Clinton; eyes glued to the telly at ‘the situation room’ or the ‘US Election Headquarters’ past midnight; the sleepless nights to get the results live! My colleagues in the office nicknamed me Obama and sent me congratulatory message the night he won (even though it was past midnight) as if Barack was my uncle.
Then I realised what has been so often denied Nigerians and many other Africans: the passion of involvement; the sense and realisation that you possess the power to actually influence events and make history.
I witnessed that same passion among Ghanaians last month; The Excitement, the power to bring change. Even among those that did not vote for Professor John Atta Mills, their sense of involvement, their happiness and palpable sigh of relief that they got it right at last was admirable.
Were Nigerians really bothered whether President Yar’Adua won or lost at the Supreme Court? Did they lose their sleep when Atiku Abubakar was nearly disqualified from running? Do they religiously follow all the court battles? There is this complete disaffection with the political process and a dislocation from the resulting governance. Why? A friend of mine in Benin summed up the answer on the night of February 14, 2007. When I asked why she stayed at home without bothering to go out and vote for Adams Oshiomole. “My brother”, she replied, “no matter who I voted for, PDP would steal the election”. And they did!
Unlike a friend of mine, a democrat, who out of rage left the US and relocated to London when George Bush won in 2000, the average person in Nigeria feels there is nothing in it for him. How then could he hold the government accountable? Unfortunately, this spirit of indifference partly explains why corruption is rampant and development will be denied Nigerians.
The citizens are thus caught in a vicious circle: They won’t take part in an election because it would be rigged; because they have not invested in the result, they are unconcerned and will not hold the occupier of the office to account; the executive thus feels free to steal the commonwealth and buy patronage to win the next election.
Are you then surprised when a President Yar ‘Adua (who may have otherwise been a good leader) for example, fails to perform?
So, the struggle for clean elections such as Ghana has just had matters not only for integrity, but for prosperity and national happiness. Unfortunately, it is a struggle that is a long way from being won. The coup in Guinea was not the clean election the country needed, but was it so very bad? It seems to have been welcomed by many citizens. So long as African governments govern without term limits or fail to conduct a free and fair election, the ghost of coup d’etat would still haunt the continent.
Coups have a mixed history. Paul Collier noted that the Senegal election of 2000 was one of those rare occasions when an incumbent president conceded defeat. The reason was that the army threatened a coup if he stole it: so credible was the threat that Abdou Diouf actually conceded before all the votes were counted. So the very forces that those that believe in democracy however imperfect comfortably condemns, can sometimes be the most effective ally of democracy. Look at the example of Turkey, where the army have for decades been the guardians of democracy.
Of course, coups can take a society from bad to worse. Such was the coup that overthrew Haile Selassie, the absolute monarch of Ethiopia. By the time of the overthrow of the emperor he was almost senile; almost any change would have been an improvement, except the one that actually happened. So coups such as the one that has pre-empted absolute monarchy in Guinea are unguided missiles. Paul Collier therefore argues that the challenge is not to suppress them but to harness them as a force for good.
Since Nigeria has seemingly bid goodbye to coups, the challenge now is how to de-emphasize the place of oil money in their national life. Nigeria natural resource revenue is a major enemy to the conduct of a free and fair election. Until the oil money is no more, Nigeria cannot be part of the Obama’s exhortation: "Starting now, let's take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union, let’s build a government that is responsible to the people and accept our own responsibilities as citizens to hold our government accountable. ... Let's make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but the beginning and the hope for the future."
www.elombah.com
African regimes are often long lasting and overstay their welcome but two have just ended. In Ghana, change happened through an election won by the opposition; in Guinea through a coup. The Ghana result has been widely welcomed by the international community, mainly because in Africa it so rare for oppositions to win. Opposition parties in Africa succeeded only when ruling parties lack the power to cheat. Power relations in Africa are so personalised that this weakened the party’s grip. Another problem was that, atypically the government do have big revenues from natural resources.
It is noteworthy that the ruling party in Ghana was relatively powerless because the incumbent president, John Kufour had hit his term limit and was not standing. The situation is different where the government do have big revenues from natural resources. Regimes with resource revenues buy support through a patronage system and keep taxes so low or do not tax the masses at all so as not to provoke scrutiny. (Ghana has discovered their oil but oil exploitation is yet to start)
This is why the Ghana miracle can never be replicated in Nigeria. That is also the reason why a “sickly” Umaru Yar’Adua, who could not actively campaign (he collapsed at a campaign ground for trying so hard and had to be rushed to a German hospital) must still win a landslide victory in the February 2007 elections. Nigeria oil revenue would guarantee the party in government victory no matter who is their candidate.
As noted in the UK Guardian, in Kenya in 2002, the same combination – no incumbent standing and no resource revenues – enabled the opposition to win. In both the preceding and subsequent elections, the incumbent stood and duly won- implying that term limits and transparency or resource revenues both matter for clean elections.
Guinea was at the other end of the spectrum: no term limit and big resource revenues. When the president died after 24 years in office, the likely prospect was that Guinea would follow Togo where after the demise of the president for life after 38 years in office, his son graciously assumed office in a token election. But junior army officers sought to pre-empt the evolution of Guinea from dictatorship to absolute monarchy by seizing the moment. The coup in Guinea followed a pattern: the absence of term limits and prolonged periods of rule increase the chances of a coup.
Clean elections matter for integrity, but do they matter for development? Does electoral accountability actually discipline a government to run the economy better? In their forthcoming book, Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous places, Paul Collier and Lisa Chauvet analysed 30 years of data on elections in developing world. They wanted to capture how the economy was run under elected and unelected regimes in Africa. They discovered that when citizens were given the power of the vote to force their governments to attend to their concerns, what they demand is better policies and governance as against the demands of investors or the World Bank; the discipline of elections brings a significant improvement. However, “once we distinguish elections according to the quality of their conduct, we find that badly conducted elections fail to improve policy. Governments that steal elections are free to continue the old game of plunder”.
Apart from economic prosperity, there is something to be said for the national pride that necessarily results from a clean election. I had always avoided partisan politics and often gazed with amazement at the passion on display by the masses for one candidate or the other. I failed to understand why someone would leave his daily business to shout himself hoarse at a political rally. ‘The foolish masses’ I dubbed them until the American of election of 2008.
My wife complained that it seemed nothing bothers me anymore but Obama. I was surprised at myself: the agonizing when the polls dipped; the anger and annoyance when he gets negative media; the euphoria at wins upon wins over Hillary Clinton; eyes glued to the telly at ‘the situation room’ or the ‘US Election Headquarters’ past midnight; the sleepless nights to get the results live! My colleagues in the office nicknamed me Obama and sent me congratulatory message the night he won (even though it was past midnight) as if Barack was my uncle.
Then I realised what has been so often denied Nigerians and many other Africans: the passion of involvement; the sense and realisation that you possess the power to actually influence events and make history.
I witnessed that same passion among Ghanaians last month; The Excitement, the power to bring change. Even among those that did not vote for Professor John Atta Mills, their sense of involvement, their happiness and palpable sigh of relief that they got it right at last was admirable.
Were Nigerians really bothered whether President Yar’Adua won or lost at the Supreme Court? Did they lose their sleep when Atiku Abubakar was nearly disqualified from running? Do they religiously follow all the court battles? There is this complete disaffection with the political process and a dislocation from the resulting governance. Why? A friend of mine in Benin summed up the answer on the night of February 14, 2007. When I asked why she stayed at home without bothering to go out and vote for Adams Oshiomole. “My brother”, she replied, “no matter who I voted for, PDP would steal the election”. And they did!
Unlike a friend of mine, a democrat, who out of rage left the US and relocated to London when George Bush won in 2000, the average person in Nigeria feels there is nothing in it for him. How then could he hold the government accountable? Unfortunately, this spirit of indifference partly explains why corruption is rampant and development will be denied Nigerians.
The citizens are thus caught in a vicious circle: They won’t take part in an election because it would be rigged; because they have not invested in the result, they are unconcerned and will not hold the occupier of the office to account; the executive thus feels free to steal the commonwealth and buy patronage to win the next election.
Are you then surprised when a President Yar ‘Adua (who may have otherwise been a good leader) for example, fails to perform?
So, the struggle for clean elections such as Ghana has just had matters not only for integrity, but for prosperity and national happiness. Unfortunately, it is a struggle that is a long way from being won. The coup in Guinea was not the clean election the country needed, but was it so very bad? It seems to have been welcomed by many citizens. So long as African governments govern without term limits or fail to conduct a free and fair election, the ghost of coup d’etat would still haunt the continent.
Coups have a mixed history. Paul Collier noted that the Senegal election of 2000 was one of those rare occasions when an incumbent president conceded defeat. The reason was that the army threatened a coup if he stole it: so credible was the threat that Abdou Diouf actually conceded before all the votes were counted. So the very forces that those that believe in democracy however imperfect comfortably condemns, can sometimes be the most effective ally of democracy. Look at the example of Turkey, where the army have for decades been the guardians of democracy.
Of course, coups can take a society from bad to worse. Such was the coup that overthrew Haile Selassie, the absolute monarch of Ethiopia. By the time of the overthrow of the emperor he was almost senile; almost any change would have been an improvement, except the one that actually happened. So coups such as the one that has pre-empted absolute monarchy in Guinea are unguided missiles. Paul Collier therefore argues that the challenge is not to suppress them but to harness them as a force for good.
Since Nigeria has seemingly bid goodbye to coups, the challenge now is how to de-emphasize the place of oil money in their national life. Nigeria natural resource revenue is a major enemy to the conduct of a free and fair election. Until the oil money is no more, Nigeria cannot be part of the Obama’s exhortation: "Starting now, let's take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union, let’s build a government that is responsible to the people and accept our own responsibilities as citizens to hold our government accountable. ... Let's make sure this election is not the end of what we do to change America, but the beginning and the hope for the future."
www.elombah.com
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });