Nigeria’s many parties and 2019 elections - Punch Editorial

The Independent National Electoral Commission has sounded a strident alarm that the rising number of political parties, with most of them bent on fielding candidates for the highest political offices, could present daunting logistical and legal challenges and threaten the 2019 elections. With just one year to go, the commission should deploy advanced technology and work closely with lawmakers to find a way round this problem.

The threat is real: in 2007, a legal challenge by the then vice-president and presidential candidate of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, almost led to the poll’s postponement. Since then, similar challenges by candidates of fringe parties have secured court judgements compelling the electoral umpire to include their names and party logos on the ballot paper. This had once led to reprinting and inevitable late arrival of ballot papers on Election Day.

The warning given on behalf of INEC by its Chief Technical Adviser, Bolade Eyinla, was clear: he told participants at a seminar at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies, Jos, that if all the 68 registered parties sponsored candidates in the elections, the logistics involved posed serious challenges. Not only would the candidates’ names and party logos have to be printed, presenting voters with extra long paper, 68 different party polling agents would have to be accredited for each of the 119,973 polling units in the country, making them potential flashpoints in a country where voting is often marred by violence.
 
That spectacle becomes scarier with the revelation that 100 associations have applications pending to register as parties. If only half of these scale the hurdle and they also insist on contesting, Nigerians should brace for ballot papers several metres long and the inherent confusion for illiterate voters. Besides, INEC lacks enough personnel to be present at all party congresses and primaries as requested by law.

How did we get to this pass? Blame the 1999 Constitution that, in line with global practices, makes provisions on fundamental rights, including that of freedom of association. This was cemented in a landmark Supreme Court judgement in 2002 that invalidated INEC’s stringent qualifying rules and opened the floodgates to new associations, from the serious to the quirky, and affirmed their right to field candidates.

While the right to vote and be voted for on one’s preferred legal platform cannot be faulted, desperation by aspirants and lack of internal party democracy usually see candidate nominations ending up in protracted legal battles that are sometimes resolved only a few days or hours before polling opens and after ballot papers had been printed and distributed and other logistics concluded. With court orders that the victorious nominees be included on the ballot, elections stand the risk of being postponed or overturned by the courts on the grounds of their having held in defiance of court orders or for excluding validly nominated party candidates. Said Eyinla, “…if any registered political party is mistakenly omitted from the ballot paper, it could lead to the total cancellation of the exercise.”

With the Supreme Court verdict, there are no easy solutions short of a constitution amendment. Every polity adapts based on its experiences. INEC should work with the National Assembly to consider relevant changes in the ongoing amendment process without eroding fundamental rights to associate, vote and be voted for.

Even the most mature democracies moderate the field. Having a party registered does not always automatically guarantee being on the ballot. In France, to make the presidential ballot, each candidate must obtain at least 500 sponsoring signatures of elected officials in at least 30 departments (regions) or overseas territories. According to the United States Federal Election Commission, American states have different qualifying thresholds for candidates running for president. Registered parties, theirs and independents, are not automatically on the Electoral College ballot in all 50 states.

Ricky De la Fuente of the Reform Party and Daniel Castle of the Constitution Party were on the ballot in only 20 and 24 states respectively, back in 2016. While only two parties − Republican and Democratic − automatically field presidential candidates in all, there are 40 other parties in the US and a slew of regional parties that rarely field candidates nationally.

To assist uneducated voters, Brazil assigns numbers to every political party. In its 2014 presidential election, only 11 parties fielded candidates though 17 parties held seats in the federal senate and 29 in the lower chamber. Countries like the Philippines have also had to contend with chaotic electoral fields, but have devised ways to cope. Of the 130 persons that initially filed papers to contest the 2016 presidential election, the umpire pruned the list to five, labelling some as “nuisance candidates.” To help smaller or new parties, however, the Asian country passed the Party List System Act in 1995 that allows fringe parties that secure two per cent of the popular vote to have seats in the parliament and build up from there.

We need, by consensus, to amend the constitution. Only parties that have been represented in parliament of a state by at least five delegates, can field candidates for federal positions in Germany while, in Nigeria, a one-man party will insist on being on the presidential ballot without any elective presence at federal, state or local level.

To help parties grow and give voters a wider choice, incremental increase in electoral seats should be encouraged. Mexico prescribes that registered parties must obtain two per cent of the vote in federal elections or lose their licences, but allows small parties to form coalitions and share seats in a proportional representation system.

To avoid a fringe player upturning an election, we should copy Germany where a party with no presence in any legislature aspiring to federal office must file its nomination at least 90 days to the vote to allow for vetting and logistical arrangements.

In the meantime, INEC should go the extra mile to prepare for a possible multitude of candidates. It should file its budget quickly, intensify training and invest heavily in technology to cope with all foreseeable challenges.

Punch

 

Rate this item
(0 votes)

Join NN on telegram

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.