Date Published: 03/29/10
Elections: Is Iwu truly the problem or is it the X factor? By Greg Okechukwu-Nwadike
Recently, the topic is on whether the chairman of the independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Maurice Iwu should be sacked from office even before the completion of his tenure which ends in June this year or whether he should be allowed to round off his tenure and possibly be reappointed for second term by the President.
While a minority section of “short memory but vocal Nigerians” wants the erudite Professor of Pharmacology booted out of office, vast majorities (though inclined to be less vocal than the minority) want the INEC boss to continue and preferably conduct the next general elections come 2011. This has brought about protests and counter protests for and against within the last few weeks, with even the NLC abandoning core labor issue to join the fray. For this one, it is said that NLC is miffed with Iwu for excluding them as Monitors in the Anambra election; and that the leadership has been cornered by anti-government forces and foreign agents who do not wish Nigeria well, in the run-up to a major transition.
While I would not attempt to deny Nigerians their constitutional right of expression in their discourse, positions and stands on relevant national issues, my simple questions and argument would be: Is Professor Maurice Iwu truly the cause of the nation’s flawed elections? Why is it easier for Nigerians to destroy than to build? Or are we just on a spree of scape-goating, knowing full well that most of us are complicit in what ails Nigeria’s elections?
I could go on the more with several other questions such as: Why do we find it easier to criticize than to praise? Why is it that since the past two decades, Nigeria has not recorded “our heroes past” as recited in our national anthem; rather all Nigerians who had served this country meritoriously in one way or the other have always been tagged criminals at the end of their services and most often their heads recommended for the slaughter’s house? Or is there an ‘X Factor’ (the ethnic bogey) in this entire Iwu phobia.
On the claims by some people that some countries have got it right but Nigeria cannot (and Iwu is to blame for it); let me attempt a response to this, using America, the oldest modern democracy, as an example. America got her independence on 4th July, 1776 (that is about 233 years ago). America has practiced democracy for more than 100 years. America has conducted elections for 230 years having held its first presidential elections in 1779. America has excluded white women and the Black race from its elections, and did so for more than a century.
In all these while, Americans (victimizers and victimized alike) believe they are still learning from their mistakes and are daily improving on their electoral mechanisms. The recent cases of the former President Bush’s second tenure contest with John Kerry of the Democrats and the State of Florida results controversies of Gore-Bush still present themselves before us. But Americans never called for the heads of those who conducted those elections (or who excluded Blacks and white women), such as Kathleen Harris of Florida in the Bush-Gore debacle. In my opinion, Iwu has done far better than the openly pro-Bush Kathleen Harris; and that was probably part of the point a patriotic Iwu was trying to make awhile back that caused stir in the ranks of those who see no-evil in America but plenty of evils in everything Nigerian.
Some Nigerians even want the chairman of Ghanaian electoral commission to come and conduct elections for us. Laughable. For God’s sake, that is a very big insult. Ghana itself has not claimed perfection even though it has an incomparable smaller size than Nigeria; maybe just about the size of Lagos state, where Bola Tinubu conducted ‘elections’ that saw his party winning all the local government areas. So, why don’t we, instead of calling on Ghana, call on Tinubu to conduct 2011, to ensure that only one party wins in the entire federation? Duplicity, smoking mirrors everywhere, with Iwu hiding in all the places and awarding different victories to ANPP, PPA, APGA, PDP, Accord, AC; and God knows other abilities his pursuers will attribute to him.
Let’s turn back to Ghana; and something called “The Successful Ghana Election of 2008: A Convenient Myth?”, by Cambridge University, which carried a collaborative research demonstrating that Ghana still recorded its own flaws (perhaps far more than Nigeria 2007) but that ‘it was more convenient to say that it did not’. You can read some of it from below:
“Ghana’s 2008 election has been hailed by national and international observers as a model for Africa. The perception of success has prevailed despite persistent concerns about an inflated voters’ register and electoral fraud perpetrated by the two major parties, the NPP and NDC, in their strongholds in the Ashanti and Volta Regions respectively. Electoral malpractice in Ghana’s virtual two-party system could acquire a decisive importance as a ‘third force ’, representing an even more important factor than the smaller opposition parties. Unfortunate diplomatic and technocratic biases in election monitoring, combined with a reluctance on the part of the responsible authorities to investigate what appears to be a long history of fraudulent voting, amounts to a dangerous time bomb of unresolved conflict which could detonate in future elections”. From “The Successful Ghana Election of 2008: A Convenient Myth? Published by Journal of Modern African Studies, 48, 1 (2010), pp. 95–115; Cambridge University Press 2010 .
What an assessment, yet, today Ghana’s national electoral umpire remains on duty; and that is after serving almost 16 years. So, you can see with me that the issue is not whether electoral malpractices occur or not – because they must occur. Infact they occur in all democracies, including the inventors of election itself – the United States, which is why every electoral statute has a provision for tribunals and courts.
The real issue is to learn from our mistakes and improve on the next election, allowing the experienced umpire to remain in place and do better by the benefit of hindsight, learning from his mistakes, and most importantly, drawing from his experience on the job. Maurice Iwu’s recent outing in Anambra has proved that it can only get better under him, not worse.
In both America and Ghana (and even India – the largest democracy), there were times when they were still battling with the establishment of their electoral regimes, and even at that, it cost them the losses of their own people. In their efforts, America recorded one of the worst revolutions in the world. Firearms were sometimes used freely among their legislators even in their chambers while some of their Presidents were shot and killed in broad day light.
When the phrase “short memories” was used earlier, it simply meant the way Nigerians quickly forget history. I have reviewed the reasons why some people want Iwu’s tenure not renewed and what I discovered was how quick we forget our past and the total ignorance of some of us on the processes (and downsides) of building a democracy.
For one thing, I know that Nigeria wouldn’t have broken the spell of its inability to transit from one civilian regime to another if not with somebody like Maurice Iwu being there and handling the very complex and dicey situation that began as far back as 2006. How soon we forget the calls for no-election, interim government, third term, coup, revolution, postponement of the election, a near ABN-like injunction against declaration of the presidential result, etc. Yet, Iwu braved all that and conducted the election within constitutional timetable.
Many of the National Electoral bosses who tried it in the past failed woefully. Rather than transiting the country into the next democratic dispensation, their efforts only threw the nation back to another military rule. Check history and see.
Have we asked ourselves why in our 49 years as a sovereign nation we were only able to transit for the first time in 2007 from civilian to civilian without war, tension, protests and eventual military take over? Have we asked ourselves the reason all previous attempts had always proved abortive?
Well, for one thing, Iwu alone and his ‘INEC Team 2007’ made the difference that kept the army at bay. Yet, we don’t see that because some Nigerians will rather have perfection or nothing. Or better still, ‘Iwu must go when some politicians lose elections’. And whenever Iwu does well, like in Anambra, some very ‘bad-belle’ people will say ‘we thank the people of Anambra for the credible election’. Haba, did Anambra conduct the election for itself? That is how bad the personal animus against Iwu – ‘that Igboman’ has gotten. Americans call that: ‘Give me the cute baby and throw away the ugly mother’. Bad. Very bad!
The above parable of the ‘ugly mother with a cute child’ was introduced into this essay by my friend, Ichie Ozomma, who heads an organization that keeps tabs on how Nigeria treats her ethnic nationalities. He calls his theory ‘the X factor’; and in this case, the Igbo factor, as it relates to Maurice Iwu, a poster boy of everything good about the Igbo race.
So, let us now explore Ozomma’s theories in his own words, which roughly go like this: “First, take Dora Akunyili for instance. When Nigerians were condemning how the Yar’Adua illness was handled, Dora – the Igbo sided with them. Now, those who kept silent are benefitting from the ‘doctrine of necessity’ and there is even doubt that Dora will make the new Federal cabinet, or worse – face prosecution for her stint at NAFDAC as Aondoakaa suggested. Now, some people want to pit Igbo against Igbo by muting the idea of replacing Iwu with Dora; and even mentioned Agbakoba, all for the effect of ‘setting the Igbo house against itself’. Classic post-civil war tactics of making sure Igbos remain disunited, as if they are plotting another war.
“Second, Nigerians clamored for deregulation of the telecommunication sector. Enter Earnest Ndukwe, who gave them what is still touted as the Number One achievement of the Obasanjo era. Just see what they did to Ernest. The man is gone, sacked; and is now being hounded for God knows what.
“Third, Soludo, who was hailed world-wide for his innovations as a central banker (even winning the Central Banker of the Year in his prime), is now stuck in the famous ‘mud and banana peel some people have littered all over Nigeria to catch Igbos and cause their fall from grace’. The same mud and banana peel that they made sure felled Okadigbo, Enwerem, Wabara, etc, all in one fell swoop; just so some people can exclaim with glee that ‘see, Igbos can’t get it right; they are always fighting amongst themselves’.
“Fourth, Anyanwu of BPE, after his stellar performance at ‘complex privatization’, had to go with ignominy. What was his crime? Some little storm in a tea cup over sale of NITEL; a NITEL that has ailed Nigeria since when Igbos were relegated to just being messengers there.
“Fifth, we now have the first Igbo CDS, AVM Paul Dike that we no longer hear from as of recent, all in the midst of all kinds of security issues that involve the military he commands. All we hear are rumors that the AVM will soon be replaced, along with IGP Onovo, who was recently attacked by the Chairman of Police Service Commission in a brazen (and politically procured) breach of espirit-de-corps that never occurred when non-Igbos were at the helm of the Police Command.
“Sixth, I can go on and on, including the unexplained redeployment of Okonjo-Iweala from the Finance Ministry where she gained world-wide acclaim for freeing Nigeria from her four-decades struggles with gargantuan foreign debt burden. From redeployment, she was disgraced out of office, only for her to land a better job at the World Bank.
“And the other strong Igbo sister, Oby Ezekwesili, who also landed a better job after performing wonderfully and un-thankfully at the Bureau of Public Procurement. But guess what? Some people now want to probe Oby’s brief stint at the Education Ministry, going all over the place with the rumour that she was (suddenly?) corrupt.
“Now, it is Maurice Iwu. He has been brought to the chopping block for ‘daring to survive all the banana peels plus some failed incendiary device that was arrayed at his office’. How dare he? How dare he succeed where Igbos were supposed to fail? ‘Oh co-conspirators, Cassius, Cicero, Brutus, why must we leave this man to succeed again?’ ‘Oh co-conspirators, where art thou with thy grand plots against the Igbo?’ ‘Come to the Capitol, Eagle Square, Media Square and sing Iwu Must Go’. Sad. Very sad”, unquote – by Ichie Ozomma!
There are yet other factors playing against Iwu. Nigeria’s complex situation is such that men of mighty contacts in the military-political establishment always wish for crisis during transition periods so that their military friends could come in. The fact that some people were openly canvassing recently for a military coup is an eye opener to Nigerians. This has always caused the country many steps backward. Iwu, the emerging statesman and wise to boot, knows all these and stood ramrod in 2007; poised to do it in 2011, which brings a helluva of discomfiture to certain quarters.
This is where I must commend Professor Maurice Iwu. Iwu exemplifies the genre of heroes that rise to do what has to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of the ‘African big men and political deities’ that wish otherwise. Let me explain. Electoral democracy, especially ours with the military always lurking behind, requires declaration of a result of an election, most notably the presidential one. It is a constitutional event that must occur within the timetable set by law, even when there are flaws in the election.
Again, flaws and disputes were expected to be there, hence the presence of tribunals and the courts. If you conduct and fail to declare, then you have another June 12 – anarchy, interim government, goggled generals, imprisonment of ‘supposed winner’, near-civil war, self-succession, five fingers (political parties) of leprous hands; and worse – death of the supposed winner, death of a goggled general, specter of foreign intervention, etc. Iwu ensured that all these did not occur.
And there is more. Despite the frustrations that confronted him at first by funds not being released on time; the political crisis and disagreements from the party levels; the various court injunctions, rulings and counter rulings; the attempts by “big men” to ensure that the elections were postponed or worse, Iwu, the maestro stood his ground and ensured that we had a smooth and successful transition for the first time in the history of this country in 2007.
Some persons in Iwu’s position would have just caved in and allowed the military to once again take over power and commence another maradona-like endless election time table as had been the custom. That he did not break to pieces is what does not sit well with much of the vocal minority that is calling for his head. As his tenure draws to a close, they smell blood and a golden opportunity to settle scores with him.
Some people have argued that Nigeria has not seen tenure renewal for the electoral umpire before. I will argue contra. Ghana has seen tenure renewal(s) of her national umpire many times over, and the Ghanaian umpire attributes his success with his long tenure on the job to this single factor. I am not making it up. Just Google it and see.
And America, where much of the Election Board is elected, has no term limits for her electoral commissioners, including any Board member that was at the head. Ditto for India; and many more places that have been touted as having better elections than Nigeria. Why is it so difficult for us to acknowledge that the common factor that assures better elections is the long tenure of the umpires? Long tenure grooms umpires and professionalizes electoral leadership to the same point that nurtures our judiciary.
Yes, the conduct of elections might have had lapses here and there, which even the INEC boss has never denied. Yet, lapses are part of the downside of electoral democracy everywhere. We must take the good with ugly sides of what has become a very vicious contest for power among do-and-die Nigerian politicians, who somehow, have managed to continue to shift the blame to Iwu alone, except in situations where they won elections.
Elections do not just end after the casting of votes and swearing in of winners. No! Elections continue until the various courts and tribunals dispose of all the elections cases before them, thus a successful election is not just the making of INEC alone. It involves every mechanism of government and citizen bonafide participation, including you and me.
And still on election rigging, permit me to ask these questions: Who are the people that rig these elections? Can the INEC boss be in all the states at the same period to monitor (or rig) elections? Why then must we have INEC State Resident Commissioners and other field staff if the INEC boss at the federal level would not trust or believe the results they send to him? It was not Maurice Iwu that stuff ballot boxes. It was not Iwu that snatch boxes; and it was not Iwu that hire armed tugs to scare voters away from voting booths.
Whoever that is the INEC boss relies solely on results posted to him from state levels by his Resident Electoral Officers to issue certificates of return to winners because he cannot be in all the states and this goes to show that whatever rigging that takes place in any state comes from the people there. Iwu has figured this out, and has thus commenced reforms that saw little of these malpractices in the recent Anambra poll. Why don’t we just acknowledge that and gain from the man’s experience and internal reforms?
Just before the Anambra state governorship election, APGA was attacking Iwu on the pages of newspapers, calling for his removal because it feared losing the election. Today, I am yet to see APGA rendering public apology to Iwu for having damagingly labeled Iwu as the sole problem of the nation’s flawed elections. The Anambra election has been adjudged credible by both local and international observers. The heat for Iwu’s sack would have come more from Anambra state had APGA lost to PDP or Andy’s Labor Party. Now, we know it is coming most from AC and less from sections of PDP because they lost. I am sure that the AC and some sections of PDP would have remained complacent on calls against Iwu if they had won. That’s Nigerian politicians for you.
My humble submission therefore is that the call for non-renewal of Professor Maurice Iwu’s tenure is morally unjust, unpatriotic, subjective and unfair if implemented without recourse to the 1999 constitution which allows for second term.
Acting President Goodluck Jonathan should not allow himself to be cajoled into the evil traps of enemies of democracy who are only interested in promoting their own agenda rather than the greater national agenda. And on the selfish side, Jonathan must bear in mind that it is bad leadership/politics to kowtow to opposition agenda. Better yet, if renewal of Iwu’s tenure was on Yar’Adua’s card before he took ill, Jonathan owes the President the honour and decency of abiding with the President’s wishes on the issue.
Greg Okechukwu-Nwadike ; a media practitioner based in Abuja, is the Coordinator, ‘Nigeria Without Borders Organization (NIWBO)’ and writes from greyviewstudios@yahoo.com. 07030214054
Contributions by Ichie Ozomma, President, ‘Society for Advancement of Nigeria (SAN)’
Greg Okey Nwadike
Discovery News Nigeria
Garki, Abuja
08056454115
|
