RE: A postmortem of the Nigerian 2015 presidential election
Assensoh, Akwasi B.
A postmortem of the Nigerian 2015 presidential election
by
Anthony Akinola*
The 2015 election, more than any election before it, attracted the attention of
the international community as well as Nigerians themselves with unequal passion. The international community feared for its outcome, not least because of a history of post-election violence. President Barack Obama of the United States of America, among
many world statesmen, pleaded for a peaceful election. The prospect of a disorganized Nigerian state, both to its immediate neighbors and the world community at large, could hardly be contemplated.
Nigerians themselves feared the worst. The fear of a possible disintegration of their nation
was not helped by threats of violence being made here and there should the outcome of the election favor one group against another. With the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East geo-political zone raging with election preparations, such fear was credible.
However, the outcome of the election defied widely held fears. Both Professor Attahiru
Jega, Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and President Goodluck Jonathan, were lavishly praised for different reasons. The former and his team for conducting a relatively successful election, while Jonathan was praised for sportsmanship
in conceding victory to his victorious challenger, retired General Muhammadu Buhari.
With the 2015 election concluded, attention must focus on what can be taken from it as
the reform of the processes of democracy must continue. A “post-mortem” exercise, as a matter of fact, must follow every election, not the least in a nation whose democracy is still at the rudimentary stage.
The first observation in the Nigerian 2015 election is the role money played in its politics.
We seem to be operating an electoral democracy meant for the rich, or those who can risk becoming debtors in pursuit of their ambitions. The amounts of money stipulated for “tickets” into the various elective offices are outrageous. Many honest Nigerians
can hardly partake in elections because of this.
Equally outrageous is the assumption that there is a monetary tag on every prospective Nigerian
voter. There is hardly any doubt that it could be expensive to get political messages across via the media in general but the assumption that money or monetary gifts must be distributed to Nigerian voters is highly insulting and should be criminalised, both
for the giver as well as for the taker.The sheering news from the 2015 election may have been the disappointment by those who still failed to win their elections despite having spent so much attempting to induce favourable outcomes.
There is also a sense in which many celebrated the defeat of President Goodluck Jonathan,
candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party. Even when they did not belong to any of the political parties, they nevertheless felt infuriated by the volume of naira that vested interests pumped into his campaign funds. They wished for his defeat because of
that, so the rich and their monumental obscenity could be shamed in a democracy that is about all of us. There must be an enforceable cap on how much can be donated to individuals and political parties, as well as how much could be spent on electoral campaigns.
Another observation from the election is that primordial sentiments still predominate .
There was ethnic, regional and religious voting in most of the geo-political zones. The outcome of the presidential election hinged on who benefitted more from the balance of sentiments. Of course, the election of General Muhammadu Buhari,candidate of the
All Progressives Congress was popular both at home and abroad; the fact of sentiments in our politics nevertheless remains intrinsic with the nature of society itself.
*The writer resides and writes from Oxford, UK.