There are several reasons why the Ekiti State governorship election turned out the way it did. On June 21, 2014 A.D. in the Year of our Lord, an election result was announced in Africa and in Nigeria for that matter.
Barely six hours after the election commission, INEC, declared the main challenger, Ayodele Fayose of the P.D, .P. as winner, the incumbent, Kayode Fayemi of the A.P.C., not only conceded defeat, but, offered to congratulate the victor, instead of threatening to go to court or call out his supporters onto the streets.
It’s worthy of note that, come August, which is next month, neighbouring Osun State, which has another A.P.C. incumbent, will be holding its own gubernatorial election. Also, there will be nationwide polls, for a variety of political offices, including that of president, come next year. Already, everyone, almost everyone, is predicting that the success in Ekiti, I mean the relative success there, will almost certainly be re-enacted or replicated in 2015.
The truth is: the chances of the 2015 polls turning out better than the heavily flawed polls of 2007 are high. I say “high”, because not many future elections in this country will again be allowed to “openly” condescend to the day-light robberies that played out in most of the races across the states of the federation in 2007. The high volume of nullifications, reversals or orders for a re-run by the courts said it all.
The natural question that follows here is: are we set for a much fairer and freer series of federal, state and council elections come next year, simply because the heavens did not fall in Anambra, where Obiano emerged, in Edo, where Oshomole was handsomely re-elected, and in Ekiti, where a hitherto populist governor in the person of Fayemi suffered a landslide defeat in the hands of a former governor called Fayose, who despite being impeached in his previous tenure, and notwithstanding that he’s still beset by serious allegations of corrupt practice and abuse of power, was nevertheless chosen by his party to “rescue” Ekiti from the A.P.C.?
In the first place, was the exercise in Ekiti free, fair and transparent? Did the exercise there reasonably meet the conditions for a credible contest? Was Fayemi’s humiliating defeat, his loss in nearly every local government on offer, just a matter of the Ekiti electorate rejecting him en masse? Or where there some other extraneous factors that had caused the pendulum to swing so decisively and dramatically against him?
See! It is important to find an answer or answers to those questions, in order for anyone to be certain about how the outcome in Ekiti will positively impact on the wider, bigger showdown, scheduled for early 2015.
I think, if you ask me, that Dr. Fayemi overestimated his own chances of winning. He was probably too professorial in his campaigns, and didn’t connect sufficiently with the Ekiti grassroots. In summary, that explains why the margin of defeat was that heavy. But, does that mean that the electoral exercise was transparent and fair? For anyone who wants to be told the truth, the solemn answer is a clear “no”.
Look! If the actual vote-casting was reasonably free, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the entire election process was fair or transparent. Some people have argued that the (alledged) fraud in Ekiti was handled sophisticatedly, so much so that Fayemi and his camp had no choice but to respect the “popular” will.
Well, we really need to be careful in this country when we analyze issues, as we must try hard, even if it won’t be easy, to remove sentiments or selfishness in our assessments. For instance, an election exercise, as the great democracies of the world have taught us, does not, because it should not, get tied down to what happened on voting-day alone. No, not in the least. You must put all key indices on the table, such as voter registration, whether the parties or candidates had a level-playing field to campaign on, and how, if at all, the institutions of state power, such as, the police, the military and the even the electoral body, facilitated or impeded the fortunes of the rival camps.
I say this, because Nigerians know that the absence of the permanent INEC voter-cards ensured that fifty percent of the Ekiti electorate didn’t, couldn’t vote on June 21. Maybe the way several high-profile A.P.C. officials were restricted by security forces, while their opponents had a field-day, wouldn’t have had a decisive impact on the election outcome. But, even at that, the presence of federal might achieved for Mr. Fayose something much more than providing security for those who turned out to exercise their civic duty.
In fact, Nigerians just have to await the attitude of the two mainstream political parties, whether before, during or after the Osun goober polls, before dreaming aloud. For me, I believe we should adopt staggered elections in 2015 and thereafter, if we want to have a credible exercise. The Indians, who enjoy a much more solid democratic set-up than ourselves, are doing it. My argument is a simple one. If, as some Nigerians are claiming, the heavy security presence in Ekiti was a key factor in preventing open rigging or violence, then, how can such manpower be sufficiently deployed across the thirty-six states and Abuja, come 2015? What about the horrible security challenges we are currently facing in the north-east? Aren’t the security forces already thinly stretched? Furthermore, will free, fair and transparent polls are possible in the likes of Adamawa, Yobe and Bornu, as they bear the brunt of the Boko Haram insurgency?
After Dr. Fayemi in Ekiti, will we be able to find as few as five other political leaders nationwide who will be willing to throw in the towel once INEC has spoken? How equipped is INEC to make any of the lessons learned in Ekiti, Edo or Anambra to count in 2015?
THE SUN
Comments
Post a Comment