The role of the military and the general attitude of Nigerians during elections came under intense inquisition at the launch of two books at the Federal Capital City, Abuja last week.
The books titled, Selected Readings in Internal Security and Selected Readings of Election Security Management were written by former Inspector-General of Police, Solomon Arase. Former President, Goodluck Jonathan who chaired the occasion, took advantage of the subject matter of the books to interrogate the involvement of Nigerian military in elections’ security management.
His verdict was that Nigerian military should be excluded from getting involved in election security duties and day-to-day management of elections as obtains in other parts of the world especially, the developed ones.
“Here in Nigeria, we overstretch the army. In most other countries, the military doesn’t get involved in day-to-day management of elections. In some countries, they are used to manage strategic systems. The Air Force and the Army are used to carry and convey materials to dangerous areas” he said
Jonathan said the military are neither used in manning polling booths nor do they stay around them citing the elections in Botswana and Senegal which he had the privilege of monitoring. He extolled the simplicity and orderly conduct of the electorate in those countries and the effective management of the process by their electoral umpires and the police.
Drawing parallels with the simplicity and orderliness of those country’s elections without the participation of the military, Jonathan noted ‘but here, we fully do the wrong thing’.
The former president lamented that even with the introduction of technology to enhance the integrity of elections in this country, there are still problems. “And we, Nigerians, celebrate the wrong thing. And I believe that one day, the country will get to the level where people will reject bad behaviour. And when we get to that level, that we reject bad behaviour, this issue will not happen again”, he believes.
Two issues linked to our elections’ security management are under focus here. The first is the propriety of the continued deployment of the military in the day-to-day running and conduct of elections while the other relates to the negative orientation and attitude of Nigerians on matters concerning elections.
Jonathan wants the military to be excluded from the management of election security because it overstretches their capacities and runs contrary to practices the world over. He was led to this position by his knowledge of the smoothness and simplicity of the Botswana and Senegalese elections without the involvement of the military. Yet, they produced outcomes that satisfied integrity and credibility tests.
His government unarguably, presided over a general election that is rated one of the best in the country. That is not all. Jonathan stands out as the only civilian president of this country that presided over an election in which he was a candidate but lost. So, when he says Nigerian military should be excused from election security management, he should be taken seriously.
Apart from aligning to global practices, excluding the military from election security duties will also isolate that institution from the blame game associated with the coterie of infractions and’s malpractices that often mar our elections. During the last governorship off-cycle election in Ondo state, the Defence Head Quarters said it deployed troops in significant numbers to support the Nigerian Police Force ensure smooth election.
“Troops presence is to ensure the security of citizens, enabling them to cast their votes without any form of intimidation while keeping mischief makers at bay”, the DHQ explained. But Jonathan says NO to that idea. He would rather keep the military out of such routine functions concentrating in securing strategic systems and conveying logistics to difficult terrains. He has a point.
Keeping the military out of election security duties will also isolate that institution from undue politicisation as well as partisanship accusations that are freely traded at each round of elections. Moreover, scholars have pointed to a link between the frequent deployment of soldiers to civilian duties and the rash of military takeovers at the foundation stages of new African states. That phenomenon is yet to peter out. Not with the currency of military rule in some African countries after sacking elected civilian governments.
J.I. Clarke’s perspective on the issue is quite instructive. For him, unless the impulse to let the armed forces handle the ever-widening array of domestic tasks is checked, European countries may end up with “a very expensive, improperly equipped and overqualified emergency response instrument instead of a functional military force”
If the armed forces of European countries could face such potent challenges, the situation promises more dire for their Nigerian counterparts rated less in sophistication and capacity. The solution does not lie in the constant recourse to the military to handle internal security matters but developing, equipping and adequately funding the Nigerian police and sister organisations to effectively manage such situations. This objective is achievable given the right political will.
The other strand of the issues raised at the forum relates to the attitude and disposition of the leadership and the led to elections. Jonathan gave clear account of the simplicity and orderliness of the voting process and the electorate in the two countries; how they complied with the regulations guiding voting. But he noted with disappointment that if it were here, people will observe the rules in their breach.
He believes that the country will get to a point where the people will reject bad behaviour. He did not come clear on what he meant by bad behaviour. But viewed within the context he spoke, it is obvious that he had in mind, the plethora of infractions that mar our elections.
In effect, he views the ills of our electoral process as a passing phase only if the people reject bad conduct and insist that the right things be done. That goes without saying even as it places the burden of positive change on the shoulders of the people.
The penchant by the Nigerians to acquiesce to illegalities or succumb to all manner of inducements gives further impetus to the series of infractions witnessed during our elections. These can only stop with a positive change in the orientation and attitude of the electorate such that aligns with pristine democratic ethos.
But the electorate is not solely to blame. The governments in power share a larger chunk of the culpability.
Former governor of Anambra state, Peter Obi shared this view in his speech at the occasion when he emphasised that the integrity of elections is determined by the leadership in charge. Free and fair elections, he said are possible when the right people oversee the process. He has said it all.
How long it will take for the right people be in charge in a fragmented and highly polarised system characterised by rancorous and cut-throat politics, remains a moot issue. Ours is an inequitable plural society where the various segments are in constant competition for the control of the huge resources at the centre buoyed by prebendal predilections.
It remains to be seen how that culture of decent electoral behaviour can emerge and endure in a system the central government controls disproportionate share of the national resources and disburses same at will with the sub-nationalities locked in bitter contest for dominance and control. An inequitable system cannot nurture the culture of free, fair and credible electoral conduct.
This should instruct that we dilute the omnipresence and omnipotence of the federal order to lessen the pressure of bitter competition and the stress it imposes on the system. With devolution of powers to the constituents in keeping with the federal spirit, the acrimonious competition to control the resources at the centre would have been largely stymied.
Then, moral re-orientation and re-engineering direly needed to grow the culture of decent electoral contest and effective governance can commence in earnest. That has been the missing link. And as long as our system continues to operates in the most inequitable and most aberrant form, so long shall acrimonious and do-or-die politics assail our progress.
Perhaps, moral or ethical revolution in the Kuhnian fashion could also be activated to save the situation. But its prospects in the extant order appears a remote possibility.
