Nigeria Content Online

It’s possible that
the Independent National Electoral Commission Chair, Attahiru Jega,
thinks that with a ‘seasoned media professional’ as his spokesperson,
he needn’t bother too much about dealing with the media or getting his
message across to the public. At least, apart from the big ticket items
like postponing elections and saying, ‘Sorry’.

That would be a mistake.

That, at least,
was my conclusion as I watched his spokesperson evading a reporter’s
question about whether rumours that Jega had resigned were true.
Instead of giving a straight answer, Kayode Idowu just kept smirkingly
repeating: “We don’t respond to rumours.” That assertion was of course
(and necessarily) at variance with the actuality: INEC had to come out
and reaffirm that National Assembly elections would indeed be held in
Lagos on April 9 in direct response to rumours that they would not. And
with the announcement that elections will now not be held in three
Federal Constituencies in Lagos State, among some 63 National Assembly
elections nationwide, it is fair to conclude that there was some truth
in those rumours.

Perhaps the gap on
INEC’s media front explains why the postponement and apology press
statements have been so badly handled. Surely, media experts ought to
have advised Jega that a press statement of the nature he made at high
noon on Saturday April 2, would either have to be supported by a
detailed technical briefing by other INEC National Commissioners, or be
followed by a question and answer session?

That, in turn, might have encouraged someone at the commission to anticipate the kind of questions that might arise.

As it is, one is
left with the distinct impression that at each stage, INEC is not quite
thinking it through, and that this, at least as much as the vital
business of clearing up the mess, is why its Chairman hurries away from
press conferences, only to try to deal with some questions that ought
to have been answered at the previous briefing when he comes to the
next. For example, why ballot papers full of mistakes were again
produced. Having consistently argued that the key to INEC’s success
will be transparency, transparency, transparency, including showing
parties what ballot papers will contain before printing them, this
writer naturally rejects the suggestion that such unnecessary secrecy
is conducive to security.

Simple questions
INEC might have anticipated at the first postponement conference and
which remain valid include: whether the commission has a means of
directly communicating with its officials in the field, and if so, why
it didn’t appear to be working and whether it will be working for
future elections in the cycle.

With the second
statement further postponing the National Assembly elections to
Saturday, April 9, this time (thankfully) coming before we got all
dressed up again with no place to go, the obvious question, which
remains valid, would have been why the whole timetable was being pushed
forward. Why couldn’t the April 9 Presidential election go ahead as
scheduled? Certainly, with the further postponement of some National
Assembly elections to April 26, suggestions that INEC would not be able
to cope with conducting three elections (President, Senate and House of
Representatives) at the same time sound particularly hollow, since some
areas will now have to hold four elections (Governor, State House of
Assembly, Senate and House of Representatives) on the same Easter
Tuesday! Again, while holding the National Assembly elections first
might have been justifiable when time was not so tight, we must now
bear in mind that it is the newly-elected and sworn-in President who
inaugurates the National Assembly, but that he must be in place by May
29. What happens if there has to be a run-off election? Or two? With
governors also subject to possible run-off elections but bound by the
same May 29 deadline, what is the thinking behind pushing their own
election forward to April 26, particularly when the courts have struck
down the National Assembly’s attempt to fix the order of elections?

At times like
this, Nigerians tend to resort to the French language, what with voters
being urged to come out en masse hoping that voting materials that were
en route will have arrived in time.

But the French
expression that I’m hoping will tell the story is réculer pour mieux
sauter. It’s what jumpers do: they go right up to the take-off board,
but instead of jumping immediately, draw back for a long run-in so that
they can make a much better jump. As Salomé probably said the next
morning: I have no use for this man’s head! But by the time of reading,
with so much chicanery already exposed, we’ll know whether Jega has
indeed been able to make a better jump.

There’s been no
shortage of text messages in a bid to sway us one way or another; many
forward these messages as if their lives depended on them. Maybe! So,
should one cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face? In wanting
something, should one deprive oneself of even more benefits for the
sake of what one seeks to achieve? And this is so crucial to the
overall success of the elections, including its overall aim, which is
to bring development to the people via the combined effort of all arms
of government.

Are we forgetting
that this is participatory democracy? How effective will the governor
of any state be, if he is the only one elected from his party without
other party members getting any elective office? What type of
government would that governor form? Would he always be able to call
the bluff of hostile non-party members of his administration? Or can we
hope as we have recently seen, that once elections are done and won,
all other elected members of government who are not of the same party
as the governor, will defect to the party of the ruling governor, to
make everyone’s life easier in the state and truly develop the state?
This logic is warped.

Don’t forget that
there are three arms of government; none can be efficient without the
other. Will a governor get co-operation from a hostile State House of
Assembly for instance? Have we not witnessed how a state’s legislature
can hold any governor to ransom, just to fulfill some inordinate
desires? Have we not seen a State House of Assembly closed for so many
months in a state where both the executive and legislators were/are of
the same party? What manner of relationship could we then hope for
where legislators and executors are from opposing camps?

Nevertheless, one
totally understands why these people are jittery: they rationalise that
since a party’s leadership decided to ‘impose’ candidates and
admittedly so, then the people also have a right to NOT vote for those
seemingly selected and imposed. The illogical argument conveniently
forgets that Babatunde Fashola himself was imposed ab initio by this
same party; so why are they now insisting on backing this old “imposed”
and not the new? If it is because they feel Governor Fashola has
‘performed’ so well to justify a second term, how do they know that the
new set of people imposed by the same party, won’t do as well or
better? After all, if the party got it right with Mr.Fashola, why can’t
the party also get it right for the leader’s wife, son or in-law? Is
one less efficient because one is related to the boss?

I suppose that is
why Mr. Fashola’s fans are behaving as if he is an independent
candidate. They even recommend what party to vote for in place of ACN.
But think about how this democracy works for a minute: ours is not
built on the collective will of the elected to do good things or
deliver dividends, as we say locally. How will Mr. Fashola push his
manifesto without his party’s elected? Ours is not an environment where
politicking stops and governance begins; the difference is blurred. Our
politicians NEVER allow the politics to end, never mind beginning the
process of governing. In fact, if a party’s candidate is elected as
governor, after displacing an incumbent whose party has majority seats
in the State Assembly, the new governor will know no peace.

Assemblymen often
see it as their duty to rile the chief executive of a state, especially
if he is not from their party. And the truth is, if they have a good
relationship with the governor, people will say they’ve been bought
over; If they don’t, the governor’s camp will say members of the
Assembly don’t want progress for the state, and are ‘only’ being
selfishly hostile to the executive because they want some goodies.

We’ve even seen states where the governor’s opponents from within
his party, don’t want him to achieve anything even if it affects their
party’s fortunes in providing deliverables. If a governor and president
for that matter can be so opposed from within their own camps, is it
another party that will embrace them more? If one votes Mr. Fashola
alone from the ACN, then members of other political parties to the
National and State Assemblies, will the governor enjoy support
unhindered by party differences? Will they all look beyond party
affiliation and agree to Mr. Fashola’s ideas especially if the ideas
are good? Or will they choose, after winning, to play politics with
people’s lives?

It seems only a
matter of days before Laurent Gbagbo, usurper of the office of
President of Cote d’Ivoire, ceases to be president of the bunker which
he inhabits below the grounds of the Presidential Palace in Abidjan.
His has been a tragic decline: a history professor who struck a blow
for competitive and peaceful alternatives to presidential office
running against Cote d’Ivoire’s first president himself, the late
Houphouet-Boigny in 1990; then, ruler of Cote d’Ivoire throughout the
2000s; today, a presidential usurper in control of a solitary
underground bunker. The arc of his transformation from socialist
democrat to a tyrannical African ‘strong man’, sowing dissension, death
and disease in the thousands among poor Ivoriens, is an extreme example
of the cancerous lust for perpetual power to which too many rulers have
succumbed in history. We can begin to ponder the significance of his
impending departure, with the timely assistance of the former colonial
power, France, and the United Nations.

There are three
striking features about the path to Gbagbo’s defeat. The first is that
bravery of urban masses gets results, albeit at a terrible human cost.
Cote d’Ivoire has wallowed in misery and humanitarian crisis since
2000. So has Zimbabwe. Ivoriens are about to see the back of the leader
who reigned throughout that crisis. No one knows if Robert Mugabe,
another person notorious for disseminating the virus of economic
collapse and civil dissension, will ever leave office. Why the
difference in fates? One reason has to be that the Ivorien masses have
been willing to face martyrdom in challenging Mr. Gbagbo. More people
seem to have been killed in Abidjan by the army since the November 2010
elections than in Harare in a decade.

Think of the march
of mothers shot in cold blood in Abidjan a few weeks ago, for example.
I realise that many Zimbabweans have been tortured, beaten and maimed
since the emergence of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe.
Yet, somehow, my impression is that President Mugabe has been far more
successful in cowing urban protests than any Ivorian leader, military
or civilian. He has had a far more congenial regional setting in which
to handle his opponents than Mr. Gbagbo.

Burkina Faso has
been a strong supporter of Ivoriens opposed to Mr. Gbagbo. It may be
that the presence of so many Ivorien relatives of the Burkinabe people
forced the Burkinabe government to support steadfastly Mr. Gbagbo’s
opponents. By contrast, Zimbabwe does not seem to have harboured as
many descendants of immigrants from its neighbours. Whatever the
reason, there can be no denying that, other than Botswana, no southern
African country has provided strong support for Morgan Tsvangirai and
his supporters. In turn, that absence of powerful regional support
might have cooled the willingness of urban Zimbabweans to defy openly,
at huge personal cost, Mr. Mugabe and his ruling party.

It is no easy feat
for unarmed civilians to face armed men. Thus, I cannot condemn any
person for refusing to take the risk of losing his or her life in
Zimbabwe. But, it does seem that the shedding of the blood of unarmed
people by a government or its armed supporters is much more likely to
precipitate intervention on the side of the protestors than furtive
resistance. I salute the bravery of the Ivorien people.

The second
noteworthy feature is the unanimous support for a democratic electorate
process and outcome exhibited by ECOWAS and the West African peoples.
They did not waver for one moment in rejecting the so-called African
solution of “unity governments” so beloved of Eastern and Southern
Africans, enabling losers to cohabit with victors. West Africans have
set a powerful example for other parts of Africa about the appropriate
reaction to electoral theft. Nigeria’s position, in particular, calls
for praise. If Goodluck Jonathan had waffled in his condemnation of Mr.
Gbagbo’s behaviour, it would have been much more difficult to present a
unified West African response.

The third feature is the limited power an African ruler unable to
print his own currency has in tough times. Mr. Gbagbo was denied the
weapon of a hyperinflationary tax of printing new currency because Cote
d’Ivoire uses a regional currency. Mr. Mugabe used that weapon to
deadly effect against his people. Regional currencies and regional
central banks curb the powers of national rulers. Time will tell
whether Alassane Ouattara is the statesman for which Cote d’Ivoire is
crying. Mr. Gbagbo was no statesman. Good riddance!

Our nation was,
last Tuesday, shocked by the alleged rape of a 23-year-old female
National Youth Service Corps member by a traditional ruler in Osun
State. The young woman, according to her petition to the police and the
management of the NYSC, got close to the king after she offered to
provide computer appreciation skills to some students in the town where
she is carrying out her national assignment.

The king reportedly took
her to one of his private houses in the state capital, after offering
to take her to her residence, and forced himself on her after
threatening to kill her if she didn’t yield to his demands. The police
and the management of the NYSC have launched an investigation into
this. But the king isn’t talking, yet. It is, therefore, hard to get
his rendition of the shoddy events that occurred between him and the
young woman.

Nevertheless, we feel strongly for this young woman and
salute her courage in coming out to narrate her experience. One of the
hardest things for survivors of rape to do — and a lacuna that rapists
always tend to rely on and exploit — is dealing with the shame that
could trail the confession of being violated. Women’s rights activists
and security officials have indeed been encouraging people — male and
female — who might have been violated, to come out and shame their
abusers. This is a good development and should be taken to heart,
especially in a conservative society such as ours.

The other thing
working for rapists is the difficulty in securing judgment by
survivors. The scale is tipped in favour of the defence in such
instances, partly because the bar is high. Unless she has a good lawyer
and well-prepared medical report, the youth corps member in this latest
episode might find it hard to get her alleged violator punished. It is
hard to get figures on the frequency of rape in our country, and that
is not because the rate is low.

Plus, she is up
against a traditional ruler and chances are that the local authority
might close in to protect the man. The fact that the police is yet to
announce its findings — assuming it has really questioned the king as
it claims it is doing — is a worrying sign. It is also possible that
officials of the state government are too busy to have noticed the news
— or are waiting for the police report before they move against the
king. But it will be hard to sweep this under the king’s crown.

Equally worrying
is the routine harassment of youth corps members. These young
graduates, devoting one year of their lives to the service of their
country, often find themselves adrift, neglected and sometimes abused
by the system that should be their protector. Several have been killed
and maimed in the course of the service. It is quite plausible to
expect that many more would have been subjected to bodily violations as
well — and rarely have any of their attackers been sanctioned by the
authorities.

The NYSC needs to do more to secure the lives and limbs of the young
men and women in its care. Mere platitudes, as is the practice when
corps members are assaulted, will no longer do. If the management of
the scheme needs stronger legislation, then they should make such a
case before the National Assembly. It is also evident that Nigeria
needs a more robust system of dealing with rapists. Law enforcement
agencies must be on board in the fight against this physical and
emotional defilement, and the National Assembly, when it is
reconstituted, needs to provide the nation with stronger legislation to
protect rape survivors. The next rape victim could be anyone’s male or
female ward or relative.

Which is the lesser
evil? Incompetence or corruption? When I recently posed this question
to a small group of friends, there was no unanimous answer. Of course,
there were many who chose to toe the nuanced path by insisting that
corruption and incompetence are comfortable bed fellows and so cannot
be divorced from one another. While this is likely spot on, it does not
always hold true. It is very possible to have integrity and still not
score highly on competence. An obvious case in point is the recent INEC
logistics fiasco.

INEC certainly
deserves commendation for being committed to ensuring a free and fair
process; even postponing the elections to ensure that this goal is
achieved. However, while we commend them, the lessons learnt should not
be allowed to get lost in translation. The understanding this year was
that INEC’s resolve and commitment towards ensuring free and fair
elections would deliver the goods. Alas, we now know that the real
world is not that simple.

Just after the
controversial April 2007 elections, former president, Olusegun
Obasanjo, sat down with Al Jazeera’s senior Africa correspondent,
Andrew Simmons, in an exclusive interview where, among others, he
defended the veracity of the 2007 elections. Of course, his defense had
little credibility but his commentary had a few gems that, in light of
our recent experience, should have been given more credit.

When asked by Mr.
Simmons why the elections were so blatantly unfair and why so many
people were not able to vote, Mr. Obasanjo responded that, of course,
he wanted everybody to vote but that they couldn’t because of problems
with logistics. At the time, many Nigerians (especially those who
watched the interview online) laughed his comments off and for good
reason, since we all know with a certain degree of confidence that the
elections were flawed mostly because they were rigged. However, in
truth, they were flawed not only because they were rigged but also
because of faulty logistics. There is a reason why corruption is not a
synonym for incompetence. The absence of one does not automatically
solve the other. Four years later, we have attempted to solve the
corruption problem with the appointment of Attahiru Jega but the
logistics problem is still with us in its full electoral glory.

From our recent
experience, it is safe to conclude that being a man or woman of upright
convictions is not all it takes to be a good leader. You might mean
well, but can you execute effectively in an uncertain terrain such as
Nigeria? This is not a question to be scoffed at but one that should be
included in whatever interview questionnaire is drafted for Nigerian
leaders in all spheres of the polity.

I am tempted to
say, though, that graduating from having to deal with problems of
corruption to problems of incompetence represents, in some way, a step
forward in our political evolution. Like many have noted since the
postponement, in the past, the lack of election materials would have
led to forged results. At least, now, they have led to delayed
elections. This is progress. Or is it?

In addition, it is
becoming clearer that as Nigeria evolves politically, we might
increasingly begin to need to make a choice between several kinds of
leaders:

Leaders who are competent yet corrupt.

Leaders who are not corrupt but yet are incompetent.

Leaders who are both incompetent and corrupt.

Leaders who are not corrupt and who are also competent.

Though the last leader is the obvious ideal, he or she is often so
elusive that we might often have to make do with one of the first three.

Are you there,
Prof? Well done, eku election o, e pele o, eku ise o, as we tell people
that are working very hard and sweating from all unimaginable parts of
their bodies. I really don’t feel like saying much today, I just want
to encourage you and tell you it is well. When situations stink to the
high heavens in Nigeria, like horse poopoo, we crack our fingers, stare
each other in the face and say, “It is well”.

That much I can
tell you, my dear professor: it is well. Don’t be discouraged. I cannot
imagine how you are handling this knotty situation right now, because I
know how I’ve been praying against anger since last Saturday. You
cannot imagine how many expletives I have released in the middle of
conversations. But, it is well.

I specially want to
commend your efforts so far. We seem to forget that not very many
people volunteer to carry away a decaying corpse so that the community
can breathe some fresh air. But once you do, you must not complain
about the smell or even attempt to wiggle your nose in disgust. So,
welcome sir, to our square filled with political decay. Ah, one more
reminder before I move on — your job is like that of a night soil man
on duty; he never gets discouraged no matter how much his bucket
stinks. You get the picture…or smell?

We well-meaning
Nigerians are grateful because we know the elephant you are carrying on
your head is unusually heavy, so you must not look back. We may have
said some hurtful words to you when Goodluck Jonathan gave you bags and
bags of billions of naira, but we were only trying to warn you to shine
your eyes. We screamed and stamped our feet on stones in protest yet
the president loaded you up like a dice. As if he knew you guys were
going to use the money the way a two-year-old uses tissue paper. Nobody
can blame the president now for not giving you all you requested, so
you have to perform, Prof.

Before I continue,
let me quickly give a shout out to President Jonathan, for being the
first president who can’t be blamed for causing an ongoing election
quagmire. Okay, Prof, let me stop rambling and cut to the chase. What
is this rumour I am hearing about you contemplating resignation? It
better not be true o, because you don’t cut a king’s hair halfway and
say you want to go and use the toilet. Mba! This bone that is caught in
our national throat must be removed, because you gave us warranty and
guarantee when you were given the billions.

We Nigerians are
tired of buying cars without engines, with our hard-earned money, and
when such cars don’t work we are forced to go buy engines separately.
This time around, this car must work or else nobody is going anywhere
o. Don’t be offended by my words, Prof; you yourself know that we
ordered pounded yam and your people are trying to give us ikpakpa
beans. And you want to leave us? Who will clean up this mess?

We Nigerians know
you are not a magician; you have said so many times. But if you have to
take a quick course on how to be an INEC magician, there is still
enough money left with INEC to pay for it, sir. Because this process
must be seen to a reasonable conclusion and we don’t want any other
midwife to birth this overdue baby for us. And don’t think for a minute
that we are blaming you one bit. We aren’t fools. We know you couldn’t
have ‘flopped’ up (readers you can add your own choice word there, my
editors would have deleted my original pick) all by yourself. We know
there are little foxes spoiling the vine all over the country.

It is because of
these heartless and rudderless little foxes in INEC that we would like
you to tarry a little longer. After you have managed to salvage what is
left of our elections, call a closed door meeting of all your staff.
The commissioners, to the cleaners, should be locked up in a room while
you hold a pump-action and say, “Na who among una fall my hand? If
nobody speaks up now, we are not going anywhere anytime soon to go
spend the money you made from sabotaging my efforts”. If nobody
answers, well, you know how they do in the movies: shoot the ceiling
and let some cement and sand and asbestos rain. I am sure many will
confess how they lied to you blatantly.

Okay, Prof, that might be a bit too gangster. That was my anger
sneaking up on me again. Since the president has asked us to shun
violence during this period, I will beg you to take a deep breath and
find us a solution fast. But no sinners that ruined last Saturday must
go unpunished though. I have to go now. The president said we should
pray and I need to alert your fellow Prof, Dora, to book a million and
one novena Masses for tomorrow. Don’t forget to vote tomorrow, folks!

For many citizens
planning to vote the Jonathan/Sambo ticket in the presidential
elections, the issue is not about what the ticket has to offer or due
to any sterling performance. The issue is not whether the ticket is
particularly inclined (or even desirous) of fighting corruption. They
will not be voting for Goodluck Jonathan because he has any clear
vision of how to rebuild infrastructure, revive ailing industries or
restructure the country. They will be voting for one reason: it is the
time of the south. They argue, correctly, that the north has produced
more leaders than other regions without much impact. For these people,
no matter how bereft of ideas and colourless Mr. Jonathan and his dour
deputy may be, they will vote him because it is ‘our turn’. These
people are right. The north has produced more leaders and has been in
power longer than other regions. The governments of Shehu Shagari
(1979-1983), Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993), Sani Abacha (1993-1998) and
Umaru Yar’adua (2007-2010) are best forgotten. To those not familiar
with the idiosyncrasies of the region, the ‘north’ is one huge mass of
people who have dominated the political space, especially the
presidency, to the near exclusion of other zones. To them, the death of
late Yar’adua and the subsequent ascension of then vice president
Jonathan to the presidency was a ‘divine’ coup and poetic justice of
sorts. The idea of willingly relinquishing the presidency so soon, to
another northerner, is an anathema. No one should question their
rationale or judgement. It is one of the beauties of democracy that
people can vote for any, every, and no reason.

However, beneath
the ‘it is our turn’ justification lies the barely hidden desire to
castrate the north politically. In this calculation, if Mr. Jonathan
wins the election and quits (very unlikely) in 2015, it will then be
the turn of the southeast to produce the next president. This is the
grand vision to politically emasculate the north. But the question is,
which north?

Are they referring
to the north of Ibrahim Babangida, Aliyu Gusau, Atiku Abubakar, Adamu
Ciroma, Barnabas Gemade, Solomon Lar, Bello Mohammed Halliru, Samaila
Sambawa, the Sarakis, Ibrahim Mantu, David Mark, Ahmed Makarfi, Jerry
Gana, Sarki Tafida, Jonathan Zwingina, Mukhtari Shagari etc? By
‘north’, are they referring to the emirs, chiefs and traditional
institutions or the retired military generals and other elite in the
region? If the answers to these posers are yes, then they have missed
the mark.

There is another
north. There is a north that has nothing to do with the usurpation of
political and economic opportunities to the exclusion of other
Nigerians. There is a north that is poor, hungry, illiterate and devoid
of hope. There is a north that is as much a victim as the south of the
corruption and arrogance of these narrow clique of northerners that is
often presented as representing the entire region.

For this north, the various administrations headed by northerners
have not resulted in better lives, education or improved opportunities.
This north does not send its children to school in the United Kingdom,
United States and other locations while local schools are
systematically ruined. This north does not fly to Europe or America
every fortnight for medical checkups or shopping sprees in Dubai. This
north does not keep bank accounts in London, New York, Dubai, South
Africa, Jordan, Beijing and Hong Kong; they own no bank accounts at
all. This north does not allocate all the best positions in the country
to its children, qualified or not. There is a north that simply wants
change. And that is the north coming out to speak. So when we see
millions of people trooping to catch a glimpse of Muhammadu Buhari, the
presidential candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, it is
not because they have anything against Mr. Jonathan. The problem they
have is the emissaries he has sent to woo their votes — the same people
that have systematically impoverished the region and the country.

Northern elite despise Buhari vehemently because they know he will
destroy their power base and end their corruption and nepotism. For
those voting Mr Jonathan just to defeat ‘northern domination’, the
twist is that a Jonathan presidency would actually further enrich and
empower these reviled northern vultures because Mr Jonathan needs them
(or thinks he does). The ultimate irony is that the real key to
eliminating the power base of this corrupt and arrogant northern
political class lies with electing a northerner.

Over the past few
days, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has appeared
to be working very hard to deliver elections that will not disappoint
Nigerians as terribly as the cancelled elections of April 2.

For one, there has
been a series of engagements with the media and civil society
organisations over the past week, seeking to explain the events that
led to the cancellation, the challenges to the process that remain with
logistics, vendors and personnel, and the commission has admirably
worked on a transparent process that can lead to a broad-based network
of support on Saturday.

Yesterday, the
commission showed its command of the situation by announcing the
postponement of the scheduled legislative elections in 13.76 per cent
of 109 senatorial districts and 13.33 per cent of 360 federal
constituencies, In Ebonyi North, Ekiti North and South, Sokoto North
and others, elections have been postponed to April 26.

The challenge,
after the last cancellation, isn’t just free and fair elections – the
challenges now are functional elections that don’t end up doing
themselves in by a paucity of project management efficiency.

A few questions
have been identified by many sections of the media and civil society
that bear repeating as we move into tomorrow.

One is the pesky
matter of INEC’s saboteur-vendors: it is worrying that INEC did not
immediately identify the printer vendors concerned, while it went ahead
to lavishly blame same. Government agencies have a duty towards
transparency especially one so sensitive. Who is this vendor and what
are the steps taken to ensure that the vendor does not get away with
this? Is there a reason why this information has not been made public?
Accountability, after all, must follow transparency.

But beyond that is
the all-important issue of the Voter Register. Considering the fact
that many names have been omitted from the accredited list of voters,
what measures have been put in place to rectify this problem in the
polling units across the country – and avoid creating a situation where
legitimate voters are unable to vote? How, also, would independent
observers be able to verify voters?

Then there are
ballot papers that came deformed in many parts. This included omitted
candidates and omitted party logos. Has INEC provided a roadmap to
engaging this problem? If it has, what exactly has been done to assure
Nigerians before the elections – as this is clearly an invitation to
contentious post-election litigation?

Communication is
also another issue. INEC – despite its engagement with civil society
groups – has been unable to evolve a system to make use of voters’
contact details, especially phones to be able to communicate with
Nigerians efficiently or for that matter with polling officials. Is it
impossible for this to have been corrected in the past week?

Tied to
communication, we wonder if INEC has worked out a collaboration with
telecom regulators to ensure that, as services like ReVoDa the
Ushahidi-based ReclaimNaija.net involved in citizen reporting are
mobile-phone based, telecoms providers are able to ensure stable
service to help prevent and pre-empt rigging and violence. A failure to
do this at this time shows that INEC has yet to take advantage of the
immense human and other resources that it has ready access to.

It is also a shame
that youth corps members’ welfare is still an issue – including
non-payment or inadequate payment of allowances and, in cases, a
complete inability to see that the welfare and conduct of these young
people is directly related to polling unit transparency.

And what about
security? There has been no sophisticated system, as far as we can see,
to ensure security different from elections before this. Flooding the
streets with police officers – many of whom are already beholden to the
ruling parties in their states – is not enough. While security belongs
with the police, it is not too much to expect that INEC build a synergy
with the force to ensure that snatching of ballot boxes, intimidation
of youth corps officials and other ways of promoting insecurity are
avoided and engaged.

These are answers that INEC is yet to provide effectively while it
continues to assure of its capacity to run these elections tomorrow and
over the next few weeks. We are very uncomfortable with this reality,
but there is almost nothing that can be done but to trust that Mr. Jega
understands the challenges ahead of him and the consequence of failure.
The stakes are now too high for INEC – another failure will be
unacceptable.

I
read each line of Ayo Obe’s article in last Sunday’s edition of NEXT with
alarm. That’s no melodrama. Literally, every line increased my alarm. What
exactly was she saying? Why exactly was she saying this? What exactly was the
significance?

Even
with the gratuitous ridiculing of the word youth (‘yoot’, she called it), there
was a brittle condescension for the whole idea of young people demanding that
their voices be heard and that their interests be protected in this
dispensation.

The
article evidently sought to deconstruct the youth movement – starting from an
attack on the whole premise of a youth bulge. Ms. Obe spent a good part of the
article making it clear what little regard she has for the globally-recognised
reality that the youth population is now the biggest demographic.

In
doing this, she set up a false contrast between the demands of youth
campaigners and women campaigners. Yet the argument fell flat – because, at the
end of the day you went away wondering what exactly was said, and what its
purport was.

I
say this because, at the end of the treatise, I still had no sense of what was
being said – all I was left with was one statement that was clear, one clear
knowledge gap (youth is defined 18 – 35, not 18 – 24, in our context) and a
bucket full of innuendo. The suggestions, however, were both disingenuous and
dangerous – as was the one definite statement that she made.

The
statement: that the present band of
youth activists and campaigners for youth involvement in elections and
governance feel “entitled”.

Wow.

I
am almost speechless. Almost speechless, because, more than any cadre of youth
activists in nations across the world, ours has been one of the most reserved.
This has been a season where youth groups have gone out of their way to
denounce student-activist-style engagement, have insisted on denouncing
violence in any form, opened up channels of communication, deepened
partnerships with other stakeholders, and built durable networks across. In
addition, many youth campaigns have gone out of their way to note that their
interests and issues are identical to those of the larger population.

Even
better, this cadre of young activists has been ready to invest money, sweat and
time. On the streets, they have campaigned under the sun and under the rain; to
raise money, they have worked hard without public appeal or sometimes funding;
and they have managed to build socially-sustainable platforms – especially
technological – that are responsible models of social investment.

So,
what exactly is the cause for disrespect?

Considering
that Ms. Obe is herself a near-legend in terms of activism, and one of those
that loudly demanded their entitlement under military regimes and made the
country uncomfortable for those who didn’t accede to their driven interest, it
is important to ask Ms. Obe what exactly about the success of this movement she
is upset with: the fact that it exists or the fact that it is successful?

Or
the fact (gasp) that it seems to have left a generation of activists behind –
abandoning old tools and resources and building entirely new systems of
activism and engagement?

I
have heard plenty of the ‘oh this is the elite youth speaking’ argument and can
only shake my head. And what exactly is the problem with educated and connected
youth making their voices heard? Is an engaged and aware elite youth population
not eminently more desirable than an ignorant and disengaged one?

If
young people on Twitter, Facebook and Blackberries are actively interested in
the state of their nation, is the fact of their numerical minority enough to
discredit their importance?

The
reality is that nothing is to be gained in this rather curious attempt to
belittle the campaign for the young to be heard and be relevant. And,
unfortunately, like the kinds of Malcolm Gladwell who have taken it upon
themselves to battle social media relevance because they simply don’t
understand it, anyone who seeks to ridicule or undermine the emerging power of
youth in any area of Nigerian life – from brand marketing to governance – is
wasting time.

But,
above all, the most relevant question is this: why would you want to waste your
time fighting the spectre of an enlightened and empowered youth population
willing to change their country? Pray tell, what really is the redeeming
quality in that fruitless battle?

Click here to read Ayo Obe’s original piece.