MY TAKE FOR 2019
By M. A Mubarak
I’m not a political scientist
neither a political analyst, I am a geologist.
It was on April 14th,
2015, Nigerians went to the polls to cast their ballot in national and state
elections. These elections were the fifth round of general elections since the
democratic rebirth in 1999, after a military dictatorship that lasted for
period of fifteen consecutive years. There were intense anxiety that preceded
the 2015 elections, one the global interest they generated, and two the
alternation of power which the presidential vote engendered, and the two made
political history in Nigeria.
In that year
Nigerians had the opportunity either to choose ‘continuity’, as represented by
the then incumbent President, Dr Goodluck Jonathan under People Democratic
Party (PDP), or to embrace ‘change’, as symbolized by the opposition candidate,
Muhammadu Buhari under the platform of All Progressives Congress (APC). These
two leading candidates in the 2015 challenge had also encountered each other at
the ballot in the 2011 presidential contest, although Muhammadu Buhari was
running on the ticket of the defunct Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). Analysts
believe that the peaceful, transparent and credible manner in which the
elections were organized, and the regime change which the presidential election
produced, have launched Nigeria onto the path of democratic sustenance (Mojeed 2015 p.2). The winner of the
presidential election, Muhammadu Buhari, has taken up the presidency with
discipline, honesty, reliability and doggedness – a rare attributes among Nigerian
leaders. Such qualities are urgently needed to confront the daunting challenges
facing the country.
Before I continue
I had like to bring to the reader the 2015 candidature, party and result of the
election for better digestion and understanding the fact behind this writing. According to an official release by the Independent National
Electoral Commission
(INEC) on December 29th,
2014, fourteen political parties fielded candidates for the 2015 presidential election. In the upcoming election as of
today February 17th 2018 the number of new political parties has
risen to 22; Accord (A), Action Alliance (AA), All Blending Party (ABP),
Advance Congress of Democrats (ACD), Alliance Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN),
Alliance for Democracy (AD), African Democratic Congress (ADC) and so on this
was published on the INEC website four weeks from ago….. In addition to the 46
already in existence this means the total numbers of political parties in
Nigeria are now 68. In the 2015,
the parties were: Action Alliance (AA), African Democratic Congress
(ADC), All Progressives Congress (APC), African People’s Alliance (APA), Allied
Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN), Alliance for Democracy (AD), Citizens Popular
Party (CPP), Hope Democratic Party (HDP), Kowa Party (KP), National Conscience
Party (NCP), People’s Democratic Party (PDP), People’s Party of Nigeria (PPN),
United Democratic Party (UDP), and United Progressives Party (UPP).
Below are the names of the political parties and those of their
presidential candidates were published on the INEC website on 13th
January 2015. Of the 26 registered parties in Nigeria before the elections,
twelve did not compete for the highest elective office in the country. However,
two of those parties, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and the Labor
Party (LP), adopted Dr. Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP as their presidential
candidate.
Names of parties
and candidates that contested the 2015 presidential election
1.
Action Alliance (AA) ANIFOWOSHEKELANI, Tunde
2.
African Democratic Congress (ADC)
AHMAD, Mani Ibrahim
3.
All Progressives Congress (APC) BUHARI,
Muhammadu
4.
African People’s Alliance (APA)
ADEBAYO, Ayeni Musa
5.
Allied Congress Party of Nigeria (ACPN)
GALADIMA, Ganiyu
6.
Alliance for Democracy (AD) SALAU,
Rafiu
7.
Citizens Popular Party (CPP) EKE, Sam
8.
Hope Democratic Party (HDP) OWURU,
Ambrose
9.
Kowa Party (KP) SONAIYA, Oluremi (F)
10.
National Conscience Party (NCP) ONOVO,
Martin
11.
People’s Democratic Party (PDP)
JONATHAN, Goodluck
12.
People’s Party of Nigeria (PPN)
ALLAGOA, Kelvin
13.
United Democratic Party (UDP) OKOYE,
Godson
14.
United Progressives Party (UPP) OKORIE,
Chekwas
The 2015 general elections in Nigeria took place within the
local context of insurgency arising from the brutal activities of the extremist
Islamist group, Boko Haram, in the north-eastern part of the country, and the
global context marked by declining global peace. In its 2014 Global Peace Index
(GPI) report, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) stated that since
2008, among the countries which it ranked worldwide, 111 countries had
deteriorated in their levels of peace, while only 51 countries had increased in
peace during the same period (IEP 2014, p. 41). The Boko Haram menace has
resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Nigerians, massive destruction
of property, and the displacement of thousands of people. This challenge
conspired with the global context of declining peace to render the environment
in which the Nigerian elections were conducted highly volatile. Indeed, in its
special report on the Nigeria 2015 polls, the International Crisis Group (ICG),
an international conflict research organization, noted the volatile environment
in which the preparations for the elections took place. This environment was
marked, on the one hand, by acrimony between the two leading parties, and on
the other hand by deep ethnic and religious polarization were as in 2019 the
situation is perceived differently, although some security challenges are still
hitting the floor. As Nigerians approached the polls, they were troubled by two
things. First, many Nigerians were apprehensive about the much-publicized
prediction that the 2015 election, and its outcome, would lead to the
disintegration of Nigeria as a united territory. Second, sad memories of the
2011 post-election violence and its accompanying heavy casualties created fear
among many Nigerians. The 2011 post-election violence, acknowledged as the
bloodiest election-induced violence in the political history of Nigeria (Bekoe
2011; NAPEN 2011, p. 26), had resulted in the death of more than 800 people
(HRW 2011). If the prediction that Nigeria would cease to be a unified
territory did not provoke national anxiety, the same cannot be said about
electoral violence. (Kurfi 2003, p. 8) describes such violence in Nigeria as a
‘war of succession’. In a national survey conducted by Afrobarometer in
December 2014, the research organization reports that 50% of the 2,400
respondents surveyed expressed fear of the likelihood of violence during the
elections which means most people were unable to cast their votes. As the election approaches many people who
were unable to get their cards are now registering, it is also a known fact
that most Shiite members don’t vote because they didn’t believe in Nigerian
democracy. In 2012 the Pew Forum on religion and public life, which is a research
based organization found that the population of the said sect is growing faster
than expected and they were not less than six million or so.
The election took place at a time of worsening material
conditions for the Nigerian citizenry. According to official records from the
National Bureau of Statistics, poverty incidence grew to 69% in 2010 and was
projected to rise to 71% in 2011 and apparently the situation is worsening,
World Poverty Clock, more than eighty million Nigerians live in extreme poverty
and from February 2018 Nigeria will overtake India as the country with the most
extreme poverty in the world, while the rate of unemployment in the country was
estimated at 24% and in the second quarter of 2017 the unemployment rate rises
from 29.50% to 33.10% Trading Economics. Add to this the effects of decaying
public infrastructure and ‘punitive’ tax regimes Introduced by government at
all levels in 2015 and one can better appreciate that the elections were
conducted at a most difficult juncture in the material circumstances of the
Nigerian masses.
Some people are saying if Sen. Rabi’u Musa Kwankwaso and some
other political moguls would present their interest to the public, the
situation would not be like 2015. However Scholars have employed diverse theoretical
models to study or explain the determinants of voting behavior and electoral
outcomes. Each of these approaches seeks to identify factors that shape the
attribute of ‘indeterminacy’ associated with elections as a mechanism for
recruiting leaders within democratic contexts. Three main theoretical
perspectives on voting decision have been identified in the literature on
voting behavior. These are the sociological theory or the Columbia school, the
psychosocial theory or the Michigan school, and the rational choice theory. The
framework for this perception is the psychosocial and sociological approaches,
but all the three approaches are briefly outlined here. At the heart of the
argument of each approach is the attempt to establish the main driver of voters’
choices. What influences voting decisions of the electorate? Are such decisions
based on a rational evaluation of the accomplishments of the candidates on
offer, the record and performance of a regime, and the issue positions of
competing political parties? Or are voters’ choices influenced more by
non-evaluative sentiments, such as ethnic, family or clienteles?
The sociological theory suggests that social factors, such as
socio-economic variables, religion and location, are key factors in determining
voting decisions (Lazarfeld et al. 1948, p. 27). The rational choice model has
two main perspectives, namely evaluation and non-evaluation. Evaluative voting
rationale is premised on voters, evaluation of regime performance. By contrast,
the non-evaluative perspective is based on clientelistic considerations such as
patronage, ethnic and family ties (Lindberg & Morrison 2008, p. 95). The
psychosocial perspective seeks to account for why and how electoral change
occurs. This model provides a framework that combines sociological and Psychosocial
approaches to study voting decisions (Agomor & Adams 2014, p. 3). The
central argument of the psychosocial theory is that voters’ political
affiliation or party identification – which is understood as being a socio-psychological
Product – shapes those voters’ evaluations of relevant matters. Thus, according
to Erdman (2007, p. 63), voters evaluate the electoral candidates, campaign
issues, and the expected capacity of political parties to solve governance
problems. In this you could why it will be tough for APC to win 2019 elections
as most people assumed from distance. According to this perspective, party
identification is assumed to influence both the attitudes of the voters and
their actual vote (Eulau 1960, p. 993). Party identification in this context
refers to ‘the sense of personal attachment which the individual feels toward
the party of his choice’ (Campbell et al. 1954, p. 88).
The theoretical argument of this writing is anchored on the
assumptions of the psychosocial approach to voting behavior. In 2015 election I
argue that the increasing affiliation of Nigerian voters with the APC as an
electoral platform, particularly as the elections approached, ensured victory
for that party at the polls. The party was perceived as being a credible
alternative to the then incumbent party PDP, and was credited with the capacity
to midwife the much-needed national rebirth, in 2015 Dr. Goodluck lost to President
Muhammadu Buhari by ratio of 45% (12,853,162) to 54% (15,424,921) the incumbent
lost to opposition by relatively 20% margin of 2,574,781 votes. Observation of the state by state break down of the low voter turnout showed that
only 13 states had 50% or more. About all the Northern states, including those where
there have been issues of insurgency, had turn out of at least 40% (exceptBornowith30%).
Lagos, a state considered relatively peaceful, with little or no security breach
especially as regards pre/post election violence; had the lowest turnout (29%).
In contrast, Rivers state had the highest turnout (71%), although there were pockets
of complaints (by opposition parties) of electoral malpractices thus requesting
for a cancellation. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducted
an inquiry, and decided to uphold the result of the election as valid. Published on by INEC. In 1999 there were 52% voter turnout, 69% in
2003, 57% in 2007, 54% in 2011 and only 43.65% in 2015. As Nigerians understand
the strength of ballot more awareness are in all cricks, I perceived the 2019
general election will be another night mere to mickle number politicians,
considering the sociological theory take,
the record and performance of the present government, and the issue positions
of competing political parties.
geolmak@gmail.com
