By Prof. Protus Nathan Uzorma
The term panacea, is a Latin word that was derived from the Greek Panakeia- The name of the Greek goddess of universal remedy; from the root word: Panakes- meaning ‘All healing’ (and from the etymons: Pan- ‘All’ and akos, akes- ‘Remedy,’ ‘cure’). It signifies a universal solution or remedy for all difficulties, a universal answer or solution for all problems or difficulties.
As a universal remedy, it is bound to stabilise or sustain a grandstanding in any sphere of life, be it a state or situation. Consequently, the concept of sustainability is closely associated with panacea as a universal remedy. And as a remedy, it portends carriage through time- A continuum with stability, as well as feasibility and durable solutions that bear high degree of credibility, practicality and objectivity. In this purview, we need to remember that the term sustainable, means being able to last or continue for a long time. This implies being capable of being sustained, and this ‘capability of sustaining’ is one of the principles of sustainability- That is, the quality of meeting human needs fairly and efficiently, and thus feasibility and the capacity to proffer the desired solution.
In the social domain, sustainability is studied and managed over many scales (levels or frames of reference) of time and space, and in many contexts of environmental, social and economic organisations, and often in the cultural domain as its fourth estate. The focus ranges from the total biophysical carrying-capacity (sustainability) of the planet Earth, to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems, countries and polities, municipalities and policies, systems and procedures, neighbourhoods, home-gardens, individual lives, individual goods and services, occupations, lifestyles, behaviour patterns, etc.
This notwithstanding, the sustainability that we are interested in here is profoundly political. This idea of sustainability is where the contestation we call democracy lays, a contestation which is necessarily based on power, which only ever comes to stay provisionally. The aim of the sustainability portal in a State or polity is precisely to promote these efforts to reach agreement and to encourage the continual examination of standards of truth and rationality, as well as the power structures that inevitably underpin the great discourses of a given era and are inextricably linked to them (Ikhariale, 2000).
In any part of the world where elections are the tool for chosen societal leaders, there is no “model” electoral system, as the design of the electoral system must relate to providing the most appropriate and inclusive form of representation to the society in which it is rooted. However, it must ensure that the political cleavages of a society are adequately addressed in the representative bodies at the national and sub-national levels as well as other further political subdivisions, guaranteeing political inclusiveness and representation.
However, a country’s electoral system is the foundation on which the representative system is built and the legal framework for the elections developed in it, and it can have positive or negative effects on the political fortunes of political parties, ethnic, religious, minority (including women’s) representation and should be designed and operated with care, and with the objective of being inclusive, representative, transparent and responsive (Ikhariale, 2000).
According to Sakuntala Kadirgamar-Rajasingham, “A credible electoral process or the concept of free, fair and credible elections is characterised by: An enabled legislative framework, impartial and neutral practices of election administrators, the media and the forces that maintain law and order, as well as the acceptance of the competitive electoral process by all the political forces in the country.”
From the above, the implication is that the government of the day, the political parties, the armed forces, police, election adjudicating bodies, the civil society, organised and unorganised groups, must all accept and support the electoral process and not undermine it through violence, intimidation or any other unlawful means and electoral malpractice.
Free and fair elections can be undermined by both the State actors and the non-state actors and factors. An election is said not to be free and fair or incredible when the processes are hinged by obvious frauds, violence and intimidations at any of the stages critical to the electoral process. It can also be undermined if the process is chaotic and poorly organised leaving large numbers of voters disenfranchised and confused about the process, issues and candidates. So even if there is no clear criminal intent or mala fides in the process it may still lead to a lack of credibility in the process.
According Jennifer Freedman, free and fair or credible elections implies universal and equal access to the electoral process and to ballots which are secret and free. This requires an absence of fraud and intimidation and that the votes are translated fairly into legislative seats in a transparent manner and in accordance with the law. What is behind these principles is the creation of the atmosphere of trust, and the elimination of the factors that create distrust and sense of cheating or being cheated in the electoral process.
Thus to determine that a given election is free and fair, calls for scrutinising of not just the laws that provide for elections and the election event, but the run-up to the elections as well. The scrutiny of a process inevitably calls for more than a documentation of the chronology of events leading up to the elections- It calls for a scrutiny of the actions- The behaviour of all actors involved in the electoral process and a review of the outcomes.
The Nigerian electoral system has some historic traits that trail the nation’s democracy perennially since the Pre-Independence era. These features instead of changing, adapt new models and approaches while maintaining same visions and intentions, and these new models are what the contemporary democratic system of the Nigerian polity suffers in every era of general elections. Some of these eternal features include: Vote-Buying
One of the commonest features of the Nigerian democracy and electoral system is the concept of vote-buying and money-politics. This feature, which Sohner (1973) calls ‘the gentle art of ‘getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect one from the other’ has taken the centre stage in the country’s political activities, and it subsists due to the consistent dispositions of both the political parties and candidates, who always show by their conduct during political campaigns, that good party manifestoes and integrity of candidates jostling for public offices are no longer sufficient to guarantee electoral success; thus, the resort to vote-buying.
Similarly, the electorates also have obviously demonstrated cynical electoral behaviours by the readiness to sell their votes to the highest bidder, and often to the sell of their conscience in the bargain. According to Lucky Ovwasa (2013), this attitude has causal factors; some of which are ignorance, on the part of the electorate, apathy, and poverty as well as, deceit by the politicians who view election period as a call to investment from which huge profit is expected and not as a call to serve humanity.
On their own part, the electorates see politics especially during election period, as an opportunity to sell their votes to represent their own share of the national cake, since they do not have access to where the national cake is being shared. This merchandise electoral process mars the system and its credibility, and thus portends dangers to the democratic process of electing officers and in turn prevents good governance. Consequently, democracy is constantly assaulted in Nigeria due to the phenomenon of money vote-buying and money-politics.