Democracy For Incumbents

By Steve OSUJI

OKAY, let's take that back. It really isn't a democracy we are practising around here, is it? In the pure sense of it, what we have in Nigeria is not a democracy, it could be said that we have a verisimilitude of democracy, an ersatz democracy or a make believe democracy. We are actually practising every other kind of governance but democracy.

But for the purpose of this piece, let's label what we have in Nigeria today incumbentocracy. An awkward appellation, but it serves the purpose. Why has it not occurred to us all these years that we have a winner takes all democracy, a system in which the man at the helm holds all the aces and determines our destiny whole and entire.

Let us boil it down to the current situation. Did any incumbent governor lose his return bid? Did any outgoing governor fail to deliver his protégé to replace him (overlook the Ogun aberration)? Is President Goodluck Jonathan, being the incumbent, not the automatic front runner, winning endorsements from left, right and centre? The oft-stated fact that Nigeria is ruled by merely the president, the 36 state governors and perhaps five other persons is seen in bold relief during election period like we are now.

Starting with the congress to the primaries, since the incumbent is the leader of his party, it becomes incumbent on him, so to speak, to direct the affairs of the party and win re-election ticket by any means possible. It would seem rather humiliating, if not impolitic to have an incumbent lose a return ticket.

Secondly, right from the outset, the incumbent seems to have the right of first refusal. Of course, no Nigerian incumbent dreams of stepping down. If he had any dreams at all, it would be to stay on to third, fourth and even indefinite terms. And right from this rudimentary level, the incumbent deploys everything at his disposal to beat down any opposition. Then again, does he have things at his disposal? He actually has the world under his feet. The party structure and machinery across board are not only on the incumbent's payroll, they are at his mercy. The state's treasury is in his keep; the state security apparati are his to deploy. So are the numerous appointees, the civil servants, the network of vigilante groups, name them. In like manner, the judiciary and legislature are within the incumbent's purview, if not beck and call.

The monstrous muscle of the incumbent is seen flexed in its majesty during interparty electioneering campaign. Whoever made our rules of engagement in elections must be thinking with his lower back. How on earth could any contestant begin to match the incumbent in any election especially in the developing (?) world like Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ivory Coast, etc. In this part of the world, the incumbent would win an election one million times if he organised it. Ask Robert Mugabe, Laurent Gbagbo, Yoweri Museveni. The reasons are glaring for all to see yet nobody has bothered to tinker with the rules. Consider the ongoing electioneering in Nigeria. The president, like any incumbent governor, has the state treasury at his disposal. He lives in official apartments maintained by the state; he runs official vehicles and jets, he burns official fuels, he co-opts officials and appointees of government in his campaign team; he uses the entire state machinery as the needs arise, without let or hindrance.

Just as the incumbent junkets freely on electioneering, so does his spouse, all at the tax payers’ expense. But most notable is the hijack of the public space by incumbents to the detriment of State media (radio, television, print and online) immediately become the sole property of the man with power. Even when no express directive is given to bar opponent's campaign materials, the managers of such state owned media houses simply obey their animal survival instincts and raise barriers against candidates of opposing parties.

Therefore, every state radio and television station is like no go area for opposing parties. Campaign grounds too are sources of trouble. While incumbents have unfettered access, opponents find it difficult to make use of even open fields without being harassed. At the national level too where there are still some modicum checks by regulatory bodies, both coverage and advert placements in national television and radio are clearly skewed in favour of opponents. A cursory review of the Nigeria Television Authority's coverage of the various parties' campaigns on prime time network news at 9.00p.m shows that without fail, the incumbent's campaign reports are almost always aired first. Even his adverts are given priority.

And notably, while the incumbent president's adverts are numerous and of all shades (never mind that they are purportedly sponsored by different people), the opponents have so few. Obviously, the opponents cannot afford so many of NTA's slots which is a minimum of half a million naira each. All these must take our minds back to the need to review the Electoral Act and even the Constitution. The contest for the votes of the electorate is too skewed in favour of the incumbent. It really must take an earthquake for an opponent to defeat an incumbent under the current situation.

It must be possible to enthrone an acting president, governor and even suspend the legislative chambers so that all contestants can be on an even keel. As it is, contesting against a sitting president or governor is like contesting against the entire country or state or even the legislative chambers as the case may be.

The argument may well be that the incumbency syndrome is prevalent all over the world, but in more ordered places, there are well developed institutions to check abuses by the incumbent. We must continue to adjust our democratic system to suit our peculiar conditions. This is the way to the future lest we keep having democracy of incumbents by incumbents and for…

*Osuji writes from Owerri, Nigeria.