Three men and an election: Who says Nigeria became a democracy overnight?

The reality is that the outcome of the election can more accurately be attributed to the discretion of three men, namely Prof Attahiru Jega (centre), the outgoing chairman of Nigeria’s electoral commission, former president Goodluck Jonathan, and newly inaugurated President Mohammadu Buhari (left). ILLUSTRATION | JOHN NYAGAH |   NATION MEDIA GROUP

By Sa’eed Husaini

In Summary

• Constant references to the “leadership deficit” in Africa can in part be understood both as a recognition that existing institutions fail to regulate elites, and a desire for elites scrupulous enough to manage their own behaviour.

Nigeria’s 2015 elections have been celebrated as democratic miracle for a country that has undergone decades of military rule, but also for a region in which democratic success stories have been rare.

But there is one important respect in which the most celebrated aspects of Nigeria’s peaceful turnover are, in fact, symptomatic of an ongoing crisis that seriously limits the nation’s social development and democratic consolidation.

In all too familiar terms, it can be called a crisis of institutions. It has been argued elsewhere that the “institution of the people” or the “office of the citizen” was the real victor in Nigeria’s 2015 elections.

But when the idea is invoked in reference to Nigeria’s “vibrant civil society,” the “ institution of the people” is, in many cases, reducible to exclusive networks of largely foreign-funded and Lagos/Abuja based organisations staffed by well educated, often social media-savvy individuals.

But the representativeness and accountability of such organisations — both given the sources of their funding and their limited reach across class and other social divides — draws into question the extent to which these “institutions” are truly “of the people.” Social media has its limits and donor money has its objectives.

When, on the other hand, the success of the “institution of the people” is invoked to refer to the resilience of the “masses” in pushing for change through the electoral process, there is at least one sense in which it is meaningful and a few others in which it is a facade.

In the former respect: Nigerian voters defied Boko Haram threats; put aside fears of electoral intimidation and collective violence; and braved long queues, an unnecessarily strenuous electoral process, and even unfavourable weather conditions to exercise their beleaguered franchise. The peaceful turnover can rightly be seen as a reward for an act of bravery from 30 million voters who deserve the commendations they have received.

But to conclude that these voters’ noble efforts were the central cause of the credible electoral outcome would, however, not only be an exercise in self-delusion, but also represent a slight to the voters who turned out in higher numbers over similarly difficult or even worse conditions in previous Nigerian elections, but were rewarded with less laudable outcomes.

Indeed, the reality is that the outcome of the election can more accurately be attributed to the discretion of three men, namely Prof Attahiru Jega, the outgoing chairman of Nigeria’s electoral commission, former president Goodluck Jonathan, and newly inaugurated President Mohammadu Buhari.

For Jega, his personal resistance to pressures mounted by Jonathan’s then ruling PDP to abandon a newly devised biometric voter registration system is central to the many reasons why he has been celebrated as the guardian of Nigeria’s democracy.

Wide recognition that outright rigging would have been all but guaranteed without this electronic system has caused many to overlook INEC’s major missteps, particularly its failures to deliver to a significant number of voters the new permanent voters cards (PVCs) on time—or at all in some cases.

These details notwithstanding, Jega’s determined stance is acknowledged as a central reason why a credible electoral outcome became feasible.

Jonathan has likewise earned resounding applause — and is likely to receive next year’s Mo Ibrahim Prize — for his decision to concede defeat. Never mind that he was defeated outright, and that tightening his grip on power despite this would have been a recipe for awakening chaotic forces beyond his control.

Yet his decision to abide by the arithmetic truth of his defeat was celebrated as progressive in a context in which an incumbent ignoring unfavourable electoral results is still all too imaginable.

President Buhari’s particular contribution to the present optimism over Nigeria’s electoral process comes partially from the fact that his represents the first federal opposition victory in Nigeria’s history.