CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Election is an integral part of a
democratic process that enables the citizenry determine fairly and freely who
should lead them at every level of government periodically and take decisions
that shape their socio-economic and political destiny; and in case they falter,
still possess the power to recall them or vote them out in the next election.
This was Obakhedo, (2011) aptly defined election thus: Election is a major
instrument for the recruitment of political leadership in democratic societies;
the key to participation in a democracy; and the way of giving consent to
government (Dye, 2001); and allowing the governed to choose and pass judgment
on office holders who theoretically represent the governed Obakhedo, (2011). In
its strictest sense, there can never be a democracy without election.
Huntington is however quick to point out that, a political system is democratic
‘to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected
through fair, honest and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete
for votes, and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote’
(Huntington, 1991). In its proper sense, election is a process of selecting the
officers or representatives of an organization or group by the vote of its qualified
members (Nwolise, 2007). Anifowose (2003) defined elections as the process of
elite selection by the mass of the population in any given political system,
Bamgbose (2012). Elections provide the medium by which the different interest
groups within the bourgeois nation state can stake and resolve their claims to
power through peaceful means (Iyayi, 2005). Elections therefore determine the
rightful way of ensuring that responsible leaders take over the mantle of
power.
An election itself is a procedure
by which the electorate, or part of it, choose the people who hold public
office and exercise some degree of control over the elected officials. It is
the process by which the people select and control their representatives. The
implication of this is that without election, there can be no representative
government. This assertion is, to a large extent, correct as an election is,
probably, the most reliable means through which both the government and
representatives can be made responsible to the people who elect them.
Eya (2003) however, sees election
as the selection of a person or persons for office as by ballot and making
choice as between alternatives. Ozor (2009) succinctly gives a more
encompassing and comprehensive definition of election when he noted that the
term connotes the procedure through which qualified adult voters elect their
politically preferred representatives to parliament legislature of a county (or
any other public positions) for the purpose of farming and running the
government of the country. Thus Osumah (2002) elucidates what the basic
objective of election is which is to select the official decision makers who
are supposed to represent citizens-interest. Elections, according to him extend
and enhance the amount of popular participation in the political system.
However, elections in Nigeria has always been marred by violence and heightened
sense of national insecurity because of the level of tribal and religion
sentiments showed by the country men.
Nigeria’s 2016 general elections
the fifth since 1999, was scheduled for 14th and 28th
February 2016 respectively and later changed to 28th March and 11
April 2016 respectively. All 36 states held presidential, federal parliament
and House of Assemblies (state parliaments) elections. Gubernatorial polls were
held in 29 states. General elections in Nigeria have always been turbulent and
violent affairs. Indeed, the 2007 election polls was widely condemned as the
most violent, poorly and massively rigged in the history of Nigeria’s electoral
history. Even the winner of the presidential pool, a person of late President
Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, conceded flaws. Some analysts and observers considered the
April 2011 elections as the most credible since the return to democracy, unlike
2007 elections where over 1,000 people were killed in post-election protests. Nigeria
has had a checkered electoral history with successive elections being marred by
serious irregularities and controversy- particularly in the conduct of its
electoral commission. This has led in some cases to the collapsed of democratic
experiments as occurred in 1966 and 1983. The 2007 general elections in Nigeria
provided a good opportunity to occasion a break with the past and rekindle
public confidence in the electoral and democratic process of the country.
However, this was not to be as the elections, according to several local and
international observers turned out to be the worst in Nigeria’s political
history (European Union: 2007, Human Rights Watch: 2007, Transition Monitoring
Group: 2007). Like its predecessors, INEC was accused of not being able to
engender public confidence in the electoral process or organize transparent and
credible elections. Unfortunately, this position has scarcely been demonstrated
in a systematic manner.
March 28th and April
11th 2016 election marked another turn in Nigeria’s democratic
history as registered voters took to the polls to elect the next set of leaders
into the Presidential and National Assembly positions. The elections, conducted
in the thirty six states of the country and the Federal Capital Territory,
witnessed the emergence of the opposition party, the All Progressives Congress
(APC) and its candidate. This outcome was also the first time an opposition
party would unseat the ruling party, People Democratic Party (PDP) since
Nigeria’s transition into civil rule in 1999.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The cornerstone of competitive
elections and democracy is free and fair election. The credibility and
legitimacy accorded an election victory is determined by the extent to which
the process is free and fair (Garuba, 2007;Bogaards, 2007). Free and fair
election serves the purpose of legitimizing such government. In fact, the
quality of elections is part of the criteria for assessing the level of
consolidation of new democracies. Elections are therefore considered as vital
and indispensable for determining the democratic nature of a political system
and ensuring national security. When election is not managed quite
satisfactorily, it can pave the way for deeper ethnic and regional divisions,
lost of legitimacy of elected authorities, protest, violent contestation,
social explosion, and doubt about institutions, violence, and instability or
even threaten the entire democratization process. In fact, poor management of
elections is a real and prolific source of conflicts, violence, insecurity and
instability (Hounkpe & Gueye, 2010).Low turnout in the 2016 compared to
2011 may be attributed to some factors. First, it might be an indication that
previous election results were inflated. Second, there was a heightened sense
of insecurity. among
Nigerians, with causes such as the Boko Haram insurgency in the North, the
possibility of the incumbent not willing to accept the outcome of the election
should it not be in its favour, the effects of the election postponement, Also,
there is the perception that ‘votes do not count’ and that the outcomes have been
pre-decided by an elite minority. However, this study is examining the
electoral process and national security comparing the 2011 and the 2016 general
elections.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The following are the objectives of this study:
1. To
examine the relationship between electoral process and national security in
Nigeria.
2. To
examine the differences and similarity in the 2011 and 2016 general elections
processes in Nigeria.
3. To
examine the factors that promotes national security in an electoral process.
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What
is the relationship between electoral process and national security in Nigeria?
2. What
are the differences and similarities in the 2011 and 2016 general elections
processes in Nigeria?
3. What
are the factors that promote national security in an electoral process?
1.5 HYPOTHESIS
HO: There is no significant
relationship between electoral process and national security
HA: There is significant relationship
between electoral process and national security
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The following are the significance of this study:
1. The
outcome of this study will educate the general public on the relationship
between electoral process and national security. It will also educate on the
differences and similarities in the 2011 and 2016 general elections in Nigeria.
2. This
research will be a contribution to the body of literature in the area of the
effect of personality trait on student’s academic performance, thereby
constituting the empirical literature for future research in the subject area.
1.7 SCOPE/LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study will cover the issues of electoral
process and national security with focus on comparison between 2011 and 2016
general elections in Nigeria
LIMITATION OF STUDY
Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the
efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature
or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire
and interview).
Time
constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with
other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for
the research work.